Apple Vision Pro Could Take Four Generations to Reach 'Ideal Form'

[Surf Monkey]

It's not abnormal for a new Apple product to take some time to find its purpose, and that's actually just fine. The Apple Watch also did not really have a killer app or a clear purpose in general in its first 2014-2015 iteration, when it was very much fashion-oriented. Only with subsequent generations did it become a fitness- and sports-focused companion to the iPhone. I have no doubt that the price will come down, the battery duration will increase, and that the capabilities of visionOS, and Vision Pro apps will increase. Remember, this device is like the original iPhone in 2007: a high-qualityu product with interesting innovations upon existing offers, but comparatively limited in terms of features. It took the iPhone two years to gain cut, copy, and paste support (iPhone OS 3, 2009), three to gain limited multitasking and background processen (iOS 4, 2010), and seven to have proper interaction and sharing between apps (iOS 8, 2014). Give it some time, and this product will find its niche.

Right. And again, none of those software features required reducing be size of iPhone by 90%.

 

[code-m]

The iPad could have been a masterpiece if it ran Mac OS. It has 20 versions out there and still it's just a large iPhone. I use mine for flying and that's about it. Also run a pretty big YouTube review channel and not one time, ever, would I have even considered doing real music production or film editing on the iPad over my MacBook Pro. People say "well if you put macOS on iPad it'll run into Mac sales....so WHAT? IT GOES IN THE SAME POCKET, who cares, let it.
The iPad is, has been and always will be held back from any full potential as long as it runs a glorified iPhone OS. I don't even see a difference between just having a iPad Air vs a pro. Ah, yes, the camera ...which is still **** on both...

What’s interesting is that the late Steve Jobs once mentioned that the tablet OS and apps on Android is just a blown up version of the phone OS and iPad is not. While iPad OS and apps a marginally better than Android on a tablet the opportunity has still not been realized with iPadOS. File management is grossly lacking for a productivity tool that Apple keeps trying to align this product toward with keyboards and extended desktop mode but at present and since it inception it has been the best entertainment device minus OLED.

 

[code-m]

Like iphone 4...app store, enough performance, good form and so on..

Better question what is a generation when talking AVP? For iPhone it’s annually and for iPad it’s 1-2 years.

 

[Surf Monkey]

What’s interesting is that the late Steve Jobs once mentioned that the tablet OS and apps on Android is just a blown up version of the phone OS and iPad is not. While iPad OS and apps a marginally better than Android on a tablet the opportunity has still not been realized with iPadOS. File management is grossly lacking for a productivity tool that Apple keeps trying to align this product toward with keyboards and extended desktop mode but at present and since it inception it has been the best entertainment device minus OLED.

The ideal was a kind of interface and functional convergence where apps would be more or less identical across desktop, laptop and tablet. But Apple appears to have chosen to make iOS their supreme platform. If anything I imagine Apple would be happy to make MacOS into a version of iOS, not the other way around.

 

[code-m]

The ideal was a kind of interface and functional convergence where apps would be more or less identical across desktop, laptop and tablet. But Apple appears to have chosen to make iOS their supreme platform. If anything I imagine Apple would be happy to make MacOS into a version of iOS, not the other way around.

It has seems like it from the last few version of macOS. MaciOS

 

[Jim Lahey]

It continues to come down to the form factor. It seems highly unlikely that people generally want to wear a computer on their faces. At the moment there is no compelling reason to do it and a lot of compelling reasons not to.

Many of the use cases Apple has shown are questionable at best. For example, video conferencing with Vision. It seems like a cool idea… for the person wearing the Vision. But for everyone else? Weird “personas,” which get more creepy and problematic the more realistic they look. While Apple has clearly dumped a ton of R&D into trying to overcome this limitation it’s obvious that the problem remains, begging the question: is this a valid use case for the device when you can just use a simple web cam and not wear a face computer while the device creates an on the fly deep fake of your face?

And don’t even get me started on the potential health hazards of wearing a face hugger festooned with wireless antennas. It was once common knowledge that overexposure to RF radiation might not be a great idea, but with the advent of Bluetooth everything we somehow forgot. And now it’s ok to wear a Wi-Fi router on your head? Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, but I for one won’t be taking that chance.

 

[Realityck]

But Apple appears to have chosen to make iOS their supreme platform

The iOS variations are all tailored to the usage and limitations of the product device. Pick iPhone, iPad, Apple TV 4K, or Vision Pro. They are all limited examples of what UNIX is capable of. If Apple wants to think out of the box, then start to use MacOS variations with its more capable GUIs, multitasking, memory management, and applications. They are still trying to force their App Store closed eco system on all of us, that is precisely why they highlight IOS deviations as much as they can over the obvious. All of us could see how they could evolve in other ways. Yes you could have a tablet, acting as a phone, running MacOS with 3D glasses connected to the device, with hours of run time.

 

[Samplasion]

Apple has had "mixed results" in attempting to position the iPad as more of a Mac replacement, Gurman says

iPad users are very clear about their needs, but Apple doesn't want to listen.

 

[klasma]

This would greatly future proof the Vision Pro.

That’s not in Apple’s interest though. Just like they made storage and memory upgrades impossible on the Mac.

 

[code-m]

And don’t even get me started on the potential health hazards of wearing a face hugger festooned with wireless antennas. It was once common knowledge that overexposure to RF radiation might not be a great idea, but with the advent of Bluetooth everything we somehow forgot. And now it’s ok to wear a Wi-Fi router on your head? Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, but I for one won’t be taking that chance.

Apple’s one had says health and on the other hand yeah don’t worry about it as we don’t have conclusive studies and evidence but why worry about it when that train is irreversible in the future.

The main computer and antennas should have been housed in an iPhone sized package. An Ultra High Bandwidth data transport could have been created if Thunderbolt 4 was not enough but hey health safety against entertainment.

 

[Realityck]

That’s not in Apple’s interest though. Just like they made storage and memory upgrades impossible on the Mac.

Onboard SSD/RAM has several advantages as you know, eliminate much larger slots, physical damage, lower power consumption. Combine with ARM SoC's and you can offer way more CCA size reduction. Back in 2012 they were already doing that for the MBP (example 2012 retina 15" MBP). Here we are in 2024, can anyone really argue that isn't a super advantage over then older upgradable products that are noticeable larger? On the flips side yes Apple charges a bit too much as a penalty for adding storage/RAM.

 

[newyorksole]

Better question what is a generation when taking AVP? For iPhone it’s annually and for iPad it’s 1-2 years.

I do wonder this. I imagine it’ll be like 2 or 3 years. think they’ll treat it like AirPods and the Mac Pro.

 

[klasma]

For example, video conferencing with Vision. It seems like a cool idea… for the person wearing the Vision. But for everyone else? Weird “personas,” which get more creepy and problematic the more realistic they look. While Apple has clearly dumped a ton of R&D into trying to overcome this limitation it’s obvious that the problem remains, begging the question: is this a valid use case for the device when you can just use a simple web cam and not wear a face computer while the device creates an on the fly deep fake of your face?

They didn’t make the AVP for videoconferencing, but (at least in their minds) it’s difficult to sell “spacial computing” if you have to take the headset off for video calls, given that videoconferencing has become ubiquitous in the workplace. There may also be the factor that when you take it off for a video call, people would see the impressions the headset left on you face, as well as your messed-up hair.

They are trying to conceal or work around an inherent flaw of the device that otherwise would be obvious.

 

[tyranne201]

i don't feel that much hype for this product. it feels like in 3 years, nobody will be talking about it. too expensive, too heavy, poor battery.

 

[Realityck]

They didn’t make the AVP for videoconferencing, but (at least in their minds) it’s difficult to sell “spacial computing” if you have to take the headset off for video calls, given that videoconferencing has become ubiquitous in the workplace. There may also be the factor that when you take it off for a video call, people would see the impressions the headset left on you face, as well as your messed-up hair.

They are trying to conceal or work around an inherent flaw of the device that otherwise would be obvious.

The whole deal with the rendered likeness of your face, for FaceTime, and showing your eyes when close to a person, reflects how they are trying to work around this situation where the AVP de-humanizes a person who uses it. For a consumer its really the achilles heal of the AVP. Once you start to like and wear it you are even more useless to be around in a work environment. You might as well work from home.

 

[contacos]

The main problem will forever remain for me: I just don’t like something in my face. I hardly even use my glasses and I really should 🙃

 

[delsoul]

It's always "Could", never "will".

 

[Surf Monkey]

They didn’t make the AVP for videoconferencing, but (at least in their minds) it’s difficult to sell “spacial computing” if you have to take the headset off for video calls, given that videoconferencing has become ubiquitous in the workplace. There may also be the factor that when you take it off for a video call, people would see the impressions the headset left on you face, as well as your messed-up hair.

They are trying to conceal or work around an inherent flaw of the device that otherwise would be obvious.

Well, you’re welcome to come up with rationalizations but the thing is, Apple only showed a few specific use cases and video conferencing was one they really placed a lot of emphasis on.

But this is just one example. The issue is that the use cases Apple has shown are at best generally more easily accomplished by existing means and at worst doubtful as valid use cases at all, as in video conferencing.

The device may find an audience. Maybe. But the odds are heavily stacked against it.

 

[G5isAlive]

Contacts will require very little power so the natural body heat generated off our eyes might be enough to power it. Tiny nano batteries could also power contacts for hours or even days. By the time we approach that tech level, there will tech in place that we cannot even imagine right now so I'm not worried.

Apple's secret has always been their conservative view of technology. They never rush to market because they know it will always take longer to perfect an experience than everyone else estimates, including Apple themselves.

We will see a spinoff of AVP in about 5 years but it will be in the form of smaller glasses and use a completely different display technology closer to AR than the current MR or VR of AVP. If they can manufacture a large portion of the glasses from solid state battery, it can take on any shape and literally be the entire frames of the glasses. Then with the right antenna placement you can do all the computing off device and transmit wirelessly. Then all you need to add is the display technology in or just above the lenses. Or they could compute on device for less latency but more weight and heat and less battery life. There are a few ways to go here so it will be exciting to see what they pick and what works. But rest assured, Apple will not do it first, but they have the best chance of doing it best.

So creating a photon takes a finite amount of energy. It doesnt miniaturize. And that energy will always take more than the heat of your eyes, and any battery that can contain that amount of energy you dont want sitting on your eyes.

so yes, i think the glasses idea will work, have my doubts about contacts. Ever.

 

[klasma]

And don’t even get me started on the potential health hazards of wearing a face hugger festooned with wireless antennas. It was once common knowledge that overexposure to RF radiation might not be a great idea, but with the advent of Bluetooth everything we somehow forgot. And now it’s ok to wear a Wi-Fi router on your head? Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, but I for one won’t be taking that chance.

This is regulated by the FCC and similar organizations in other countries. RF radiation is like light, just with longer wavelength, and thus lower energy (as opposed to, say, UV or X-ray radiation, which are higher-energy and indeed dangerous). There are considered-safe limits on the energy absorbed per kg of body mass, usually in the low single-digit Watt per kg. Wifi is generally well below 1 Watt, and Bluetooth much lower (below 0.01 Watt I believe). Just based on those low amounts of energy, it seems quite unlikely that there should be any detrimental effect. And there was never any “common knowledge” to the contrary.

 

[MAlbi]

Cooling fan out, capacitor in. Enable battery hot swap. Make “low spec” vision pro fanless. Heavy, well, then put everything into backpak and wear display. From what i read vision pro works fine as it is. Plus attracts attention. Anything else I am missing ? Sigh.

 

[klasma]

Onboard SSD/RAM has several advantages as you know, eliminate much larger slots, physical damage, lower power consumption. Combine with ARM SoC's and you can offer way more CCA size reduction. Back in 2012 they were already doing that for the MBP (example 2012 retina 15" MBP). Here we are in 2024, can anyone really argue that isn't a super advantage over then older upgradable products that are noticeable larger? On the flips side yes Apple charges a bit too much as a penalty for adding storage/RAM.

I don’t think it would be impossible to accommodate both. But it’s not in Apple’s interest, so they don’t even care to try.

 

[G5isAlive]

This tweet makes no sense to me. How many people are regularly taking long flights but can’t afford business class? And if they can’t afford business class Ben’s suggestion is spending $4K for VR googles to watch movies in economy?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1756505217913467324

soooo not all companies pay for business class for cross country flights of 5 hours, and only start to consider it for over seas flights. So people aren’t actually paying either way. But before I was a VP i routinely flew 6 or 8 times a year in economy plus and had the money for something like this, and would have bought it then. Point is, even if one is paying out of pocket, business class often is 3000 or more a flight, so 8 flights, thats 24k, whereas in economy that would likely be closer to 6k, so thats a 18 k difference. That’s not chump change, for sitting on your butt. So yeah that person could see spending 4K to upgrade that experience and more.

 

[klasma]

Well, you’re welcome to come up with rationalizations but the thing is, Apple only showed a few specific use cases and video conferencing was one they really placed a lot of emphasis on.

But this is just one example. The issue is that the use cases Apple has shown are at best generally more easily accomplished by existing means and at worst doubtful as valid use cases at all, as in video conferencing.

The device may find an audience. Maybe. But the odds are heavily stacked against it.

I agree. But I also think it’s obvious that they are showing off the “Personas” NOT to say “and that’s why you want to wear a headset”, but to say “and you can still do video calls despite wearing a headset”, as a distinguishing feature from other headsets.

 

[DeepWebinar]

thinking this thing is going to be a pair of glasses one day is beyond wishful thinking. we’re not in the late 00’s to early 10’s anymore, this thing isn’t going to get half as small and twice as fast year over year. the physical limitations are different now. this thing is always going to be a bulky, expensive pair of goggles until they figure out a different implementation that makes more sense than this mess.