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 Reviews and Unboxing Videos Shared Ahead of Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, it’s not a good look for a new category, flagship device.
Lends credence to those claims that the AVP was rushed out.
Last edited:
I quite liked that WSJ review: fun but balanced. What jumped out at me was not the white balance being off, but the fact that she couldn’t see how much ground pepper she’d dispensed into the pan. Ground pepper’s really not hard to see with the naked eye - so the fact that she couldn’t see it raises concern about the resolution of AVP. I suppose you could grind the pepper into the palm of your hand - which is what I sometimes do when quantity is important. Hopefully it would then be visible, but it does highlight a limitation.
White balance is less of a concern to me since your brain will correct for it after a few minutes. It does that continually anyway for things like color tinted sunglasses or the wildly different color temperatures experienced as you move between outdoors and indoors (daylight vs incandescent) or even between rooms with different light sources.
Because talking to a computer isn’t always appropriate or preferable?
I still find this round of opinions more accurate and acceptable then the very first ones around the time of pre orders. Tom’s Guide Mark had a great one line, it revolutionary but it’s a revolution in progress which clearly implies that it’s a great first step but definitely not for most people. Lots of legit pro’s and cons pointed out, that is great to understand. The base price when you find out what you really spend to be nicely equipped is obscene of course. But the biggest worry is trade in value in 2 years time IMHO.
Last edited:
Yeah, but lots of people here will argue until they’re blue in the face that a camera providing a live video feed of the environment around you to a screen is the exact same thing as experiencing reality directly with your eyes. That argument has been lobbed at me over and over and over again. It’s complete and total BS, but there is no shortage of people here who actually believe it.
This thing was released too early I think.
Should have left the bread in the oven another year or two
Should have left the bread in the oven another year or two
I'd love to see a couple of examples of someone saying seeing something through a camera feed is exactly the same as seeing it directly with your eyes.
Like?
I have a girlfriend, but you can’t meet her because she lives in Canada.
Yep. I would be excited by normal glasses that could recognize people (I’m terrible with names), perform language translations, display directions, display shopping lists from my Mac, show alerts like the watch does, etc. But $4K to sweatily watch movies next to a wall outlet? Nah.
Apple favors AR over VR, but turned around and built VR hardware.
I would have made it a display extension to a high end iPhone, sort of like CarPlay, keeping the computer and most of the battery in my pocket. Glasses would have a camera and head-up projector.
There are lots of them across dozens of threads. But I’m not surprised that people will deny it now.
How? Unless you’re talking about the viewfinder, in which case, yeah, it’s literally looking through the lens via some mirrors. Not really comparable to what passthrough on the Vision Pro is doing though.
It's BS for sure, but I wouldn't argue that there's no shortage of people who believe it. There are a few very loud cheerleaders gulping the Kool-Aid but they are a small minority on these (and other) forums. From everything I've read so far, the vast majority of people are pretty realistic about Vision Pro. Sure, it's pretty amazing, but it's also quite problematic and that latter fact is only lost on a very very small number of true believers.
Great so just link to a single example if there’s so many. I’m curious who could say that seeing the world through a camera feed is just as good as seeing it through your eyes directly.
Maybe. At some point, you need to release a product and start building momentum. While the hardware isn't perfect, it does seem ready for release.
The problem I see is that Apple has failed to effectively communicate use cases. They should have developed some killer app experience to get people excited about the potential of "spatial computing" (a super douchey term that I hope dies a quick death). Show me Keynote in 3D, surrounded by my slides, grabbing hold of them and moving them around, exploding them into component objects and rearranging them, etc.
In my opinion, there's no way Vision Pro replaces a computer (Mac, iPad, iPhone) for the vast majority of customers. It's another arrow in the Apple quiver and it excels at certain tasks (to be determined). There are plenty of things I do on my Mac that I loathe having to do on my iPad or iPhone, and vice-versa. Each device has unique strengths and weaknesses, but they all work quite well together.
How does Vision Pro fit into that picture? In my opinion, that's what Apple has failed to communicate effectively. More time in the oven would have allowed them develop some truly compelling software experiences versus the predictable and obvious low hanging fruit we've seen thus far. It's just not exciting.
But as you pointed out, only the hardware is really “ready” …
Everyone do what you want, but I can’t think of a remotely good reason to drop $3500 on this thing.
The Quest line has a far better story, software library and existing usage cases… for 1/10 the price.
A TENTH… it’s nuts how much Apple is trying to charge here…even for Apple
ZDNet had an article the day before this thread started where Jason Hiner, Editor in Chief made the following points.
=======
i've used the Apple Vision Pro, I've spent plenty of time with the Meta Quest 3, and I've tried most of the other XR headsets and smartglasses available. I've talked to XR developers about the state of the industry and their plans for the future. And I'd recommend most people should not buy an Apple Vision Pro -- unless you're planning to develop an app for it or you need to evaluate it for use in your organization or industry.
That's my buying advice. And I don't want to bury the lead here.
Until Apple comes out with a $1,500 to $2,000 headset aimed at a broader audience and available in larger quantities, it's not worth considering a purchase just to use it for entertainment, video calls, or virtual monitors. Vision Pro will need a year or two for developers to come up with a lot more useful apps and experiences and for major partners like YouTube, Netflix, and Spotify to get interested enough to bring their content to the platform.
If you already ordered a Vision Pro and you have buyer's remorse, don't worry. All Apple products have a two-week return policy. You can try it for a week or two and put my buying advice to the test, get a taste of the limited nature of Apple Vision Pro at the start, and get your $4,000 to $5,000 back
=======
That link about tried the XR headsets is interesting as it shows all the different models he saw at CES 2024. Differently some odd looking XR headsets compared to the AVP. The cost of this setup is what a consumer needs to know upfront rather then be submitting facial dimensions up front before buying. Kinda how one can get an estimate with everything else you can buy from Apple.
Last edited:
A lot of people have argued that Apple has lost its mojo, that it's not nearly as innovative these days, etc. I've always pushed back on these arguments, but this Vision Pro release has me rethinking my opinion. While the hardware is clearly very sophisticated, I'm shocked that Apple released Vision Pro without some sort of aha moment software experience to match. This is a whole new computing paradigm, yet everything they've shown us so far has been predictable and, frankly, boring. I think Apple is hoping some third party developers will blow us away...but isn't that their job?
Me neither. I've been asking myself how turning my entire field of view into a computer screen will benefit me and I can't come up with many good answers, and certainly none that would make me want to wear such a device for long periods of time. Again and again, everything feels gimmicky.
I read Joanna Stern's review where she talked about cooking with it on. She highlighted being able to see timers floating above the pots on the stove. Sure, that sounds like a neat trick, but how does that really improve your cooking game? Hint: it doesn't. How is wearing a headset so that you can having floating timers measurably better than just setting timers on your iPhone?
All I see is gimmicks. Some of them are quite cool, but nothing about Vision Pro makes me think "spatial computing" is the next thing.
While the Quest is a lot cheaper, it's definitely not as sophisticated as the Vision Pro. I do think the Vision Pro's price is ridiculous, but it brings a lot of very cool cutting edge tech to the game.
The issue I see, more than price, is simply the lack of a compelling use case. I think Cook and Co. believed that the (admittedly very cool) eye and hand tracking interface would be another iPhone touch interface aha moment, but so far that does not seem to be true. Jobs was 100% correct that touch makes our devices feel more personal. Vision Pro's interface is almost the exact opposite.
Huge 2D windows floating around the room are not going to sell Vision Pro. Apple needs a vision for this product because right now it feels like a top of the line "me too" device. The public is clearly not very interested in AR/VR or they'd be buying a lot more Quests for 1/10th the price. If I'm not into AR/VR, does Vision Pro get me excited about the possibilities? It's ironic that the product is called Vision Pro because, in my mind, what is missing most is an actual vision for the product.
lol! Well said -- agree
I already lived those discussions. I have no interest in digging back into those posts.
Their vision for the product is something they know they can’t make now and may NEVER be able to make: a true, clear glass, AR device that’s portable, powerful and potentially stylish. That they’ve worked for a decade on that idea and this is the closest they’ve been able to come is pretty strong evidence that it’s not a realistic goal.