Apple Claims Vision Pro SDK Downloads Exceeded Expectations Amid Developer Lab Attendance Concerns

[JamesHolden]

Disagree...Apple has hit a HOME RUN with Vision Pro and can always reduce the price!

I would agree that Apple hit a technology home run with Vision Pro, but that doesn't mean it will be a sales home run. And no, Apple can't magically reduce the price. Vision Pro is cutting edge. If they could launch at a cheaper, more accessible price, they would. The price will likely come down a bit over time, but anyone expecting a massive price drop in the future is just delusional. That's not how Apple works and never has been. If that were true, iPhones would be going down in price, not up, each year.

For people with disabilities (like me with MS) and increasing cost of travel, the era of virtual travel will become mainstream!

Virtual "travel" will never be mainstream. You're not traveling. You're not interacting. You're not experiencing the culture, tasting the food, enjoy the smells in the air, the wind on your face...

I appreciate that, for some people, Vision Pro will be a great escape and I'm not knocking that, but virtual travel is hardly a mass market selling point. When I saw the demo, the first thing I thought was how promising Vision Pro looks for people with disabilities and for older people. Being able to sit or lie down in a comfortable position and use one's eyes and minimal hand gestures to control the device will be a game changer for a lot of people. Unfortunately the price will also be a huge barrier since many disabled and older folks are on fixed incomes, etc.

I was also surprised by how negatively the older folks in my life reacted to Vision Pro. I showed my parents (both in their 80s and still mobile) the launch video. I thought they'd love it and be drawn to the big virtual screens (since they're always wanting to make things bigger on the screen)...but they both thought it was weird and creepy and said they would never wear anything like that.

I was also surprised that none of my tech-loving nieces and nephews or friends' kids are interested. They all think it's "lame" and "dorky", despite being addicted to their iPhones and iPads. Of course this is all anecdotal, but I have yet to find anyone outside of the few Vision Pro cheerleaders here on MacRumors that are remotely interested in the product. I'm the unofficial Apple tech support guy for my friends and family and not a single person is remotely interested in Vision Pro. The responses I've gotten have ranged from indifference to outright derision.

Vision Pro is a tech home run for sure, but I don't get the feeling it will be a particularly successful product for Apple. Something tells me Vision Pro sales will make Apple TV sales look epic.

 

[jz0309]

Because there are none? Vision Pro's "killer apps" are the big virtual screens, which I don't think will move the needle for most people, and entertainment, which looks quite promising. Will enough people spend $3500+ on a fancy portable movie theater experience that can't be shared with friends and family?

Certain people on these forums keep singing the praises of AR, assuring us again and again that it is a life changing technology. Yet, when you ask any of them to imagine a popular use case for AR....silence. They default to the boring, unimaginative, niche use cases of interior design, architectural walkthroughs, and medical (which will likely never happen since Apple is highly unlikely to have Vision Pro certified by governmental health authorities).

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a use case that appeals to a broad swath of "average" users. I don't think there is a "killer app" for Vision Pro, just like there hasn't been one for the Quest.

You’re right, there is no single “killer” app yet, but there are probably many for as many different use cases, eg thise who want huge displays to control the Macs, those who want huge 3D movie screen, remote training, trouble shooting, gaming etc etc.
I see many vertical uses but not (yet) yet any horizontal ones (thise that would allow me to replace any existing compute tools).

I am very much looking forward to try a VP in person, not sure yet how Apple will handle enabling personal experience

 

[Someirishguy]

If I was still in the market for this, as an early adopter (like I used be be pre-family), eager to play with new tech, here’s a few things I’d want:

I’m going to want to use it in my down time, mostly for recreation, and I’ll want some cool ‘tech demos’.

Cinema experience movie watching would be a big thing for me, but Apple have that covered.

I also want to be able to play, and let other people try out (if they come overs), Jenga, doing a rubric cub, playing table tennis. Remember the beer glass tech demo for the original iPhone. Basically, I need a bunch of stuff like that. Tower building on my living room table with interesting physics. Tower defence with me up on the ramparts. Music visualisers. A piano. Marbles. Zen like sand pits.

I want to be transported to locations, the bridge of the enterprise, Paris, Mount Everest, the Grand Canyon, the moon.

I want to be able to build my dream house (where I live now, but didn’t when I was younger), down to every last detail, Sims style, and then wander about it, tear it down and built it again.

I want new ways of painting and creating music, using movement and space, and I want to be able to share my art with others in virtual galleries, where you can walk inside a ‘painting’ and see the light shining in on you, giving a new perspective to the piece.

and, as more people get these things, I want to be able to do all of the above with them.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Apple doesn't have to sign any NDA's to give potential devs help or advice, so why isn't apple hyping up the potential killer apps for this?

Because there aren’t any.

 

[dannyyankou]

Keep in mind that you don't have to be a paid developer to download the SDK anymore. I'm guessing a lot of people were curious, but that doesn't mean they'll build apps.

 

[JamesHolden]

I think you've posted this challenge about 10+ times and I think I've shared my own answer to it at least a few of those times so here we go again...

The thing I like least about even MBpro 16" is the very constrained space in that 16" screen. When I have to go from 40" ultra-wide to 16" MBpro, my productivity plunges because I spend a bunch of new time flipping windows or virtual screens and working within limited space of any given app (even when in "full screen" mode).

MBpro 16" starts at $2499. So for $1K more than that, I perceive that I can have an any-sized screen MBpro, including my preferred desktop screen size of 40" ultra-wide.

If that works as good as implied in the WWDC video, my next "laptop" is likely to be a combination of a modestly Mac in lap- perhaps even a de-screened MBpro...

View attachment 2254991

...plus Vpro for the screen. Then, when traveling and wanting to get some work done, I (believe I) will have my 40" ultra-wide screen with me... in a relatively small package... that fits in a bag much like an existing laptop fits now.

Pull the 2 pieces out and use them in lieu of laptop. Put them away just like putting away a laptop when done.

Many tech players are trying to find ways to deliver bigger screens without the weight and size. Thus, companies are experimenting with folding devices, with rollable screens, with projector screens, etc.

View attachment 2254990

All I see there is much heavier weight to carry around.

By virtualizing the screens, I see this as a portable, high-quality crack at THAT very desirable benefit.

I'd like a MBpro 40" ultra-wide. But I wouldn't want to carry that monster around. I also wouldn't want that in the form of one of the foldable laptops that already exist. However, Vpro MAY deliver ANY-size laptop screen(s) minus the weight of an actual gigantic-screen version. If so, $1000 more for any-size screen (part of that) "laptop" seems towards bargain to me.

I wish to see this work in person once there are Vpro demos in store. But looking at the WWDC presentation, it looks like this works just fine... and cheaper competitors have this working well too in lower resolution variations of Vpro. I hope the opportunity for anyone wanting a bigger laptop screen than 17" has a good opportunity to get one by "thinking different" along these lines.

I've already acknowledged, on multiple occasions, that big virtual screens are one of Vision Pro's "killer apps" (the other being entertainment). Clearly you missed all of those posts.

I've also said that I don't think virtual screens are a big selling point for most users. Most people are perfectly content with their laptop screens. Post all the weird multi-screen setups you want. You're a techie on a tech forum. I expect people like you to care about that feature. But the average user does not. The average user is definitely not going to spend $3500K for virtual screens when they're not even spending $500 on an external monitor.

Virtual screens are a NICHE feature.

What I'm waiting for is someone to describe a killer app/feature that gets the general public interested. I'm still waiting.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I would agree that Apple hit a technology home run with Vision Pro, but that doesn't mean it will be a sales home run. And no, Apple can't magically reduce the price. Vision Pro is cutting edge. If they could launch at a cheaper, more accessible price, they would. The price will likely come down a bit over time, but anyone expecting a massive price drop in the future is just delusional. That's not how Apple works and never has been. If that were true, iPhones would be going down in price, not up, each year.


Virtual "travel" will never be mainstream. You're not traveling. You're not interacting. You're not experiencing the culture, tasting the food, enjoy the smells in the air, the wind on your face...

I appreciate that, for some people, Vision Pro will be a great escape and I'm not knocking that, but virtual travel is hardly a mass market selling point. When I saw the demo, the first thing I thought was how promising Vision Pro looks for people with disabilities and for older people. Being able to sit or lie down in a comfortable position and use one's eyes and minimal hand gestures to control the device will be a game changer for a lot of people. Unfortunately the price will also be a huge barrier since many disabled and older folks are on fixed incomes, etc.

I was also surprised by how negatively the older folks in my life reacted to Vision Pro. I showed my parents (both in their 80s and still mobile) the launch video. I thought they'd love it and be drawn to the big virtual screens (since they're always wanting to make things bigger on the screen)...but they both thought it was weird and creepy and said they would never wear anything like that.

I was also surprised that none of my tech-loving nieces and nephews or friends' kids are interested. They all think it's "lame" and "dorky", despite being addicted to their iPhones and iPads. Of course this is all anecdotal, but I have yet to find anyone outside of the few Vision Pro cheerleaders here on MacRumors that are remotely interested in the product. I'm the unofficial Apple tech support guy for my friends and family and not a single person is remotely interested in Vision Pro. The responses I've gotten have ranged from indifference to outright derision.

Vision Pro is a tech home run for sure, but I don't get the feeling it will be a particularly successful product for Apple. Something tells me Vision Pro sales will make Apple TV sales look epic.

No surprise at all. It’s obviously a very isolating device for the user and a very off putting device for everyone around said user.

Vision Pro is looking like a huge misstep. There’s just no demand for a dorky iPhone helmet. Tim Cook’s Newton.

 

[cicalinarrot]

Are you suggesting a dedicated ad campaign is the same thing as Apple claiming, without evidence, nonsensical things?

Yes. Absolutely, it’s part of a strategy. That’s how communication works for big companies, I’m surprised you people ignored this.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I've already acknowledged, on multiple occasions, that big virtual screens are one of Vision Pro's "killer apps" (the other being entertainment). Clearly you missed all of those posts.

I've also said that I don't think virtual screens are a big selling point for most users. Most people are perfectly content with their laptop screens. Post all the weird multi-screen setups you want. You're a techie on a tech forum. I expect people like you to care about that feature. But the average user does not. The average user is definitely not going to spend $3500K for virtual screens when they're not even spending $500 on an external monitor.

Virtual screens are a NICHE feature.

What I'm waiting for is someone to describe a killer app/feature that gets the general public interested. I'm still waiting.

Both virtual screens and media consumption generally are niche applications. If those are the linchpin of the VP’s success it has already failed.

 

[JamesHolden]

I agree that visionPro will be the entry spec for future products. If lower specs were “good” enough, even to enable lower price points, what gives? Of course volume might drive price points down, but why would I want a lower spec one? If I’m ever going to get one, I want to be wow’s.

Over time I expect prices to come down a bit, but one need only look at the pricing history of other Apple products to see what we should expect from Vision Pro pricing. People parroting this nonsensical idea that the first model is for developers and that Apple will drop the price in a huge way in the future...are delusional. That's never happened.

Also, the first iteration is for a very niche audience, no doubt.

Niche audience = mountains of disposable income.

 

[JamesHolden]

I hear you, but back in the day people also didn't "need' an iPhone.

They needed a phone and the iPhone was a much, much better phone. What is Vision Pro improving upon? The movie watching experience? It's hardly an improvement when you have to spend $3500 to watch a movie by yourself. Vision Pro and iPhone are not remotely analogous.

 

[deconstruct60]

By virtualizing the screens, I see this as a portable, high-quality crack at THAT very desirable benefit.

Screen isn't virtual. It is scrollable. More easily scrollable by tracking the eyes and movement. It is still two physical 4K screens. If there was a more natural controller to scroll from screen to screen it would basically do the same thing. The mouse/trackpad is already deadicated to cursor movement. With vision Pro have two controllers using no direct physical Apple object ( it is using/tracking physical parts though. So not virtual in that sense either. The parts just happen to be attached to your body so don't have to buy those. )

 

[JamesHolden]

You’re right, there is no single “killer” app yet, but there are probably many for as many different use cases, eg thise who want huge displays to control the Macs, those who want huge 3D movie screen, remote training, trouble shooting, gaming etc etc.
I see many vertical uses but not (yet) yet any horizontal ones (thise that would allow me to replace any existing compute tools).

I am very much looking forward to try a VP in person, not sure yet how Apple will handle enabling personal experience

I'm looking forward to trying it too. You're likely right about there not being a single killer app, but many different ones. The question is, will there be enough interest in any of them to merit development? Everything you describe is pretty niche. Will there be enough niche use cases to get enough people interested in buying and developers interested in developing? I remain skeptical.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I've already acknowledged, on multiple occasions, that big virtual screens are one of Vision Pro's "killer apps" (the other being entertainment). Clearly you missed all of those posts.

I've also said that I don't think virtual screens are a big selling point for most users. Most people are perfectly content with their laptop screens. Post all the weird multi-screen setups you want. You're a techie on a tech forum. I expect people like you to care about that feature. But the average user does not. The average user is definitely not going to spend $3500K for virtual screens when they're not even spending $500 on an external monitor.

Virtual screens are a NICHE feature.

What I'm waiting for is someone to describe a killer app/feature that gets the general public interested. I'm still waiting.

OK, as also shared in many other threads, average Joes will readily spend several thousand dollars each year (sometimes 2X+ the price of Vpro) for box seats to a season of major sports. Even better courtside seats can go for north of $100K for a single game (no average Joe can likely afford that).

I can easily envision Vpro rolling out virtual courtside seat offers at much lower cost than "being there" while creating the rich illusion of being there. If we are buddies living in LA and Miami and our home-town team is in Cincinnati or Pittsburg, perhaps we both buy "virtual pass" together and virtually sit together in the hometown stadium as if we have both instead spent the money to fly there for each game, book expensive tickets (and probably hotel) to watch only a single game. Then we get to simulate some in-person camaraderie even if we live at each of the country or different countries and can't readily travel to wherever our favorite team is playing.

Will some average Joes be interested in that? There is ABUNDANT interest in 2D variations of paying premiums to watch events. It seems some would be willing to pay SOMETHING to feel like they are actually at such events.

No interest in sports? No problem: live concerts that one can't attend in person for any reason? NYC broadway show seasons when not easily able to get to NYC? West End show season when not able to get over there? I don't think of myself as beyond average Joe and I can spend a couple thousand each year on those kinds of things now.

Lots of "not rich" people have such interests but just can't physically go. Thus, there are markets through a 2D window to watch some things in packages like NFL-ST, etc. A Vpro version of NFL-ST-VR could give a passionate segment of those millions of "average Joes" a way to feel like they are at the game with some of the best seats in the place.

Yes, there is a whole other argument to be made about gathering around a TV screen together when people can't go to the actual event. But there are plenty of friends widely dispersed who might enjoy a feeling of attending together without having to make the time for travel, lodging, in-person tickets, etc.

 

[jz0309]

They needed a phone and the iPhone was a much, much better phone. What is Vision Pro improving upon? The movie watching experience? It's hardly an improvement when you have to spend $3500 to watch a movie by yourself. Vision Pro and iPhone are not remotely analogous.

100% agree, iPhone build up on people’s needs of a simple communication device, nothing else

 

[jz0309]

I'm looking forward to trying it too. You're likely right about there not being a single killer app, but many different ones. The question is, will there be enough interest in any of them to merit development? Everything you describe is pretty niche. Will there be enough niche use cases to get enough people interested in buying and developers interested in developing? I remain skeptical.

Yea, it’ll be an interesting 5 years or so to see where this is going…
And the only real measure at the end of the day is number if units sold

 

[Wildkraut]

Many tech players are trying to find ways to deliver bigger screens without the weight and size. Thus, companies are experimenting with folding devices, with rollable screens, with projector screens, etc. This is in play for laptops too...

View attachment 2254990

All I see there is much heavier weight to carry around.

Well, I used to carry this kind of mobile workstations with me in the past, on movie sets...
They were nice, despite being heavy, but no compromise...

 

[jz0309]

OK, as also shared in many other threads, average Joes will readily spend several thousand dollars each year (sometimes 2X+ the price of Vpro) for box seats to a season of major sports. Even better courtside seats can go for north of $100K for a single game (no average Joe can likely afford that).

I can easily envision Vpro rolling out virtual courtside seat offers at much lower cost than "being there" while creating the rich illusion of being there. If we are buddies living in LA and Miami and our home-town team is in Cincinnati or Pittsburg, perhaps we both buy "virtual pass" together and virtually sit together in the hometown stadium as if we have both instead spent the money to fly there for each game, book expensive tickets (and probably hotel) to watch only a single game. Then we get to simulate some in-person camaraderie even if we live at each of the country or different countries and can't readily travel to wherever our favorite team is playing.

Will some average Joes be interested in that? There is ABUNDANT interest in 2D variations of paying premiums to watch events. It seems some would be willing to pay SOMETHING to feel like they are actually at such events.

No interest in sports? No problem: live concerts that one can't attend in person for any reason? NYC broadway show seasons when not easily able to get to NYC? West End show season when not able to get over there? I don't think of myself as beyond average Joe and I can spend a couple thousand each year on those kinds of things now.

Lots of "not rich" people have such interests but just can't physically go. Thus, there are markets through a 2D window to watch some things in packages like NFL-ST, etc. A Vpro version of NFL-ST-VR could give a passionate segment of those millions of "average Joes" a way to feel like they are at the game with some of the best seats in the place.

Yes, there is a whole other argument to be made about gathering around a TV screen together when people can't go to the actual event. But there are plenty of friends widely dispersed that might enjoy a feeling of attending together without having to make the time for travel, lodging, in-person tickets, etc.

Good use case, will touch many other current revenue streams but certainly a possibility a few years down the road…

 

[JamesHolden]

OK, as also shared in many other threads, average Joes will readily spend several thousand dollars each year (sometimes 2X+ the price of Vpro) for box seats to a season of major sports. Even better courtside seats can go for north of $100K for a single game (no average Joe can likely afford that).

I can easily envision Vpro rolling out virtual courtside seat offers at much lower cost than "being there" while creating the rich illusion of being there. If we are buddies living in LA and Miami and our home-town team is in Cincinnati or Pittsburg, perhaps we both buy "virtual pass" together and virtually sit together in the hometown stadium as if we have both instead spent the money to fly there for each game, book expensive tickets (and probably hotel) to watch only a single game. Then we get to simulate some in-person camaraderie even if we live at each of the country or different countries and can't readily travel to wherever our favorite team is playing.

No interest in sports? No problem: live concerts that one can't attend in person for any reason? NYC broadway show seasons when not easily able to get to NYC? West End show season when not able to get over there? I don't think of myself as beyond average Joe and I can spend a couple thousand each year on those kinds of things.

Lots of "not rich" people have such interests but just can't physically go. Thus, there are markets through a 2D window to watch some things in packages like NFL-ST, etc. A Vpro version of NFL-ST-VR could give a passionate segment of those millions of "average Joes" a way to feel like they are at the game with some of the best seats in the place.

Yes, there is a whole other argument to be made about gathering around a TV screen together when people can't go to the actual event. But there are plenty of friends widely dispersed that might enjoy a feeling of attending together without having to make the time for travel, lodging, in-person tickets, etc.

People spend thousands of dollars to BE THERE, not wear a VR headset and have some half-baked experience. I want to go to an real concert, a real sporting event. There's a magic that happens when people gather in person and feed off each other's energies. None of that happens at home on the couch with your isolation helmet on.

If people are so interested in these use cases, why aren't people buying existing VR products like the Quest and spending their Friday nights at virtual concerts? I'll tell you why. Because most people think that idea is lame. They want to socialize with other humans in person.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple doesn't have to sign any NDA's to give potential devs help or advice, so why isn't apple hyping up the potential killer apps for this?

Largely a two-way street here. Just because a developer reports to apple they have a 'bug'/'defect' in an app they are developing doesn't give Apple the rights to turn the classified/undisclosed features of that app to the general public.
If it is not Apple's app there is no guarantee that the app will actually launch. Funding changes , show stopper bug pops up , etc.

Usually when see Apple 'advertising' for some specific app that is still being worked on that is a shared contract and 'free advertising' agreed to by both parties.

 

[jz0309]

People spend thousands of dollars to BE THERE, not wear a VR headset and have some half-baked experience. I want to go to an real concert, a real sporting event. There's a magic that happens when people gather in person and feed off each other's energies. None of that happens at home on the couch with your isolation helmet on.

If people are so interested in these use cases, why aren't people buying existing VR products like the Quest and spending their Friday nights at virtual concerts? I'll tell you why. Because most people think that idea is lame. They want to socialize with other humans in person.

Well, now that Taylor Swift (or whatever her name is) has pre sold movie tickets for what, $25M+ for her world tour to come to movie theaters - the market is there…

And for the Quest - beyond gaming no one has apparently interest in different revenue streams. Actually a good example of where Apple is not first to market but a brilliant opportunity for new and future revenue opps

 

[jimbobb24]

Well yeah, it’s very easy and practically free to download the SDK.

I downloaded the SDK but I still can’t think of a practical app to develop. A kids app? What parent is going to let their kid use their $3,500+ headset (that will likely require a kids face mask).

Some cool game? I don’t have a team to help me develop a graphic intensive game.

Highlights my biggest complaint with vision pro. Single user design. Heck of an expensive devise for one user. Imagine if your Mac pro was limited to one user. Crazy.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

People spend thousands of dollars to BE THERE, not wear a VR headset and have some half-baked experience. I want to go to an real concert, a real sporting event. There's a magic that happens when people gather in person and feed off each other's energies. None of that happens at home on the couch with your isolation helmet on.

If people are so interested in these use cases, why aren't people buying existing VR products like the Quest and spending their Friday nights at virtual concerts? I'll tell you why. Because most people think that idea is lame. They want to socialize with other humans in person.

Again, in the example of you living in LA and me living in Miami and us wanting to "be there" for all of the hometown games in Pittsburg, it would cost a FORTUNE to attend all the games for each of us: travel, lodging, tickets, food, etc... much more than the one-time purchase of Vpro and what a VR sports/concert/show package would probably cost.

Next best thing for us to feel as close to being there as possible without all of that travel-related expense?

If we have the ability to actually go, then yes, in person is a superior experience. But if we can't go, what would be next best experience to feel like we are there together? Watching on televisions in LA and Miami won't come close. One of us going and shooting what we are seeing with our phone and trying to stream to the other won't do it.

I'm not aware that Qwest is offering NFL-ST-VR or similar packages equivalent to this idea. Do they? If so, please point me to those offers as I have a few friends who may be interested in a cheaper alternative to Vpro that scratches that kind of "being there" itch even when we are all so spread out. I'm aware of Oculus basically showing a virtual TV screen for some stuff like MLB but I'm not envisioning that here- not virtual TV- but virtually being there... as in look at the seat next to me and see virtual you there and look behind me and see some of our other friends sitting there with us, etc... like it would appear as if we were all actually there.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

There are only a handful of labs, SDK was just released in July, so why would anyone think every interested developer is going to have something ready to test in such a short time?

Another thing to consider — some developers probably won’t feel the need to visit a lab because the simulator seems adequate. And the larger developers may have a test unit of their own.

 

[goonie4life9]

Yes. Absolutely, it’s part of a strategy. That’s how communication works for big companies, I’m surprised you people ignored this.

It’s strategy to say nonsensical things, like “extremely high, three digit satisfaction” with zero reference to the actual values? If Apple makes great products (which I happen to think they do), they don’t need to do this.