Apple Reveals 'Vision Pro' Headset and visionOS

[Surf Monkey]

Lest we forget...

There was once a company called RIM that made a device called the Blackberry

Report claims RIM was incredulous over Apple's original iPhone | AppleInsider

An alleged former employee of Research in Motion has revealed that RIM was incredulous over the original iPhone when Apple first unveiled the smartphone in January of 2007, according to a new report.

appleinsider.com

New phone who dis?
Steve Ballmer predictions for the iPhone

Watch: When Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer laughed at iPhone - Times of India

From the looks of it, Apple iPhone didnt appear to be a threat to the smartphone industry leaders then. And there were lot of naysayers -- Microsoft t

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

How to fail at predicting consumer technology trends

Why the Apple Watch will fail.

For the first time in over 10 years I think Apple has made a mistake, they've designed the iWatch with some fundamental errors. They don't see how people behave, how they use technology in the world of the "personal device ecosystem".

www.linkedin.com

5 reasons armchair quarter back product managers on the internet fail

5 Reasons The iPad Will Fail

Steve Jobs calls Apple's new iPad "magical" and "amazing". But it's a niche product, at best.

www.wealthdaily.com

So what? No one has yet demonstrated even the potential for this to be adopted by the general population. “Derp! Apple!” isn’t really enough to sell it.

 

[TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️]

Did y’all catch the Woo’s?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1666052657751158785

 

[panjandrum]

There is a video on YouTube of a reporter who has been following VR/AR for ten years from CNET. He has used the Vision Pro. He basically says his mind was blown and apple is multiple steps beyond everyone and the experience was unlike anything he had done before. Apple may have nailed it. Still way too expensive for me but impressive.

This. I've been heavily into VR for a long while now. Top-tier VR, so I'm talking some really good equipment. I've done plenty of "using my computer" in VR and it always stinks. What Apple looks to have done here, IF it works as advertised is mind-blowing. If I had the $ I would happily blow it on the Apple Stereoscopic Simulation Hat. Looks like the last nut they have to crack is the FOV, which looking at the design probably isn't anywhere close to human vision, a considerable limitation and major oversight in a device in this price range. I could be wrong, we will have to see what it is like when it gets in the hands of tech-minded reviewers. The price is going to be the major hurdle for early adoption, but maybe they will be able to get that under control over the few revisions. So for now my $ remains set-aside for high-end PC VR equipment, not the ASSHat, but I sure can't wait to give one a try.

More importantly, I have a client with Macular Degeneration and deep pockets; maybe this thing will be a true revolution for her. I'm very excited about the potential for helping those struggling with disabilities. I could see it being an absolute wonder for those with dementia as well. There is serious potential here.

 

[laptech]

Another interesting first impression from someone who has, y'know - actually used an early pre-production unit.

Another thing that got me thinking and not in a good way is this feature of 'eye tracking'. If this feature is as the person who trialed the headset says it is then there is the potential for it to be abused by advertisers, movie producers and TV producers because someone could be watching a movie or a TV program and their eye will wander over a strategically placed product placement and up pops an advert for that product all because the eyes happened to moved over it.

 

[surfzen21]

Another thing that got me thinking and not in a good way is this feature of 'eye tracking'. If this feature is as the person who trialed the headset says it is then there is the potential for it to be abused by advertisers, movie producers and TV producers because someone could be watching a movie or a TV program and their eye will wander over a strategically placed product placement and up pops an advert for that product all because the eyes happened to moved over it.

Apple said this feature is locked down and no third parties will have access to it. Its stored in the secure enclave.

 

[woolypants]

I just wrote a reply on another forum regarding this. If the "killer feature" is movies, this product is a sinking ship already.

What Apple fails to point out (or perhaps realise as they are so wrapped up in their product), movies is a very human and interactive experience. And I'm not talking about 3D or spatial interaction. I'm talking about human interaction, where you can look at your partner when watching it, hold their hands, give them a cuddle, or sit together as a family on the couch and enjoy a great movie experience together.

It's worse even than this.

The thing about watching movies and TV are that they are already immersive.

Our brains already do the VR trick of taking us into the image. I watch Tom Cruise in a Mission Impossible movie. I am there, with Tom, as he bikes over the edge of the cliff...

It's not like we go to the movies and complain about the wall next to the screen, or the ceiling above it. We stop seeing them! Our brains focus on the action — and takes us into it!

Apple's looking to improve this with the headset. And it sounds like an incredible experience. But for most of us, we're already very happy indeed with simply looking at a decent resolution screen to consume our content. It works very well. And most of us have been doing it all our lives.

That's the real danger here with any concept of the headset succeeding because of content consumption. This explanation might also be why "immersive" movie and TV technologies have routinely failed (e.g. 3D TV, 3D cinema). They're just not necessary, and so they come across as gimmicks or just for hobbyists who can appreciate them.

 

[Tdude96]

I’ve seen a few hands on reviews since my original comment and most have praised the image quality of the passthrough video, and only one mentioned seeing compression in the video and lack of detail in shadows. I’m much less skeptical on the cameras now, tho these people were also likely in a well lit space.

Also got me thinking that the killer app for this would be an entirely separate companion device. A 360 camera array you could place on that birthday table so you can be present and aware for your kid’s birthday without wearing a headset but still relive the memories later. Or remotely pull up a full environment live, rather than just floating boxes for FaceTime. Hopefully the headset can still act as a 3D camera when not being worn.

I agree, a compatible 3D camera system would be incredibly cool and prevent someone from having to wear a Reality Pro headset to intimate family occasions. And if you could stream that to family who couldn't make it to the event, so much the better.

 

[steveballmer]

Another thing that got me thinking and not in a good way is this feature of 'eye tracking'. If this feature is as the person who trialed the headset says it is then there is the potential for it to be abused by advertisers, movie producers and TV producers because someone could be watching a movie or a TV program and their eye will wander over a strategically placed product placement and up pops an advert for that product all because the eyes happened to moved over it.

The Keynote video explains that all eye tracking information is encrypted and never leaves the device.

 

[Karine-Johanne]

No no, that's not the apple way.

A display that you connect to a computer would mean that years from now; the headset would still be useful since you can upgrade your computer and still have a headset capable of handling the latest software. No different from how decade old monitors and speakers are still usable today.

Integrate it with a computer; and 5 years from now that M2 SOC will be too slow to run the latest apps and you're forced to throw the whole thing in the bin to buy a newer $3500 headset.

That's the apple way.

So true...unfortunatelly

 

[Michael.S]

I just wrote a reply on another forum regarding this. If the "killer feature" is movies, this product is a sinking ship already.

What Apple fails to point out (or perhaps realise as they are so wrapped up in their product), movies is a very human and interactive experience. And I'm not talking about 3D or spatial interaction. I'm talking about human interaction, where you can look at your partner when watching it, hold their hands, give them a cuddle, or sit together as a family on the couch and enjoy a great movie experience together.

Aside from the fact that most families have 1-2 kids (I have one), and that would mean a $10,500 investment (and then how do you invite guests to watch a movie!?!?), how dystopian is it where we've got to a point where we sit together, isolated from one another with headsets on, and the people we look at next to each other are CGI.

Maybe I'm too old for this game any more, but it just seems so messed up.

A technologically incredible product, I can't wait to try it, but I predict it will flop.

Maybe.
Because it’s too expensive.
And also it’s possible that this is only a technology carrier and maybe they will release later a less expensive version w/o Pro for half the price.

We must not forget that the release is somewhere in 2024.
And yesterday was only a show off.
Smart people will now start to develop their vision and ideas how that device can be used in the future.

 

[nikaru]

Yesterday I was pi**ed (for apple sh*tting on my head with a Mac Pro release I've been waiting for for like 2-3 years now...).
Now that I accepted it, I am confused.
I don't understand this pro vision product.
What is it for?
- Watching movies will will always be better in a cinema. I also don't think watching a movie on a headset projected into the space you're in will feel more "grand" than a huge wall projection or even a big 65" TV. Sound - no competition there, earbuds will never beat good speaker system. So no, it's inferior.

- Gaming? Apple has no games to it's name and even if developers start porting games to Apple, it's still M silicon with inferior graphic capabilities (no hardware ray tracing etc). But let's say it makes some sense as a gaming platform, IF developers actually buy into this stuff and start porting stuff.

- Work? Let's not even go there. No precision, wearing something on your head for 10 hours straight, strain on your eyes, battery life... Just no.

- All this crap with people meditating in these.. this makes NO sense at all - you want to detatch yourself from your senses and tune them out, not stimulate yourself when you are in meditative state.. Anything will be just a distraction.

- So what's left? Minor stuff like video calls etc - this will be terrible and ridiculous for this. It will be bit janky and awkward because we're not there yet to hyperrealistically render stuff in real time..

They created a product that doesnt address any issue, doesn't boost productivity, is questionable in terms of entertainment value it brings.. so I'm asking: who and what is it for? WTH apple?

In order to truly appreciate ANY VR/AR headset, you have to try it yourself. It is not something that can be demonstrated in a keynote through videos or pictures or explained through words. Apple have repeated this idea several times during the keynote. You have to experience it. Hold on with your judgment before you try it yourself. There are two options here: either Apple over-exaggerated with its product, or they are correct when stating (several times) how magical this product, and how much better is than anything we have experienced in terms of AR/VR to date (as the iPhone). If Apple are that confident to price this product at 3499$, maybe, just maybe, it is worth every dollar. Apple management are not stupid, nor the thousands of engineers working on this thing for several years.

 

[NT1440]

I'm not sure why it wasn't played up more, but I definitely see a market/demand for this among frequent flyers! I think there will be a lot of strong use cases that emerge over the next year or so. They were super smart with the modular nature of that battery pack. In short order they will have expanded packs that will last substantially longer than 2 hours. And here's the thing, they priced it in a way to to manage their initial production. The next iteration, when they've ramped up production, will probably come in at $2,999, and people will think it's a steal and it will be a must have for the holiday season '24. Apple's thought this out, we can all be certain of that.

Once production costs come down there will be a more “mainstream” version of this (in whatever color combos you want) called simply Vision.

It's worse even than this.

The thing about watching movies and TV are that they are already immersive.

Our brains already do the VR trick of taking us into the image. I watch Tom Cruise in a Mission Impossible movie. I am there, with Tom, as he bikes over the edge of the cliff...

It's not like we go to the movies and complain about the wall next to the screen, or the ceiling above it. We stop seeing them! Our brains focus on the action — and takes us into it!

Apple's looking to improve this with the headset. And it sounds like an incredible experience. But for most of us, we're already very happy indeed with simply looking at a decent resolution screen to consume our content. It works very well. And most of us have been doing it all our lives.

That's the real danger here with any concept of the headset succeeding because of content consumption. This explanation might also be why "immersive" movie and TV technologies have routinely failed (e.g. 3D TV, 3D cinema). They're just not necessary, and so they come across as gimmicks or just for hobbyists who can appreciate them.

Not in the market for one, but I really think this aspect follows Apple’s introduction of “Retina” screens. Nobody knew we wanted it, it was a shock when announced, but once you actually use it it was clear that there’s no going back.

I’m not sure we should be calling whatever content is going to be made for these “movies” in the way we traditionally think of them. While it clearly excels as displaying 3D movies (which the tech for home theaters was never going to take off), there’s going to be a whole new type of “experience” based on the technology at play here.

I suspect that there’s going to be some really interesting blending of gaming/movies that will let you actually be in whatever scene you’re watching. That requires a whole different approach to scripting, filming (from literally every angle), audio design (you can move about the scene), etc. I think there’s going to be some really incredible things coming from Disney, and then some really really interesting conceptual movies/experiences from indies a few years down the road.

 

[WLSON]

Here you go, let Wikipedia make it simple for you:

"Augmented reality (AR) is an interactive experience that combines the real world and computer-generated content. The content can span multiple sensory modalities, including visual, auditory, haptic, somatosensory and olfactory.[1] AR can be defined as a system that incorporates three basic features: a combination of real and virtual worlds, real-time interaction, and accurate 3D registration of virtual and real objects.[2] The overlaid sensory information can be constructive (i.e. additive to the natural environment), or destructive (i.e. masking of the natural environment).[3] This experience is seamlessly interwoven with the physical world such that it is perceived as an immersive aspect of the real environment.[3] In this way, augmented reality alters one's ongoing perception of a real-world environment, whereas virtual reality completely replaces the user's real-world environment with a simulated one.[4][5]"

Breaking news: Companies come up with these definitions themselves to try and dupe people like you who are incapable of their own critical thinking.

"Whereas virtual reality completely replaces the user's real-world environment with a simulated one"

Which sums up this product perfectly. You're looking at a digital reproduction of a real environment, so it is simulated. Ergo VR not AR.

No, it doesn't, but when the entire industry says it is...it just makes you wrong.

The same industry that tries to sell you the products 🤣

EDIT: Just saw MKBHD's video on it, he also refers to it as a VR headset, maybe I'm not that clueless after all.

 

[steveballmer]

So what? No one has yet demonstrated even the potential for this to be adopted by the general population. “Derp! Apple!” isn’t really enough to sell it.

You're right. So what?

I mean what is Apple even thinking?

I'm not going to lie, having now felt the very real majesty of your zeitgeist defining industrial design chops, your Jedi like insight in to future consumer behaviour, your laser like communication skills and outside of the box thinking first hand on this thread, I am gobsmacked that Apple are moving forward with this device without consulting your massive noggin.

Let's be real here team, at the end of the day Apple are just some random company with a multi-trillion dollar net worth, that has sold billions of devices, to hundreds of millions of customers, that generate of yottabytes of usage data - and a pitiful $20billion+ annual R&D budget.

They just haven't thought this whole thing through properly.

My money's on you champ. I'm grateful that you're here.

Firm handshakes.

 

[nikaru]

When the VisionPro presentation started I started guessing the retail price as they went along.
I started out at about 500-ish . . . . . upped it to 1000 whet they started showing what it could do.
The when they showed the lenses I upped it to 2000, after that the M1 and R1 came . . . I was like ??3000??.
When they showed the pricetag I started laughing out loud . . . . . never going to happen . . . . . .
Perhaps in a few years it will be a viable consumer product price wise . . .
This is going to be a niche product with a too low user base to be of interest to mainstream developers.

Not really sure about that. There are hundreds of millions of users who have personal items (watches, bags, etc) costing more than that. There are hundreds of millions of people who have spent this kind money for a vacation, a bike or a specific furniture for their home, or for any non-essential thing that can cross your mind. Of course, it is not cheap, but it is definitely not out of reach for many many people, specifically in the US, western Europe and richer part of Asia. Obviously, this headset should be very very very nice to justify the buy and become very niche product. The issue is not the price, but the value for money ratio.

 

[Abazigal]

Another thing that got me thinking and not in a good way is this feature of 'eye tracking'. If this feature is as the person who trialed the headset says it is then there is the potential for it to be abused by advertisers, movie producers and TV producers because someone could be watching a movie or a TV program and their eye will wander over a strategically placed product placement and up pops an advert for that product all because the eyes happened to moved over it.

It would also suggest why Meta’s headset is doomed to fail, because Facebook will not be able to resist not using eye-tracking for advertising. While Apple can.

 

[downpour]

Strange replies from professionals. You have your hand and it doesn't really matter if it holds a mouse, a pen or just glides in space. The biggest advantage to 3D modelling like that is you can actually model and view in 3D space at the same time as opposed to 2D input of a mouse or pen while looking at a screen. You know like a real thing.

Surgery. Have you guys heard of remote surgery or doing something internally via video feed with help of a tiny camera inside a patient's body? With AR you could perform a surgery and view an x-rayed body. All patient's vital functions could be overlaid on their body for the surgeon to see.

C'mon, just have some imagination!

That's the thing, imagined use and practical reality rarely match up.

Apple also promised us a future where professionals could do all their work with a touchscreen interface on the iPad... That never happened. In reality most professionals only use iPads for basic tasks and still do everything with a mouse or Wacom tablet.

Working on a 3D model that is virtually in front of you might sound like it would be better, but it also means you have to move around to take advantage of the fact it is 3D. If you are just going to rotate the object anyway, you might as well do this on a 2D screen. Everything else you need also works better in 2D, menus, settings, typing code etc.

I guarantee you every professional that gets their hands on this will play with it, tell you it is fun... but then go back to doing their real work on a computer. Computers will always beat this kind of device because of speed, simplicity, ease of use and practicality.

As for medical applications a 3D realtime x-ray of a patient's body just isn't possible yet with or without Apple's goggles. No surgeon is going to want to put up with that thing on their head unless it can really offer something they can't just view on a screen anyway.

 

[Mimiron]

I see many here complain about pricing, but I think that's not the issue, many of us own Macbooks that we paid more than 3-4K for and essentially having a computer with infinite screens on your eyes is amazing. The first gen will be expensive but over the years, the tech will become cheaper and more common. I as a content creator am looking forward to working with glasses instead of using a mac.

 

[laptech]

In my opinion, Apple have built a AR/VR headset wanting to get into the field of AR/VR but they are going to let the users decide which direction the headset goes in, albeit gaming, education, movies or something else.

 

[ch1ptune]

Why are so people so negative? Like it, don't like it, but can't we agree that this is mind-blowing technology, that it's pretty incredible what Apple has achieved here, and that we generally live in very exciting times?

 

[dotnet]

Apple knows VR porn will be the main use for their goggles.

Which is why the “snorkel” is still under intense development and likely not ready for launch.

 

[MacWiz_007]

Why are so people so negative? Like it, don't like it, but can't we agree that this is mind-blowing technology, that it's pretty incredible what Apple has achieved here, and that we generally live in very exciting times?

This isn't mind blowing tech to me. I'd rather have physical devices then strap this ugly thing to my head for hours every day, while being tethered to the wall. No thanks.

 

[zach-coleman]

No it wasn’t yes their had been touch screen devices but they mostly needed styluses or had other shortcomings.

There have been vr headsets but they have all had crummy software, bad input methods, and been focused entirely on games. This is coming at the same category from a different angle with new technology and input methods, just like the iPhone. You even have a similar shift where the current oculus quest technically can register hand gestures but it barely works. Just like old crummy resistive touch screens.

 

[steveballmer]

 

[zach-coleman]

It would also suggest why Meta’s headset is doomed to fail, because Facebook will not be able to resist not using eye-tracking for advertising. While Apple can.

I saw an article about the quest 3 recently and it was like “unfortunately, it lacks the quest pro’s eye tracking!” and I felt like that was actually quite fortunate, considering Facebook…