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

[Jensend]

Most people are perfectly content with their laptop screens.

For some things it's because they are good enough. For some uses, I think it's just because people don't know better. People were perfectly content with phone books and paper maps.

Virtual screens are a NICHE feature.

At the price, comfort, and capabilities of current headsets, True. Right now, they aren't even good enough for most people who are very interested in that use case.
If people could just pull up any screen(s) of any size and shape anywhere they were, most people would probably do that a lot.
If they had to wear normal looking glasses/sunglasses to do that, it would still probably be extremely popular.
For anything more cumbersome than that? I just don't know.

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

What is the common killer app on any computer? The web browser, I suppose.

They needed a phone and the iPhone was a much, much better phone.

It's a much better pocket computer. Better phone? Not really. My small bar phone was better for actually receiving calls (though I suppose a bit less convenient for placing calls to contacts)

Screen isn't virtual.

it's virtual in the sense that the perceived location and size of the screen does not match the physical position and size of the the device's screens

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.

There's a reason the Quest hasn't progressed beyond gaming. Most people aren't interested in all of these "social" VR use cases that socially awkward techies on tech forums keep dreaming up.

Have you not heard of VR Chat? or even Gorilla Tag?
People like to point out how much of a failure that Meta's attempts at a "metaverse" are, but multiplayer apps may be the biggest and most enduring use case of VR.

On the other hand, Gorilla tag is full of children shouting racist things, so maybe that isn't the best example. And VR Chat is 90% anime and furry avatars.

A lot of people socialize online. Discord is very popular. Out of all digital communication technologives, I think VR has the potential to be the most social.

I have the feeling this might go to the way of Apple TV: great, premium product that is the best in its product category and adored by its users, but not many bother with it because "the best" is not much better than the <$15 on sale streaming stick alternative. Hello $300 Quest 2 and $500 Quest 3 eating the marketshare from "the best" $3500 Apple Vision Pro.

Nothing comes close to an Apple Watch, the competition is mostly terrible unless you need hardcore fitness gear from a company like Garmin. Very little comes close an M1/2 Macbook (Pro) for price/performance + battery life. iPads still are so much better than the any other tablet on the market, and nothing needs to be said about the love for iPhones. AirPods have become for earbuds what Kleenex is for tissue. Apple is in a great place with most of its product lines compared to any time in the past.

But lots of things are almost as good as an Apple TV for much cheaper and I would honestly not know the product existed if I weren't an Apple fanatic using these forums. At this point, it looks like the same is going down with the headset.

Sure, an Apple TV is no better than a $30 streaming stick for actually watching video content (and my $30 stick has a far better remote than my Apple TV.)

But I can't think of a worse comparison. A single-purpose streaming device has a low upper limit of potential. It needs to send the data it receives from the streaming service to a digital port on a TV. It can't send better digital output than it already does. Most of the potential for improvement is in the TV part of the equation, or even the streaming service.

VR has huge room for improvement across myriad aspects of comfort, visuals, performance, input, etc. There are no upper limits in sight. I think that's one of Apple's big motivations for getting into VR/AR... there's so much room for meaningful growth, unlike in phones where it's coming down to such exciting developments as shaving off fractions of a millimeter from the bezels, and a few percentage points of improvement in processor speed and efficiency. Though I suppose foldables have some potential...

 

[mike2q]

iPhone, iPad, Airpods, Apple Watch......

All of them have one thing in common. A lot of people (maybe even the majority) were laughing about them at the beginning.

And to be fair, all but the Airpods were pretty basic at the beginning and they took a while to improve and find their ground with software updates and apps.

Looking back, it is probably also not the worst idea to skip at least the first gen

Very few people were laughing at the original iPhone short of Steve Balmer. Balmer was mainly laughing at the proce and to be fair the iPhone didn't really take off until AT&T began subsidizing the price. When the iPhone was released people already had smart phones and the Apple iPod was already a huge success. Seeing a better smart phone that was also an iPod was not a hard sell as it was the natural evolution of products people already had and used.
No one was laughing at the original iPad. The idea of a tablet had been a tech dream long before the iPad's release and with the iPhone already a success the iPad was a natural evolution to the laptops and phones people already used.
The Airpods were only laughed at because of the ridiculous design. Justify the design however you will but the only reason to include needlessly long stems is so they look like the wired Apple buds for brand recognition. That said, they were reasonably priced and the natural evolution of a product people already had.
The Apple Watch was launched at a time when physical activity trackers were on fire. With so many people already using fitness trackers the Apple Watch was the natural evolution of those products. With a launch price of $349 it was also reasonably priced.

My point is that all of those products were the natural evolution of existing successful products that people already used. Although there are people using head mounted displays right now they are almost exclusively used by gamers and for gaming. Even with all of the effort put in by Sony (Playstation VR), Meta (Quest) and Valve (Steam VR) HMD's remain a very niche product. Microsoft put a lot of time and money into the HoloLens and couldn't find an audience with a product that unlike the Vision Pro is a true AR device and not a VR device that only simulates AR.
I just don't see the Vision Pro having the success of any of Apples other big products. I'll bet now that it or even its successors (if any) never will.

 

[Surf Monkey]

It's still going on, attendance levels haven't really dropped.

Nearly no one is locked down and working remotely anymore.

 

[Surf Monkey]

No need to. It's enough that many of Apple's most successful products (iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods) were declared flops by the "experts" here when introduced.

That’s a non-argument. Someone is always going to diss a new product. Apple is not unique in that respect. Basically you’re just dodging valid criticism by offering a fallacious argument suggesting future performance predicated on past success. Very little about the VP suggests it will enjoy the wide popular acceptance that things like iPhone, Apple Watch and AirPods have.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Right now I watch NBA finals on a flat TV because I cannot afford the tickets. What if instead of the TV I am using a vision pro which is 2-3x better than TV but still only 50% as good as being there. Well…that’s a huge leap isn’t it? Because I never was going to be able to afford 10k court side tickets. But I can afford the “ticket” to the virtual court side and my experience has increased by a lot. It’s not as good as being there…but I can never be there so the comparison is meaningless. Is it better than TV? That’s the question for most people who cannot afford to be at some events.

What if you want to watch the games with your partner or some friends?

Television is inherently a social device. It’s intended to be used like a movie. A shared experience with your family and friends. Using television as a drastically isolating experience via an iPhone helmet may appeal to you and a small percentage of others but for the mainstream? It’s likely to seem creepy, geeky, ugly, isolating, mock-worthy and unappealing.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Of course it’s a screen not a window, that will always be true until it’s a window (or glasses rather). I’m only talking about functional difference.
I don’t agree they are huge assumptions, but we’ll see in due time.

There are vast and obvious differences between looking at the world with your eyes and looking at two screens close to your eyes showing a live feed with an overlay.

 

[Surf Monkey]

In other threads, 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 modest Mac in lap- perhaps even a de-screened MBpro (accessible for little from people selling it because they damaged their screen)...

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 & lightweight 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. This is in play for laptops too...

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 aluminum 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 16" has a good opportunity to get one by "thinking different" along these lines.

This made me laugh.

When I stared my career as a graphic artist in the 1990s I was designing for the “standard” screen: 72dpi at 640x480. That was the default for YEARS.

After that I worked on a 13 inch MacBook at much higher resolutions and it seemed huge.

All of this is completely relative. Demand for ever larger screens is not necessarily a case of utility over marketing.

 

[mike2q]

I believe the "killer app" will be immersion. It's something that will need to be experienced in person (ie: when the product is released), rather than hyped online.

I have mentioned before how I feel the AVP (Apple Vision Pro) will revolutionize memories. Imagine being able to record a certain moment in time, and then rewatch it and feel like you were being transported to that very time and place itself. It's a degree of immersion you can't get using conventional recording technology.

This isn't something that can be quantified on a spec sheet the same way you with ram, storage and price, but it matters. And the wonderful thing about the mass consumer market is that the buyer is the end user, and because the consumer is not perfectly rational, outstanding design and integration (as opposed to modularity) can and will continue to drive demand, because different things matter differently to different people.

The reason why there isn't one for the Quest is because the technology behind it sucked. It's not a knock on the product; the creators did the best they could with the tech they had access to at the time, and it showed. Just as Apple waited until the tech required to enable to desired experience was available, and I believe it will set the bar for AR headsets moving forward.

People here are assuming that just because the Quest failed, means the AVP will fail as well. They are choosing to focus only on hard metrics like price, while disregarding everything about what makes Apple unique (such as their ecosystem, or their ability to integrate hardware with software). I feel this tends to lead to error and inaccurate analysis, because you are comparing Apple too much to other companies, and you are not allowing Apple’s unique attributes to speak for themselves or recognize how Apple is able to set themselves apart from the competition.

Quick point on your last paragraph. The Meta Quest certainly has not failed as a stand alone product. The Metaverse that Meta keeps pushing seems to be a failure but the Quest itself has sold over 20 million units to date.

To your point about immersion and being used as a memory device I still don't see it as a mainstream feature. 360 degree cameras are already a thing that can record videos for immersive use on VR headsets. Google has a sphere photo setting going back to 10 years ago that enabled people to take and view still virtual scenes in their expensive VR sets or cheap Google Cardboard VR boxes. None of this has really caught on and while I'm sure Apple's implementation will be better I don't think its the quality that's really stopped this from becoming a thing.
I'll also bet that Apple will make a proprietary format for these memories that locks us into their devices. As much as you think now that you'll stick with Apple would you really want to lock your lifetime of memories into one device?

 

[Surf Monkey]

Quick point on your last paragraph. The Meta Quest certainly has not failed as a stand alone product. The Metaverse that Meta keeps pushing seems to be a failure but the Quest itself has sold over 20 million units to date.

To your point about immersion and being used as a memory device I still don't see it as a mainstream feature. 360 degree cameras are already a thing that can record videos for immersive use on VR headsets. Google has a sphere photo setting going back to 10 years ago that enabled people to take and view still virtual scenes in their expensive VR sets or cheap Google Cardboard VR boxes. None of this has really caught on and while I'm sure Apple's implementation will be better I don't think its the quality that's really stopped this from becoming a thing.
I'll also bet that Apple will make a proprietary format for these memories that locks us into their devices. As much as you think now that you'll stick with Apple would you really want to lock your lifetime of memories into one device?

Apple sells over 20 million Macs, iMacs and MacBooks every year. The scale of success necessary for companies this size is very different than that of smaller players. Apple is going to need to sell a lot of these for them to be a success. More than the Quest. Way more.

 

[mike2q]

Apple sells over 20 million Macs, iMacs and MacBooks every year. The scale of success necessary for companies this size is very different than that of smaller players. Apple is going to need to sell a lot of these for them to be a success. More than the Quest. Way more.

I agree with your whole statement which is why I don't think the Vision Pro will ever be a success.

 

[Unami]

Apple sells over 20 million Macs, iMacs and MacBooks every year. The scale of success necessary for companies this size is very different than that of smaller players. Apple is going to need to sell a lot of these for them to be a success. More than the Quest. Way more.

It's clearly a device aimed at developers for creating an AR-app-ecosystem for when the tech is ready. Making a profit is not the measure of success for this device, but getting people to develop for it and being just right in time. I think it's still too early and interest in it might wane long before the tech is advanced enough to make it a sun-glasses-like device, though.

Also, it's not an iPhone, nor is it in the price/utility-range of a macbook - I'd rather compare it's sales numbers to overpriced niche products like the macpro or pro display xr - which are afaik not sold at a loss.

 

[Tenkaykev]

And what did you think?

More importantly, what did mom think?

 

[subjonas]

There are vast and obvious differences between looking at the world with your eyes and looking at two screens close to your eyes showing a live feed with an overlay.

That was your exact statement in the beginning. Let’s not go around in a loop.

 

[Abazigal]

I'll also bet that Apple will make a proprietary format for these memories that locks us into their devices. As much as you think now that you'll stick with Apple would you really want to lock your lifetime of memories into one device?

Video is video. Probably the only locking me in that the Vision Pro will remain the best option for consuming these memories for some time. The competition will not be able to use the same high-end components that Apple is using, in part because Apple has either monopolised supply, or because they know their customer base will not be willing to pay $4k if it doesn't have an Apple logo on it. Which in turn limits how good it can be.

To your point about immersion and being used as a memory device I still don't see it as a mainstream feature. 360 degree cameras are already a thing that can record videos for immersive use on VR headsets. Google has a sphere photo setting going back to 10 years ago that enabled people to take and view still virtual scenes in their expensive VR sets or cheap Google Cardboard VR boxes. None of this has really caught on and while I'm sure Apple's implementation will be better I don't think it's the quality that's really stopped this from becoming a thing.

I feel it comes down to selling users a feature vs selling them a solution.

Take Live Photos for example. I understand it's nothing new for Android users, but it was also a feature that launched on android with little fanfare or promotion. Conversely, Apple made a huge deal out of it at their iPhone 6s keynote, from showcasing how it could allow you to view an animated GIF of your loved one on your lock screen, to optimising the file format and storage for it. When it comes to weaving a compelling narrative around why a particular feature ought to exist, few do it better than Apple.

For VR, is anyone actually actively promoting this medium, or has it been largely left to the market to sort itself out? VR seems to be heavily centred around gaming, which alienates a lot of people already. I am betting that when the AVP is released, Apple will spare no expense at supporting said platform. We can also look back and see how Apple has been slowly but methodically laying the foundation for this (I still don't know whether to call it AR or VR honestly). Even their foray into streaming and live sports makes sense when you consider that Apple can easily bankroll content optimised for watching on the Vision Pro.

That's why I believe Apple is poised to succeed in the long run. They don't always get it right out of the gate (eg: $19k gold Apple Watches), but they stick around, they take notes, they learn from their mistakes and they iterate. All while simply outlasting everybody else.

 

[darngooddesign]

Nearly no one is locked down and working remotely anymore.

Talking about the social aspect of the Twitch stream.

 

[Surf Monkey]

It's clearly a device aimed at developers for creating an AR-app-ecosystem for when the tech is ready. Making a profit is not the measure of success for this device, but getting people to develop for it and being just right in time. I think it's still too early and interest in it might wane long before the tech is advanced enough to make it a sun-glasses-like device, though.

Also, it's not an iPhone, nor is it in the price/utility-range of a macbook - I'd rather compare it's sales numbers to overpriced niche products like the macpro or pro display xr - which are afaik not sold at a loss.

It isn’t “for developers.” That’s nonsense. It’s a product that will (presumably) ship next year.

And don’t blame me for comparing it to iPhone. That was all Tim Cook and Apple. They’re the ones saying that it’s the next step.

 

[Surf Monkey]

That was your exact statement in the beginning. Let’s not go around in a loop.

The statement was true the first time and continues to be true now. You haven’t rebutted it, so your admonishment is not relevant.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Talking about the social aspect of the Twitch stream.

A twitch stream is not the same as attending a live event. The comparison is absurd.

 

[darngooddesign]

A twitch stream is not the same as attending a live event. The comparison is absurd.

It’s apparent that you are willfully missing the point, but rock on with your goalpost moving.

 

[JamesHolden]

It is VERY odd that a fairly large contingent of people here seem to think that gazing into a screen in a headset is essentially the same thing as participating in real world experiences like attending a sporting event or a play or a movie.

I don't think it's a fairly large contingent. Large for MacRumors, maybe, but not general population. I have yet to meet a non-techie who has any interest whatsoever in Vision Pro or VR in general. I agree, however, that it's quite strange how some people view strapping screens to one's face and sitting at home in their PJs on the couch as the equivalent of an in-person experience.

I think these people are few and far between, however, and probably have social anxiety or other anti-social mental health issues that make them view VR as somehow superior to the real thing. They can control their VR environment. It's much less threatening and overwhelming than being in a stadium with 50,000 screaming fans. It's "safe" and these days certain people are all about the illusion of safety.

I don't think most people will choose to experience concerts, sporting events, etc. in VR versus attending the real thing. VR is a poor substitute for being there. A major aspect of large events like concerts and sports is the social aspect, the energy from the crowd, all the stuff that comes with being there. I don't see most people choosing some neutered experience over the real thing.

I also think that, when it comes to watching sports, movies, etc., people want to gather and share the experience. As we've noted many times, Vision Pro can't be shared. Each viewer has to own one. There's no inviting friends over to watch the big game unless everyone owns a Vision Pro...and then what? Everyone sits on the couch with their isolation helmet on? No way. There's nothing fun about that. That's not a party.

Looking at a screen a few millimeters away from your eyes is NOT the same as looking at a real thing in the real world. As much as Apple wants you to think of this as augmented reality, it’s nothing of the sort. It’s a VR system that presents you with a live feed of the world around you. Not the same as AR.

Agreed, although I think you're splitting hairs a bit. Whether it's true AR or not, it's close enough. Would your opinion of Vision Pro change if it were true AR? Mine wouldn't. I don't think people want to wear screens. The thought of having notifications, etc. constantly popping up in my field of view sounds like bad sci-fi, not a desirable future.

The use cases people bring up are all pretty stupid or so niche that they only apply to a very small group of people. Navigation is a perfect example. Who on Earth wants to wear glasses/goggles/whatever and have turn by turn directions? Seriously, that's some WALL-E level laziness there. In fact, that's all I think about when I see Vision Pro. WALL-E. Everyone fat, kicked back in their La-Z Boys, slurping whatever Door Dash delivered, disconnected from other humans, pretending like they are out for a walk or at a concert... 🤯🤯🤯

 

[JamesHolden]

There is an adage I sometimes use in response to arguments that Apple products are overpriced for the specs that you get.

Not everything which can be measured, matters. Just not everything which matters, can be measured.

I believe the "killer app" will be immersion. It's something that will need to be experienced in person (ie: when the product is released), rather than hyped online.

I agree with that. The "killer app" is probably the apps we already use, just more immersive. The question is, do people want that and will immersion really add value to managing my to-do list or answering an email? Will I want to wear heavy goggles in order to have immersive word processing? I really don't see how wearing a screen makes any of the everyday things I do on my Mac and iPhone any better. I do see a lot of downsides, however.

This product is so un-Apple and, to me, proves that Steve Jobs has finally left the building. Apple talks out of both sides of its mouth. It talks about the dangers of too much screen time, even developing technologies to help track and limit screen time...only to ask its customers to strap a screen to their faces and immerse themselves? The mental health issues created by too much screen time are well documented and now Apple wants to push people towards more immersive screen time?

The one thing that gives me hope is that every young person I know thinks Vision Pro is incredibly lame and has no interest in it, which kind of makes sense. There's nothing attractive about wearing Vision Pro. Kids are all about posting selfies that make them look more attractive, cooler, etc. There's nothing cool about wearing Vision Pro.

I have mentioned before how I feel the AVP (Apple Vision Pro) will revolutionise memories. Imagine being able to record a certain moment in time, and then rewatch it and feel like you were being transported to that very time and place itself. It's a degree of immersion you can't get using conventional recording technology.

That doesn't sound appealing to me, but I get that some people might be drawn to it. I'll readily admit that I don't care much for the past in general. Memories live in my mind. What you describe is just an upgrade of the old camcorder and all the videos that no one ever watched after filming them...

This isn't something that can be quantified on a spec sheet the same way you with ram, storage and price, but it matters. And the wonderful thing about the mass consumer market is that the buyer is the end user, and because the consumer is not perfectly rational, outstanding design and integration (as opposed to modularity) can and will continue to drive demand, because different things matter differently to different people.

Agreed.

The reason why there isn't one for the Quest is because the technology behind it sucked. It's not a knock on the product; the creators did the best they could with the tech they had access to at the time, and it showed. Just as Apple waited until the tech required to enable to desired experience was available, and I believe it will set the bar for AR headsets moving forward.

Agreed.

People here are assuming that just because the Quest failed, means the AVP will fail as well.

I can't speak for others, but that is not my assumption. I also don't think the Quest failed. They've sold millions of units (over quite a few years). I wouldn't call that a failure, but it also hasn't taken off and the general public still sees no need for one.

They are choosing to focus only on hard metrics like price, while disregarding everything about what makes Apple unique (such as their ecosystem, or their ability to integrate hardware with software). I feel this tends to lead to error and inaccurate analysis, because you are comparing Apple too much to other companies, and you are not allowing Apple’s unique attributes to speak for themselves or recognise how Apple is able to set themselves apart from the competition.

Price matters. Most people are not going to spend $3500+ (remember, $3500 is only the starting price) on a VR headset, especially in today's economic climate. This is more expensive than just about any product Apple sells except for the Mac Pro and Pro Display, two super niche products.

While your take on Apple's strengths is valid, it's also selective. Apple has had an amazing run since the introduction of the iPhone, but I've been a customer for 40+ years and there were many many years where Apple was a disaster. Everyone likes to focus on the Return of Jobs era and ignore the many years before that. Apple has had an amazing run since the iPhone launched and maybe Vision Pro continues that momentum. Or maybe it's confirmation that Steve Jobs has finally left the building. We'll see.

 

[JamesHolden]

So Apple has no idea what its doing, has done zero research, does not understand the market, has collaborated with Stanford University's AR laboratory for 7+ years wasting time and money, and is just winging it hoping to get lucky?

I'm sure they've done plenty of research, but that doesn't mean the public is interested. I have no doubt that the cloistered academic feedback loop at Stanford's AR lab is powerful.

I'm also sure Apple did plenty of research before it launched other products that bombed. The corporate world is littered with examples of products that were heavily researched, where gobs of R&D money was spent, only to have the product fail when it hit the market.

There are no guarantees.

 

[Surf Monkey]

It’s apparent that you are willfully missing the point, but rock on with your goalpost moving.

I’m not missing your point at all.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I don't think it's a fairly large contingent. Large for MacRumors, maybe, but not general population. I have yet to meet a non-techie who has any interest whatsoever in Vision Pro or VR in general. I agree, however, that it's quite strange how some people view strapping screens to one's face and sitting at home in their PJs on the couch as the equivalent of an in-person experience.

I think these people are few and far between, however, and probably have social anxiety or other anti-social mental health issues that make them view VR as somehow superior to the real thing. They can control their VR environment. It's much less threatening and overwhelming than being in a stadium with 50,000 screaming fans. It's "safe" and these days certain people are all about the illusion of safety.

I don't think most people will choose to experience concerts, sporting events, etc. in VR versus attending the real thing. VR is a poor substitute for being there. A major aspect of large events like concerts and sports is the social aspect, the energy from the crowd, all the stuff that comes with being there. I don't see most people choosing some neutered experience over the real thing.

I also think that, when it comes to watching sports, movies, etc., people want to gather and share the experience. As we've noted many times, Vision Pro can't be shared. Each viewer has to own one. There's no inviting friends over to watch the big game unless everyone owns a Vision Pro...and then what? Everyone sits on the couch with their isolation helmet on? No way. There's nothing fun about that. That's not a party.


Agreed, although I think you're splitting hairs a bit. Whether it's true AR or not, it's close enough. Would your opinion of Vision Pro change if it were true AR? Mine wouldn't. I don't think people want to wear screens. The thought of having notifications, etc. constantly popping up in my field of view sounds like bad sci-fi, not a desirable future.

The use cases people bring up are all pretty stupid or so niche that they only apply to a very small group of people. Navigation is a perfect example. Who on Earth wants to wear glasses/goggles/whatever and have turn by turn directions? Seriously, that's some WALL-E level laziness there. In fact, that's all I think about when I see Vision Pro. WALL-E. Everyone fat, kicked back in their La-Z Boys, slurping whatever Door Dash delivered, disconnected from other humans, pretending like they are out for a walk or at a concert... 🤯🤯🤯

On point one: agree. I was only referencing the forum. Not the general public.

On point two: the qualitative difference with a true AR system would be the fact that most of your field of view would be reality itself. While that’s a subtle point, the reason I bring it up is the fact that true AR is more friendly to the users eyes and only presents the overlay, not the entirety of visual reality.

But yeah. Overall we’re basically on the same page. There appears to be little natural demand for a system like VP and the boosters here who claim it will be an adequate replacement for attending live events are fooling themselves.

 

[citysnaps]

That’s a non-argument. Someone is always going to diss a new product. Apple is not unique in that respect. Basically you’re just dodging valid criticism by offering a fallacious argument suggesting future performance predicated on past success. Very little about the VP suggests it will enjoy the wide popular acceptance that things like iPhone, Apple Watch and AirPods have.

An argument? Wasn't intended to be an argument.

Just a set of facts about how Apple's most successful devices routinely get slammed here at introduction by forum "experts."

Apple's VP is no exception and will be successful as well despite all of the forum experts saying otherwise. Cracks me up as the same people don't appear to know much, or anything for that matter, about AR, its history, and acceptance in multiple disciplines. Not surprising.