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

[citysnaps]

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.

Yep... it's doomed because Apple knows nothing about the market according to forum experts. Just like iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, etc. of the past.

Amazing how despite that, and not understanding markets, how Apple has managed to become one of the most successful tech companies in the world with around a billion customers. What luck!

 

[Bodhitree]

It would be interesting to know what kind of size these developers were who downloaded the VP SDK. There is a big difference between a one-man developer making something and a competent team planning and executing an app.

 

[JamesHolden]

Yep... it's doomed because Apple knows nothing about the market according to forum experts. Just like iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods.

There are some big differences this time around. Let's look at each of the products you just referenced. Each is the evolution of an established product that already enjoyed wide adoption.

iPod is the evolution of the portable music player, a market that was very well established long before the iPod was even a glimmer in Tony's eye. The Walkman created the market. By the time portable music players went digital, SONY had sold around 200M Walkman units. How many no-name units were sold? This was already a huge market. Digital was an obvious evolution and Apple eventually stepped in with a better product.

iPhone is the obvious evolution of the telephone, the cell phone, the smartphone. Most humans on Earth use telephones.

The iPad is a logical twist on the iPhone. Holding a tablet isn't much different from holding a magazine or note pad either. Replacing physical magazines, books, note pads, etc. makes perfect sense. Again, an improvement upon things that were already very well established and widely used.

AirPods, again, headphones are a huge market. Billions of people around the world use them. Apple makes great headphones and they work very well with other Apple products, so it's no wonder many people choose them.

There's nothing analogous when it comes to Vision Pro. VR isn't popular. AR isn't popular. Unlike portable media players, telephones, and headphones, the existing market for AR/VR products is miniscule. This time around Apple isn't simply stepping into a very well established market with a better product. This time they are entering a market at the very early stages when other devices have failed to grab consumer interest.

Vision Pro is a lot more like the Newton than any of the products you referenced. Apple tried to do something very bold in the very early stages of a new market with the Newton and it failed.

 

[Jensend]

There are some big differences this time around. Let's look at each of the products you just referenced. Each is the evolution of an established product that already enjoyed wide adoption.

iPod is the evolution of the portable music player, a market that was very well established long before the iPod was even a glimmer in Tony's eye. The Walkman created the market. By the time portable music players went digital, SONY had sold around 200M Walkman units. How many no-name units were sold? This was already a huge market. Digital was an obvious evolution and Apple eventually stepped in with a better product.

iPhone is the obvious evolution of the telephone, the cell phone, the smartphone. Most humans on Earth use telephones.

The iPad is a logical twist on the iPhone. Holding a tablet isn't much different from holding a magazine or note pad either. Replacing physical magazines, books, note pads, etc. makes perfect sense. Again, an improvement upon things that were already very well established and widely used.

AirPods, again, headphones are a huge market. Billions of people around the world use them. Apple makes great headphones and they work very well with other Apple products, so it's no wonder many people choose them.

There's nothing analogous when it comes to Vision Pro. VR isn't popular. AR isn't popular. Unlike portable media players, telephones, and headphones, the existing market for AR/VR products is miniscule. This time around Apple isn't simply stepping into a very well established market with a better product. This time they are entering a market at the very early stages when other devices have failed to grab consumer interest.

Vision Pro is a lot more like the Newton than any of the products you referenced. Apple tried to do something very bold in the very early stages of a new market with the Newton and it failed.

The minimum viable product for VR is much much more technologically advanced than it is for other categories.
The MVP for a wrist computer is a clock.
The MVP for a pocketable computer is a calculator.
The MVP for a head mounted computer is something like a Quest. For a more general purpose computer, it's even higher.
I mean, you could have something like a Google glass that only told time, but that has no significant significant value add over already existing wristwatches.
So I'm not sure "there is no precedent" is a very useful metric.
A HMD needs to be at least a MVP and also be better than other existing product categories is at least some ways.

Isn't the Vision Pro more analogous to the Walkman itself, rather than the iPod? (there are already other VR devices on the market, but I'd say for all practical purposes the market is less than 10 years old, and less than 5 years old for all-in-one VR devices)

 

[subjonas]

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

So when two people disagree, you believe it makes sense for each person to continue repeating their stance to each other in a loop?

 

[Agathon]

Most people are perfectly content with their laptop screens.

'640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.'

You'd have to be a ridiculous luddite not to understand that the move to AR and VR is the next step in personal computing.

 

[deconstruct60]

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

To be virtual the effect has to be implemented in software. Virtual memory -- 'virtual' addresses are recalcuated into real addresses to access data. The user experience is that they have their own 'memory space' that is free from other apps/users.

'Virtual' desktop ... a software generated 'desktop' on a graphic user interface screen. No physical properties, just a representation.


None of that is true for this so called 'virtual' screen. Simple experiment is to take a normal 13-32" screen and put your nose 1/4 inch away from the screen surface. All you can see is the screen ( so close that have basically occluded your perhipehral vision). Move your face up/down , left/right at that distance and you will see different stuff.

Similarly, Open a long document and use arrow keys to scroll up/down with your eyes at same distance away. The text will move and that scrolling action is being done by the software in response to command. Move away to normal viewing distance and do the same thing.

Software does same 'scroll' thing whether 1/4 inch , 4 , or 20 inches away. But the perception of the content on the screen is different. The perception is a PHYSICAL , very much real world, property. Almost gluing screens directly onto your eyeball has the primary impact.


If adjust the Vision Pro headset so that the two screens are 2-4 inches further away from your eyes is it still a 'virtual screen'. Nope. Move the headset and content will pan. Software still doing the exact same thing, but the persception effect is all gone. Which means the software really isn't the primary contributor to the effect. No software big impact and it isn't 'virtual'.


Several folks are transfer the new experience of not using a mouse, keys to navigate to the 'screen'. ( instead turn head and/or point eyes and content shifts. ) The screen isn't relatively moving. Nor it is much more pixels than before (per eye). The pixels are just physically blocking other stuff so have no choice but the look only at them. That doesn't make then any less 'real'.

In fact, it is actually also are real long term ergonomic issue in physically swamping them this way with emissions.

 

[JamesHolden]

'640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.'

You'd have to be a ridiculous luddite not to understand that the move to AR and VR is the next step in personal computing.

Lol. Hardly. People aren't going to wear computers and have information shoved at them 24/7. That's the stuff of dystopian nightmares. As a big sci-fi fan, I find it interesting that there are no positive visions of a future with AR/VR. In optimistic visions of the future, ie: Star Trek, AR/VR is rarely seen.

 

[Jensend]

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.

It comes closer to an in-person experience than any other digital communications device, including live video communication (IMO). And even its deficiencies compared to video communication will be minimized as the technology improves.

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.

But most people already experience those things (event sound and visuals) primarily in speaker/video form. Why not view it as an enhancement on current devices instead of a replacement for non-digital activities?

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.

Video watching has got more personal, as people watch what they chose on a phone instead of watching something together on a TV. If anything, VR can be and enhancement to the phone experience where people are already experiencing most of their media. I can watch movies with friends in other states and countries, and positional audio adds a sense of presence that wouldn't be there if we just synched up our TVs and talked on the phone or whatever.

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... 🤯🤯🤯

I'm more physically active when using VR than when doing anything else involving a screen.

If VR is replacing other digital activities instead of real life gatherings, I view that as a win.

 

[Jensend]

Lol. Hardly. People aren't going to wear computers and have information shoved at them 24/7. That's the stuff of dystopian nightmares. As a big sci-fi fan, I find it interesting that there are no positive visions of a future with AR/VR. In optimistic visions of the future, ie: Star Trek, AR/VR is rarely seen.

I'm more interested in VR as a (sometimes) replacement for desktops/laptops/tablets/TV rather than something that I'd wear everywhere I'd carry a smartphone in my pocket.

 

[Jensend]

Lol. Hardly. People aren't going to wear computers and have information shoved at them 24/7. That's the stuff of dystopian nightmares. As a big sci-fi fan, I find it interesting that there are no positive visions of a future with AR/VR. In optimistic visions of the future, ie: Star Trek, AR/VR is rarely seen.

The holodeck is basically VR. But it is seen as an activity, not something that is worn 24/7. Well, I suppose Geordi La Forge has some AR capabilities in his visor....

 

[Jensend]

Arguments about definitions are boring.

To be virtual the effect has to be implemented in software. Virtual memory -- 'virtual' addresses are recalcuated into real addresses to access data. The user experience is that they have their own 'memory space' that is free from other apps/users.

'Virtual' desktop ... a software generated 'desktop' on a graphic user interface screen. No physical properties, just a representation.


None of that is true for this so called 'virtual' screen. Simple experiment is to take a normal 13-32" screen and put your nose 1/4 inch away from the screen surface. All you can see is the screen ( so close that have basically occluded your perhipehral vision). Move your face up/down , left/right at that distance and you will see different stuff.

Similarly, Open a long document and use arrow keys to scroll up/down with your eyes at same distance away. The text will move and that scrolling action is being done by the software in response to command. Move away to normal viewing distance and do the same thing.

Software does same 'scroll' thing whether 1/4 inch , 4 , or 20 inches away. But the perception of the content on the screen is different. The perception is a PHYSICAL , very much real world, property. Almost gluing screens directly onto your eyeball has the primary impact.


If adjust the Vision Pro headset so that the two screens are 2-4 inches further away from your eyes is it still a 'virtual screen'. Nope. Move the headset and content will pan. Software still doing the exact same thing, but the persception effect is all gone. Which means the software really isn't the primary contributor to the effect. No software big impact and it isn't 'virtual'.

Actually, your view of the virtual content stays in place as you move the physical screen relative to your eyes. Your FOV is just reduced as the headset is adjusted farther from your eyes.

Several folks are transfer the new experience of not using a mouse, keys to navigate to the 'screen'. ( instead turn head and/or point eyes and content shifts. ) The screen isn't relatively moving. Nor it is much more pixels than before (per eye). The pixels are just physically blocking other stuff so have no choice but the look only at them. That doesn't make then any less 'real'.

In fact, it is actually also are real long term ergonomic issue in physically swamping them this way with emissions.

Being "swamped" with emissions from a screen is no more an ergonomic problem than being swamped with emissions from light bouncing off of real objects.

 

[Surf Monkey]

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.

A “set of facts”? If so, let’s see some evidence to back it up. Because it’s a bogus position. You can cherry-pick in hindsight and that has nothing to do with the relative merits and demerits of the Vision Pro. What you’re doing is using a fallacious set of statements to deflect away from valid criticism.

 

[Surf Monkey]

So when two people disagree, you believe it makes sense for each person to continue repeating their stance to each other in a loop?

Simply re-stating my position since you failed to rebut it.

 

[Abazigal]

A “set of facts”? If so, let’s see some evidence to back it up. Because it’s a bogus position. You can cherry-pick in hindsight and that has nothing to do with the relative merits and demerits of the Vision Pro. What you’re doing is using a fallacious set of statements to deflect away from valid criticism.

What valid criticism? The only thing I keep seeing is people parroting that the price will be a major deterrent for many people. 🤔

 

[Surf Monkey]

What valid criticism? The only thing I keep seeing is people parroting that the price will be a major deterrent for many people. 🤔

The price is about the last thing people have been pointing out about it.

 

[subjonas]

Simply re-stating my position since you failed to rebut it.

If the purpose was just to let me know you haven’t changed your mind, then you could have just said something much shorter and to the point like “I remain unconvinced” or even “you failed to rebut it”, rather than typing out a longer statement that you’ve already typed out and that people following this thread have already read.

But I do want to try to clarify something about your previous answer to my question.
You said that it was a huge assumption that technology could do what I posited which was to eventually make a pair of screens (and we forgot to include the camera system) so good that the light from them hitting our eyes would be indistinguishable from the light hitting our eyes through a pair of glasses, making them functionally (not conceptually/actually) equivalent.
Did you mean it’s an assumption for our technology in the foreseeable future, or did you mean it’s scientifically impossible forever?

 

[subjonas]

The price is about the last thing people have been pointing out about it.

Not sure if I’m reading this comment out of context, but I’m pretty sure the VP’s high price is the thing people point out about it the most. Maybe it depends what people you’re referring to, but for me going by comments on MR and YouTube.

 

[citysnaps]

A “set of facts”? If so, let’s see some evidence to back it up. Because it’s a bogus position. You can cherry-pick in hindsight and that has nothing to do with the relative merits and demerits of the Vision Pro. What you’re doing is using a fallacious set of statements to deflect away from valid criticism.

The facts are here on MR and easy to find.


"What you’re doing is using a fallacious set of statements to deflect away from valid criticism."

Yeah... all the criticisms of iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, etc were just as "valid" as well in the eyes of those (and possibly even yours) that made the predictions they'd flop.

Nothing new here.

 

[citysnaps]

There are some big differences this time around. Let's look at each of the products you just referenced. Each is the evolution of an established product that already enjoyed wide adoption.

iPod is the evolution of the portable music player, a market that was very well established long before the iPod was even a glimmer in Tony's eye. The Walkman created the market. By the time portable music players went digital, SONY had sold around 200M Walkman units. How many no-name units were sold? This was already a huge market. Digital was an obvious evolution and Apple eventually stepped in with a better product.

iPhone is the obvious evolution of the telephone, the cell phone, the smartphone. Most humans on Earth use telephones.

The iPad is a logical twist on the iPhone. Holding a tablet isn't much different from holding a magazine or note pad either. Replacing physical magazines, books, note pads, etc. makes perfect sense. Again, an improvement upon things that were already very well established and widely used.

AirPods, again, headphones are a huge market. Billions of people around the world use them. Apple makes great headphones and they work very well with other Apple products, so it's no wonder many people choose them.

There's nothing analogous when it comes to Vision Pro. VR isn't popular. AR isn't popular. Unlike portable media players, telephones, and headphones, the existing market for AR/VR products is miniscule. This time around Apple isn't simply stepping into a very well established market with a better product. This time they are entering a market at the very early stages when other devices have failed to grab consumer interest.

Vision Pro is a lot more like the Newton than any of the products you referenced. Apple tried to do something very bold in the very early stages of a new market with the Newton and it failed.

You should contact TC and Craig F. and let them know they're making a HUGE mistake. You'll be credited with saving Apple from the inevitable doom that's often expressed here!

 

[JamesHolden]

You should contact TC and Craig F. and let them know they're making a HUGE mistake. You'll be credited with saving Apple from the inevitable doom that's often expressed here!

I guess bad attempts at sarcasm are your go-to when you’ve got no point to make.

 

[Jensend]

You should contact TC and Craig F. and let them know they're making a HUGE mistake. You'll be credited with saving Apple from the inevitable doom that's often expressed here!

I view it as something that they think they have to do. We'll eventually get to the point were people don't feel they have to upgrade their phones very often. Apple wants to have a next thing. They are moving towards services, which is a more continuous revenue stream. Cars break down, so there will be a fairly consistent demand in that market, so they are looking at that market. VR/AR has a huge amount of room for improvement, it a way that phones don't.

I think it's inevitable that the market for HMDs will eventually be huge, but it's hard to know what the timing for it will be. I don't think Apple know either.

 

[kkee]

I want to try it, I am sure it will be great, but I don’t see how it would be a mainstream hit with that price. It’s not like people have some $3500 in their pocket to burn. People put up with price hike of iPhone because they need a phone and the alternative is android. People don’t really “need” Vision Pro.

This will be a niche product, and developers don’t spend their time developing for niche product. They will need to find ways to bring down the price to macbook air (or macbook Pro) range to consider it as Mac alternative / media player.

No, but developers spend their time developing for long term. VP is just a start.

yeah, “three digit”, a.k.a more than a hundred, probably far less than 200. Also, curious that she is talking about a three digit “customer satisfaction” which already sounds dishonest as if it were an indication that there were probably even less developers and they are counting every visitor and his dog. Obvious marketing-BS like this rather seeds mistrust than confidence.

More of Apple’s tutti-frutti, phoney baloney, plastic banana, good time, rock-n-roll PR nonsense. Apple makes great products and I really don’t understand their insistence on using these vague statements. It’s like they don’t believe in their own products and are trying to add a facade to what otherwise would be bland products.

 

[citysnaps]

I guess bad attempts at sarcasm are your go-to when you’ve got no point to make.

I've made my point. Clearly. As you apparently are not willing to acknowledge or understand that Apple's most significant and successful products were panned as flops here when they were released, is really on you.

 

[citysnaps]

I view it as something that they think they have to do. We'll eventually get to the point were people don't feel they have to upgrade their phones very often. Apple wants to have a next thing. They are moving towards services, which is a more continuous revenue stream. Cars break down, so there will be a fairly consistent demand in that market, so they are looking at that market. VR/AR has a huge amount of room for improvement, it a way that phones don't.

I think it's inevitable that the market for HMDs will eventually be huge, but it's hard to know what the timing for it will be. I don't think Apple know either.

With respect to new products, Apple rarely makes careless or bad decisions. They know the market, have done the research, and have collaborated with experts (ex: Stanford University's AR Laboratory for 7 years), and go all in investing for success. That's why Apple is one of the most successful tech companies in the world.

The problem is many here do not understand the potential of AR. Or even know what AR is - other than there are goggles/glasses involved (and it's just a giant virtual display). Or that AR has been in use for years in many disciples, but at inaccessible price points for most people/applications. That's evidenced by people asking for use cases, followed by others offering a couple dozen examples. And still not getting it. And ultimately chalking it up to Apple (the most successful tech company in the world) doesn't know what they'r e doing, and the product will flop. Like iPod, iPhone, iPad, Watch, and AirPods - apparently all flops.

It would be great if people wold invest an hour of their time to get a better understanding of AR and how it's been used over the years. And how it's a ripe opportunity to make it accessible in a way that no other company has.

I guess it's much easier to proclaim it a flop (despite having zero/little knowledge about what AR is - because they've not bothered to take the time to understand applications) and call it a day.