I hope this hardware is objectively reviewed without looking through rose-colored glasses.
Just the Intelligence partthis just sounds like it was written by an AI
Just the Intelligence part. Argue the content if you have anything.
This is exactly how it will play out. Not everyone will buy a first gen anything, especially not something priced at $3K+. This is what is happening in the EV market right now, as automakers focus on the upper end of pricing. But Apple needs to start somewhere with so many new technologies. And I’m not sure that gen 4 or 5 is going to be at the point where it’s cheap or eliminates the “wearing a pair of ski goggles“ look.Don't see why you would buy this unless you have the money to burn, have more money than sense, or you want to develop for it.
Most people should just wait for the 2nd gen headset or even the 3rd or 4th. I'll maybe get one when we're on the 4th or 5th gen and they have a "cheap" SE version or something.
I hope this hardware is objectively reviewed without looking through rose-colored glasses.
Compared to the cost of few long-distance flights, the price (even of this first version) seems relatively modest - and since (I presume) one of its major functions will be to make you feel as if you’re in the room with people on the other side of the world, I can definitely imagine a market for it. Video calls have already become ubiquitous for and this feels like the next step. I guess we’ll have to wait for next spring to see if it really does live up to its promise, but I don’t think its potential for magically bringing people from far away together should be underestimated.
Can anyone explain to me how “feeling as if you are in the room” or seeing their bodies, arms and faces increases productivity in a meeting? When someone says something utterly stupid in the meeting, does that person being able to see me extend my middle finger at home really help? If you are in a virtual meeting and your focus is the tech you are using to conduct the meeting, productivity will tank. If you are the kind of person who can’t conduct take part and contribute to meetings (face to face or virtual) in a productive way, this tech won’t help you. And if you are savvy enough to take part in such meetings, the tech involved makes no difference. I‘ve participated in/conducted many truly productive meetings in person, via audio telecom, and via video telecom. I’ve also experienced an equal share of unproductive meetings across all mediums.The killer app will be to enable collaborative meetings where you actually feel you're in the room with others, and can see them there. e.g. you're sitting around a desk and you can see their bodies, arms and faces. And not stupid emoji faces or self-designed smiley faces.
That's the kind of thing freelancers would pay for and corporates would pay for alike - as a way to have the cost benefits of remote meetings with the benefits of _presence_.
Individuals / families will pay for this too to keep in touch.
Looks like we're at least 2 or 3 generations away from that.
I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic. Replace multiple shared family experiences with the ability to provide one member of the family with a “good seat”? This is supposed to be better?Think about all the savings with Vision Pro. For example a family of four now spending $3500 for decent seats to a professional sporting event can now just use the Vision Pro and have even better seats for every game! Just one of many life experience examples btw.
I hope I'm not the only one who feels like that photo of the headset screen/lights like that looks unintentionally terrifying
Can anyone explain to me how “feeling as if you are in the room” or seeing their bodies, arms and faces increases productivity in a meeting?
I think some people have suggested to cut the front eyes display, but I recall Apple execs saying it was core to the device to make it non-forcefully-isolating.All this "cheaper" speculation should call out what they want reduced/eliminated to make them cheaper... because that's the Apple way of getting to cheaper. Some key candidates for "cheaper":
Pick 1+ from the list and reduce the price accordingly. Those dreaming of steep price cuts are probably going to have to chop MOST of those, especially the first 4.
- Lower resolution
- Fewer cameras, likely reducing functionality
- Weaker SOC, likely resulting in slower responsiveness
- Cheaper build quality
- Less battery life/*battery sold separately
- No audio (bring your own)
Option 2: wait for first gen to be "OLD" and that usually offers a lower price when next gen or next-next gen is out. See old iDevices still for sale now. Of course, "we" can't seem to want anything less than "latest & greatest" but that is a known Apple path to cheaper.
Option 3: involve OPM (other people's money) to subsidize it. The cell phone subsidy is about $1000. Put a cellular modem in it, offer a virtual iPhone when using it and offer it at $1000 off with 2-3 year cellular contract? I can't think of many other comparable subsidy channels: some kind of educational offering (like a school providing a "free" laptop/iPad) and Apple gets their money from the "enhanced" tuition at that school? $3,500 direct is insane, but $3500 indirect among $40K/yr tuition is "what a deal!"?
I suspect too many are believing that all features & benefits will be preserved but Apple will just cut their margin. Best I know, that has NEVER happened... and is unlikely to start here.
Someone will refer back to the original iPhone, quickly getting a fairly steep price cut after fan "will pay anything" enthusiasm thinned out... but that's because Apple adopted the subsidy model- still getting paid in full but by AT&T... who recovered the subsidy and then some from the cell service fees sold to those iPhone buyers.
That’s because a camera is a live feed of your current look and environment. A Persona can be created when you look your “best” - clean shaven, makeup, etc. and that’s how you’ll look for every meeting / FaceTime. Your room / office / etc won’t be on camera either, so it’s just less distracting and more focused than FaceTime and typical video chats.In my online meetings (and I have several every week), about 4/5 of the attendees have their cameras turned off. Most don't want to be virtually present.
Why should I buy a device that controls my whole view? Imagine what that does with the "focus muscles" in your eye. Even if that image looks like 3D, your eyes will always focus at exactly the same distance while your are wearing it. That is very unhealthy.
I think some people have suggested to cut the front eyes display, but I recall Apple execs saying it was core to the device to make it non-forcefully-isolating.
Why do you say it’s looking like that may be the case? I heard in some interview of Apple execs that the eye display is core to the device.Pretty much everyone, even in the VR community, do not like the Eye display and want it cut for the consumer model, and it's looking like that may very well be the case.
I don’t think that’s correct. I’ve used Oculus and my eyes seem to have varying focus like real space. Regular 2D screens do cause you to have fixed focus though, which is why frequent breaks are recommended.Even if that image looks like 3D, your eyes will always focus at exactly the same distance while your are wearing it.
The internet has done such amazing things brought humanity out of the dark. There’s absolutely no problems that the internet and smartphones caused. Everything has been amazing. We are an enlightened species now. Yes I can’t wait to be a lonely goggles wearing anti social internet person with VR scars all over my face and messed up hair.
It has the one killer feature that the Quest 3 doesn't have, usable passthrough and MR. I own a Quest 3 as well and it is fine for VR gaming, but it sucks for MR. The hand gestures are inaccurate and require repeated retries and result in a lot of misclicks, the UI is confusing (Windows can't be resized unless they are not in the "tablet" mode...and then they keep their size when brought back forward...) and the resolution of the displays just isn't high enough to use for productivity tasks on a regular basis. Combine that with wobbly/noisy passthrough cameras (Only 2 4MP cameras) and you get a really poor MR experience. Also connecting to computers is just a little too much setup work, and each platform has it's tradeoffs (Immersed, Remote Display, Virtual Desktop, Workrooms - I've used them all and there is no clear winner, each one has distinct negatives about it.)what can u actually do on it, it has no killer feature, I had the quest 3 for 2 weeks was fun the first few days but then just didnt need it. these are gimmicks and wont take off
Per the rest of my response that you conveniently cut out, this “connection” you speak of has nothing to do with how productive a meeting ultimately is. Care to elaborate about the problems AR can address/solve?That's about the notion of connection with other collaborators. Something that humans naturally like.
However, that's a tiny aspect when considering what AR is really about and the problems it can address/solve.
Why do you say it’s looking like that may be the case? I heard in some interview of Apple execs that the eye display is core to the device.
I'm not sure if its a life experience if you are advocating using a headset in place of actual real life experiences. If you are watching sport through a headset it will never replicate being there in person.Think about all the savings with Vision Pro. For example a family of four now spending $3500 for decent seats to a professional sporting event can now just use the Vision Pro and have even better seats for every game! Just one of many life experience examples btw.