It is not with screens that people will become blind. moreover, specialists do not have enough perspective to know whether virtual reality has harmful effects or not. nor do I think the vast majority of humanity will go blind. but to avoid as many unwanted effects as possible, I set the brightness to minimum.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Vision Pro Launches in UK, Canada, France, Germany, and Australia
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That entire response boils down to:
AVP is better than a Mac at 3D content, AR, and VR.
I agree.
But you keep bringing up “Spatial Computing” (as does Apple). What is it? How does it make my work or life better?
Of course there's more than "just" (whatever limited example you choose as the only thing you'll acknowledge)!
Big application windows all around you is a part of it, because the easiest way to port an existing app to Vision OS is to bring it over unchanged, and show it in a big (resizable) application window. It's like having six or twelve 20-inch iPads available, when you need them.
The ability to run most iPad and iOS apps in these windows as is made a huge library of Apps available at launch. You wouldn't buy an AVP because of those apps, any more than you'd have bought an OG iPad because it could run most iPhone apps. But having those apps available made the iPad more useful than it would be if it could only run dedicated iPad apps. The same goes for the AVP.
Recently I went through some scanned 3D photographs that I took 30 or so years ago. Wearing the AVP headset, I used a program on my Mac to align them so they'd look good in 3D and to brighten and fix a few blemishes from the old negatives. I saved the results in a cloud drive. Then, using an iPad app running on my Vision Pro, I converted the side-by-side images into spatial photos and saved them into my photo library. I could immediately see them in 3D using the native photos app. If there were flaws, such as a blemish that showed up in one eye and not the other, I could immediately fix it in the still-running photo editor on the Mac, save it again, convert it and import it into Photos, then repeat if needed until I was satisfied with the result.
I could have done the same thing using the Mac to edit and align, and then picking up the Mac to convert to spatial and add to photos, and then putting on the headset to view the results. Then I'd have to take off the headset if I needed to tweak anything on the photo editor on the Mac.
I hadn't seen those pictures in 3D in a very long time, and I am glad to have them in a format that lets me view them easily.
Don’t even attempt to reason with people who have nothing better to do with their lives than complain incessantly like 5 year olds about a product they don’t own, don’t have to buy and haven’t used. It’s a waste of your time.
You’d be better served posting in the AVP forum where your post will be read by people who can appreciate a use case like this.
“Spacial Computing” is a marketing term for the OS. Is it more private? It depends on how you use your MacBook, Macintosh, iPad and or iPhone. Personally I don’t see the need to wear a screen on my face just to make sure no one looks over my shoulder, and having someone look over your shoulder isn’t really a significant problem that needs to be solved, is it?
As a portable screen it really isn’t doing more than MacOS is. A flat screen is a flat screen no matter how close or far away from your eyes it is.
3D? Is that a genuinely useful and productive element? In the entertainment sector 3D has consistently failed over the course of more than 70 years.
A big virtual 2D screen isn’t a functional advantage over MacOS. The portability of it is largely mitigated by the fact that you have to wear the hardware on your head.
You’re describing the hardware and software. Not a task you can accomplish with it that you can’t with a Mac or other Apple hardware. Sorry but that doesn’t answer the question I asked.
Maybe that someone might really want one and can spend their money on what ever they want. But thanks for your opinion.
Bingo. That’s the question we’re trying to get an answer to. What can Vision do that other Mac hardware can’t. Showing me a virtual 2D screen isn’t accomplishing anything unique. It’s just emulating the Mac. The argument is like saying “iPad is revolutionary because it can run iPhone apps bigger!”
I'm not "bringing up" spatial computing is if it's something different than 3D content, AR and VR. It's a term that comprises all of those things. That's why I said the thing the AVP does better than a Mac is spatial computing.
I would say that Spatial computing is still in its infancy, but I saw its infancy 30+ years ago, and it's come a very long way since then. But there's still a long way to go. Spatial computing is when you can look at a light switch or thermostat or at a light fixture itself, and then turn it on or off or adjust setting with a simple hand gesture. Spatial computing is where the path to walk or drive to someplace is visible on the road in front of you. Spatial computing is where the "Jesus Saves" billboard gets replaced by something targeted to you based on some casual comment you made ten minutes ago.
How does spatial computing make your life or work better? I described in a different comment a project I was able to complete more easily because I was able to do the three tasks (one on my Mac, one using an iPad app, and one using a native Vision OS app) all from within the Vision Pro environment. Because it involved 3D content, part of it was always going to be on the Vision Pro, but being able to run three types of apps side by side made it easier.
Pretty sure you can run three kinds of apps side by side on just about every single Apple computing device made since the mid 1990s.
As above. Most were purchased at the initial release. If there were going to be above average returns it would have happened then.
Selling at ~$1500 would be selling at a loss. Cost of materials alone is around $1600, not including billions in development costs. At $3500 there might not be any profit at all.
If you buy 2nd hand and use glasses you just order the Zeiss lenses from Apples' website.
Lots of things. A 10 foot screen being just one.
Not at all. There are a lot of good apps in other categories. Education, Travel, meditation, Sports, meditation, etc.
Sir David Attenborough has some excellent educational titles. Some very good sports apps (PGA golf). Once they figure out how to broadcast sports it will be much cheaper than a ringside seat. For those who can't travel there are some astounding immersive travel videos.
As above. Entertainment is just one of its many uses.
Take a look at the still small list of VP apps. Most wouldn't be useful at all on other Mac hardware.
Spend some time with it and you will see that there is absolutely no comparison.
How did you have a demo in a UK store earlier this week when demos only began today?
Lots of things… yet you didn’t even mention a single one. A 10 foot 2D virtual screen isn’t an innovation that lets you do something you can’t with other hardware. Giant 2D monitors exist. The question is what can you DO with that. What UTILITY does a giant virtual monitor have that you can’t achieve by doing simple things like moving closer to your existing screen? Do you actually NEED that much real estate?
The service or the hardware? The sole price loss leader approaches Apple has done is SERVICES like iTunes, not their DEVICES–especially their Mac prosumer devices (iPad Pro, Macbook Pro, Pro Display XDR, Mac Studio, Mac Studio, and so on).
Even the Apple TV is known to sell at worst at cost. Regardless, it's not a prosumer device–what can you produce with a Apple TV?
Sure. Apple doesn’t do loss leaders. Take the win. It really doesn’t matter that much to me.
New app releases for Apple Vision Pro have fallen dramatically since launch
Apple struggles to attract content from developers for its $3,500 headset.
arstechnica.com
I have a Quest 1-3, and and yes… The Quest 3 does a LOT of what the Apple Vision Pro can do. It’s a great device. But I can do it at a substandard quality. It’s like headphones or speakers or cars or anything else. You can get a cheap car like a low end Kia that will get you from point to be relatively decently. Or you can spend a lot of money to get $100,000 Mercedes that will get you there in a lot more comfort and quality. Does that make Mercedes and their customers a bunch of morons? No.
Apple makes many mass market products that are on the mid to higher end of things, but they also make extremely expensive things that are out of the reach of a lot of people. They have always done this; this is not new.
From the Apple Lisa to the Apple IIgS where an Apple IIC was a lot of cheaper… and on and on this is not surprising. High end tech costs a lot. Why is everyone so mad? That’s life. I wish I didn’t have to fly coach either but that doesn’t mean that Gulfstream sucks and the owner is an idiot.
Apple should be applauded to have the guts to try to move the technology forward, and to give those who can’t afford it an amazing experience. There are very few companies with the money and ability to sustain a loss to move the tech ahead (Apple, Meta). You have to start somewhere. Meta and Apple are just approaching the market from two different angles.
This is capitalism. You create something that is top-of-the-line… Example, Apple Lisa… And then you make something that people can “afford” like the Macintosh (really iMac before it took off) once the tech matures.
And no one is saying “spatial computing” is the future of all computing. It’s just another option to become more immersed or present with tech. People still use disposable film cameras long after digital. There are always many modes for tech to live and prosper in. An Apple Watch is a little iPhone for little apps. Meta raybans are a cut down camera and AI assistant in a nice pair of sunglasses. They are all additive tech.
Are there limits to Vr as a tech? Absolutely. There’s friction etc. it’s not social. There are also limits to every technology. That’s why multiple technologies exist!
Eventually the tech trickles down, gets cheaper, and perhaps you get it all collated in a once-in-a-generation life changer like the modern smartphone. That tech took 20+ years to come together.
Who knows if AVP will eventually lead to something better. But to crap all over it because it’s not immediately obvious what its value is? That’s at best shortsighted.
If you don’t want it, don’t buy it. Stop the madness and go for a walk. That reality is free.
Apple makes many mass market products that are on the mid to higher end of things, but they also make extremely expensive things that are out of the reach of a lot of people. They have always done this; this is not new.
From the Apple Lisa to the Apple IIgS where an Apple IIC was a lot of cheaper… and on and on this is not surprising. High end tech costs a lot. Why is everyone so mad? That’s life. I wish I didn’t have to fly coach either but that doesn’t mean that Gulfstream sucks and the owner is an idiot.
Apple should be applauded to have the guts to try to move the technology forward, and to give those who can’t afford it an amazing experience. There are very few companies with the money and ability to sustain a loss to move the tech ahead (Apple, Meta). You have to start somewhere. Meta and Apple are just approaching the market from two different angles.
This is capitalism. You create something that is top-of-the-line… Example, Apple Lisa… And then you make something that people can “afford” like the Macintosh (really iMac before it took off) once the tech matures.
And no one is saying “spatial computing” is the future of all computing. It’s just another option to become more immersed or present with tech. People still use disposable film cameras long after digital. There are always many modes for tech to live and prosper in. An Apple Watch is a little iPhone for little apps. Meta raybans are a cut down camera and AI assistant in a nice pair of sunglasses. They are all additive tech.
Are there limits to Vr as a tech? Absolutely. There’s friction etc. it’s not social. There are also limits to every technology. That’s why multiple technologies exist!
Eventually the tech trickles down, gets cheaper, and perhaps you get it all collated in a once-in-a-generation life changer like the modern smartphone. That tech took 20+ years to come together.
Who knows if AVP will eventually lead to something better. But to crap all over it because it’s not immediately obvious what its value is? That’s at best shortsighted.
If you don’t want it, don’t buy it. Stop the madness and go for a walk. That reality is free.
Last edited by a moderator:
New app releases for Apple Vision Pro have fallen dramatically since launch
Apple struggles to attract content from developers for its $3,500 headset.
It’s fascinating to read the desperation in the various quotes they got from VR content producers. To paraphrase - “We really REALLY need this to work! Therefore we’re going to just tell you about how great a success it is, even in light of all the negatives holding it back.” Wishful thinking combined with fight or flight survival response.
New app releases for Apple Vision Pro have fallen dramatically since launch
Apple struggles to attract content from developers for its $3,500 headset.
It debunks your false statement on how Apple conducts its hardware business for a product that very much will not follow such model just like how Apple handles several device categories with prosumer products at the top.
Apple merely correctly launched a prosumer headset first, not unlike prosumer GPUs that come out first that supports in the long term far cheaper and mainstream products.
…No. There is literally no prosumer standalone headset that meets well established prosumer baselines creatives and other prosumers want and have used on non-VR hardware for some time. Other spatial computing headsets don't even have HDR.
Apple is meeting an unmet need. Of course they're happy. Even without the Pro Vision's expected non-mainstream success it helps the entire spatial computing industry making the components available at a scale they never were available before.
Yes, I read your 3d workflow description. You were creating 3d content (photos) and visualizing them in 3d is better than on a 2d screen. Everyone who has ever created 3d content would agree that is better, and I don’t think anyone here would argue otherwise for that function. But at the end of the day it was just creating 3d content, which has been going on for far longer than the term “spatial computing” has been in use.
The rest of your response points to a common point of contention in these forum AVP discussions.
- Apple is selling the AVP. Today.
- I can walk into an Apple Store and buy one. Today.
- If I do, my Apple Card incurs a charge. Today.
As of today, the AVP looks like a solution in search of a problem to a lot of people. Simple as that.