Apple Vision Pro is 'Over-Engineered Devkit,' Says Former Oculus Head

[jo-1]

The phrase over engineered is a value judgment. In over four decades of engineering I have never heard anyone say “let’s over engineer the first version.” What this guy thinks of as over engineered is proper engineering. He probably believes that the emphasis these days on barely sufficient MVPs is what true engineering is about.

The whole discussions in forums are all about perceived values by people - and it's utterly wrong to do that IMHO. Value is a measure of personal intentions and how much a product or service fulfills that. In my world there is no space for over engineered products and services because it can never bee too good. Statements like that are false statements to use a perceived good comment as a bad one - on other words he tries to convince people that in case they buy this product they will waste money - which is of course not true - you always get what you pay for - sometimes you're just paying a litte more than you could have done with a different offering - but you always opt for the right level of engineering - for me this sounds like music in my ears.

If it is true that Apple Vision Pro 2 does not come before 2027, it makes sense to give the first version enough specs for years.

correct - my first thought as well - build everything in that you can and make use of the built in features when needed. There is hardly any chance to design a 2nd version before all engineering partner have found a completely new way to design it more effective - I like the approach they did and I hope I can order mine in Europe as soon as possible.

There's nothing wrong with "Over-Engineered". On the contrary, it means the hardware will be able to receive many updates and improvements for years to come. Features not used today, may be used tomorrow.
I don't see the point of this whining.

He is trying to phrase a good statement and turn it into bashing - but hey - it's a free online world where everyone is entitled to say what he/she/it likes or not - it just has no meaning in case we disagree. One man's single opinion ist nothing more than an opinion - I hear false opinions throughout the day ;-)

 

[svish]

Article was a good read. Really impressed with the number of sensors packed into the device.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I can see why he's saying it is over-engineered based on the examples he brought up. It probably would have been a better move for Apple to release a cheaper regular Vision non-pro model to test out the waters before going big on a Pro, they clearly went for gold.

That’s a very good point few seem to make. When Apple finally does release a non-Pro version, it’ll be a heavily feature stripped device in comparison to the Pro and many won’t bother because they’ve seen the more expensive and better version. The whole thing is backwards in my opinion.

 

[JLOAKS]

Absolutely fantastic read. Really puts into perspective the future AR/VR headsets are going and the design differences Apple and Meta/Oculus have chosen to make so far.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

I'm old enough to remember VGA as a huge progress ^^

Yeah, first in 4 and later in 16 brilliant colors!
Oh wait, that was CGA.

 

[thewill586]

This is not true. I've seen actual users that have indicated the experience varies because of how people are wearing it too. Essentially, if you place the headband too low or too high and aren't able to balance the AVP correctly on your face then of course you'll have discomfort. Some people have worn the thing hours at an end with no issues. Some changed out their light seal and the fit was much better and more comfortable. There are a lot of factors and these "reviewers" are only using them for a short span and not necessarily integrating it into their daily flow. Just another thought.

totally agree. based on my experience and others, it seems that there literally is not a one size fits all. head shapes are so different that customization is needed in the light seal and head bands. some will find the solo band comfortable while others will prefer the dual band. and for some, neither. linustech mentioned that avp should’ve had a swivel like the mq3 at the headset to decrease the face pressure.

 

[thewill586]

That isn't how Apple works.

yeah, a lot of these comments on here show 1. people who don’t understand hardware, 2. people who don’t understand software, 3. people who don’t understand business, and 4. people who don’t understand how Apple thinks.

 

[theskog]

He is not mistaking and it's not a bad thing, this all spatial computing revolution will take time and effort and the visionPro is the start.

You mean VR revolution.

 

[theskog]

The phrase over engineered is a value judgment. In over four decades of engineering I have never heard anyone say “let’s over engineer the first version.” What this guy thinks of as over engineered is proper engineering. He probably believes that the emphasis these days on barely sufficient MVPs is what true engineering is about.

“Four decades of engineering” doesn’t land you a front row seat in the keyboard warrior space.

 

[theskog]

Apple's first-generation Vision Pro headset is an "over-engineered devkit" that ships with more sensors than is necessary to deliver Apple's intended experience. That's according to Hugo Barra, former VP of Android and head of Meta's phased-out Oculus headset brand.

Barra, who oversaw the Oculus team in 2017 after it was acquired by Facebook, has published a surprisingly balanced in-depth analysis of Apple's spatial computing device, which is well worth a read. But a couple of reflections are worth highlighting.

Barra notes that Apple has packed Vision Pro with an impressive six tracking cameras, two passthrough cameras, two depth sensors, and four eye-tracking cameras. This "over-spec'ing," says Barra, is "characteristic of a v1 product where its creator wants to ensure it survives the hardest tests early users will no doubt want to put the product through."

Apple's decision to over-spec the Vision Pro, however, inevitably makes the headset weigh over 600 grams, and "makes it difficult for most people to wear it for more than 30-45 minutes at a time without suffering a lot of discomfort."
Bloomberg's Mark Gurman believes Apple is working on multiple new Apple Vision models, exploring both a low-cost version and a second-generation version. With the low-cost version, Gurman believes Apple will eliminate the EyeSight feature and the M-series chip, using more affordable components.

In another notable claim, Barra reckons Apple has made the Vision Pro experience intentionally blurry in order to hide pixelation artifacts and make graphics appear smoother, which he sees as a "clever move" by Apple.
By making the Vision Pro optics slightly out of focus, Apple has achieved "way smoother graphics across the board by hiding the screen door effect (which in practice means that you won't see pixelation artifacts)." However, Barra laments the Vision Pro's "significant motion blur and image quality issues that render passthrough mode unusable for longer periods."

Barra claims that it was this motion blur in passthrough mode that was one of the many reasons why he decided to return his Vision Pro. "It's just uncomfortable, leads to unnecessary eye strain, and really gets in the way of anyone using the headset for longer periods of time," he adds.

You can find Barra's lengthy write-up of his experience with Vision Pro over on his blog. Apple Vision Pro starts at $3,499 in the United States, with the device expected to launch in more countries later this year.

Article Link: Apple Vision Pro is 'Over-Engineered Devkit,' Says Former Oculus Head

Before I start, I’ll say I worked for Apple for six years (since most of the engineers in this forum prefer gloat over fact).

The problem with the Vision Pro is the same exact problem all VR headsets have: Majority of people don’t want to wear tech on their faces. The ideal of VR headsets (and no, it’s not “spatial computing”) comes from what tech should be according to engineers whom have watched too much sci-fi. Sorry, but most of us are not sci-fi space geeks.

And to anyone trying to justify the cost, your responses are no good to me, so scroll on. It’s too expensive, and most of the people justifying it are doing just that: justifying it. Doesn’t change the fact that it can hardly reach Apple’s iPhone base. Sales only account for .08% of just iPhone sales.

 

[SatanGirl]

We only have tech to barely assemble something like this. It’s at the stage of being **** and amazing at the same time. You really want to love it but ultimately it gathers dust because it is half a kilogram brick on your face.

Apple - gods of marketing barely made it slightly cool or maybe just not lame. If even them can barely pull it off then we just need to wait and hope for some substantial breakthroughs in miniaturization technology and optics.

Also I personally do not buy a headset to see my dirty room and annoying other people faces but to teleport to the virtual realms. It could as well as not have any cameras but I understand that it’s a different use case. FOV however is really important for me for that activity at least before direct brain computer full dive VR (hopefully without too realistic VR death)

 

[doelcm82]

That’s a very good point few seem to make. When Apple finally does release a non-Pro version, it’ll be a heavily feature stripped device in comparison to the Pro and many won’t bother because they’ve seen the more expensive and better version. The whole thing is backwards in my opinion.

When Apple "finally does release" a more consumer-priced version, it will have features and specs that put the current "Pro" version to shame. And the OS will have matured, and there will be a larger library of actually useful apps that will take advantage of spatial computing's promise.

Those who say they never buy version 1 of anything will be happy they waited.

They'll likely have an even better Pro version at the same time.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

When Apple "finally does release" a more consumer-priced version, it will have features and specs that put the current "Pro" version to shame. And the OS will have matured, and there will be a larger library of actually useful apps that will take advantage of spatial computing's promise.

Those who say they never buy version 1 of anything will be happy they waited.

They'll likely have an even better Pro version at the same time.

I hope you are right and Apple's past history of leaving software unfinished (Siri, 3D Touch) does not apply here.

It is a face wearable though and will perhaps be more niche, even in the longterm but hopefully it turns into a decent product.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It does give me a migraine. Thats the things with this spatial "revolution". Until they figure out a way to stop it from making my brain explode and giving me motion sickness... we will talk.

I think that, for some people, very possibly tens of millions, it’s never going to be physically comfortable, just like PWA screens on current phones. It’s not possible to make an electronic device for ALL users… at least not at a price that most would be wiling to pay.

 

[AeroEd]

You are firmly in the minority out there my friend

Prove it

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Prove it

I think it’s a safe bet that more people ‘don’t’ own AR/VR headsets, than those that do. Then you have to survey how many that do actually prefer using it to watching their TV and you’ve likely got an even smaller number again. Wild stab in the dark of course.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Prove it

Why? It’s manifestly obvious.

 

[camjocotem]

All it’s good for is watching movies and tv will always be better, so for 3500 it’s a joke, I have the quest 3 and barely use it

It does seem a bit of an expensive novelty.

 

[camjocotem]

I think it’s a safe bet that more people ‘don’t’ own AR/VR headsets, than those that do. Then you have to survey how many that do actually prefer using it to watching their TV and you’ve likely got an even smaller number again. Wild stab in the dark of course.

I own a quest 2, it's fun but is essentially a gimmick.
I honestly feel like an every day productivity thing would be better which is why I'm surprised Google glass didn't do well, I never got to own a pair myself though.

 

[camjocotem]

The fact you wear it with no discomfort doesn’t prove much, other than perhaps the fact you have a very strong neck or high tolerance to pain and discomfort. Pretty much every review I have seen points out the opposite and how heavy the unit is and how painful it is to wear it for more than a few minutes. A single data point saying otherwise it is just an outsider, not an evidence of anything.

Linus's face after wearing the AVP

 

[Macaholic868]

But would you really do that? Fight fatigue and lie to the world? For what?

Why not just return it? That’s what I’d do. Simple.

Of course the poster would return it. Haters are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to their hot takes on this device. If you don’t like it don’t buy one and if you think you’ll like it and find out that you don’t then take it back. No need to dedicate multiple posts bagging on people who like it. Who has time for that garbage? If you do then you have way too much time on your hands. I don’t spend minutes, let alone hours, hating on something other people like if it’s not my cup of tea. What’s the point?

 

[jo-1]

Of course the poster would return it. Haters are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to their hot takes on this device. If you don’t like it don’t buy one and if you think you’ll like it and find out that you don’t then take it back. No need to dedicate multiple posts bagging on people who like it. Who has time for that garbage? If you do then you have way too much time on your hands. I don’t spend minutes, let alone hours, hating on something other people like if it’s not my cup of tea. What’s the point?

Excellent take on this topic.

I really like to get informed and while having breakfast - like now - I read and comment.

I‘d never invest that previous time in hating something - I would just skip the topic and get to the things of real interest for me. Everything else is masochism or perhaps sadism. Which are both not so attractive characters to start with IMHO

 

[Cooe]

... I mean, he isn't wrong... 🤷‍♂️ That's literally pretty much EXACTLY what Vision Pro (and tbh the even more "dev-kity" Quest Pro that came before it as well) is!

Like Meta's flawed but conceptually similar Quest Pro before it, Vision Pro's basically just a device that almost SOLELY exists so that developers can start working on and making software using all the same cutting-edge features (aka finding out what works, as well as what does not through plenty of trial & error) of/for future headsets that actually WILL actually sell in major volumes!

For example, Quest Pro let developers start working with proper AR color stereo passthrough and mixed reality applications (even if in a very early ROUGH state, as is often but not always ypical of "dev-kits type devices") an entire YEAR before Quest 3 would hit the market and take those same features mainstream (& Quest 4 will likely do the same for QP's eye & face trackers), and almost two years before Vision Pro.

As much as both Meta & Apple have/will try and convince you, neither of these "super expensive glorified dev-kits openly sold to the public" devices were ACTUALLY designed for normal mainstream users or even business/enterprise users.

They were designed and released almost SOLELY for developers to have early access to VR/AR feature-sets that will eventually become commonplace and affordable in future products later on so that when said future products launch, they already have a solid library of software taking proper use of these headsets feature-sets. Meta & Apple never expected and don't expect either product to ever actually sell in volume.