Apple Vision Pro Reviews and Unboxing Videos Shared Ahead of Launch

[boss.king]

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?

I see it as setting off in the wrong direction with very interesting technology. The hand and eye tracking appears to be incredible, but pairing it with a VR headset is where it falls down for me. The AR story is pretty much nonexistent, and the VR stuff doesn't seem all that compelling for its steep tradeoffs.

If and when they can do something with the input tech that doesn't require me to live inside a sweaty computer mask, I'll be really interested.

 

[deepspacecowboy]

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.

While that might be true, if they hope to sell product between now and the day such glasses are viable, they will need a vision for this incarnation of Vision Pro.

 

[dotzero123]

Deleted

 

[subjonas]

You have to look into the distance. Closing your eyes doesn’t work. And the reason it’s a fixed focal length is the fact that you’re looking at a flat screen through a lens. Your brain gets tricked into thinking you’re looking at 3D, but you’re not. It’s still 2D and it’s still all focused at the same distance because that’s how lenses and screens work.

But why doesn’t closing eyes work? Because as far as I can tell I’m doing it right now. If I close my eyes and picture a fly buzzing in front of my face and around my room, under my eyelids I feel my eyes following it and changing focus accordingly. Any kind of scientific data that says what I’m experiencing is impossible?

Thanks but that still doesn‘t really explain it in the depth I‘m looking for, but also I don’t think that explanation is accurate. Our individual eyes actually only see 2D. It’s only after the two slightly different 2D images from each eye’s retinas are sent to our brains that they are composited to give us a 3D understanding. So there should be no difference with a headset in that regard. Which is why I’m confused about the focus thing.

 

[svnty6rs3]

I already lived those discussions. I have no interest in digging back into those posts.

lol so they don't exist got it.

 

[subjonas]

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.

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.

Are we talking in terms of actual present day tech or theoretical tech?
I don’t think anyone can say in actuality it’s the exact same—obviously the tech just isn’t there just in terms of fidelity.
But in theory first principles is a much more profound question. Of course in actuality a screen will always be a screen, but in practical terms if we break down the physics, could photons be delivered to the eye by technology in the same exact way that it is delivered by nature? Or at least so that it’s indistinguishable to our brains? Ie. could technology ever get good enough that we could do a blind test of a headset with screens and a headset with fake screens that are actually just clear glass, and the user couldn’t tell the difference?

 

[subjonas]

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.

Pretty much agree with all that, and I think everyone wants those mythical AR glasses, but at the same time, I’m glad they made the product that they made today. It’s far from ideal, and I may even wait until it gets a bit better, but to me the functionality that it does provide is potentially valuable enough (still need some hands on testing) that it’s worth the compromises. So to me it’s better that they made it than not at all. Won’t be true for everyone.

 

[Arran]

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.

There are lots of them across dozens of threads. But I’m not surprised that people will deny it now.

Ah okay, "a lot of people are saying". Got it. Now where have I heard that before?

Citation please. It's in the forum rules. Rule #1 in fact:

Debate

Guidelines: Be willing to engage in fact-based, constructive debate. Look for ways to inform and learn from others.
Rules:

1. Sources. If you claim that something's a fact, back it up with a source. When evidence of your claim is requested, you can either provide evidence or retract your claim. If you can't produce evidence when someone asks you to cite your sources, we may remove your posts. If you started the thread, then we may remove or close the thread.

Link: https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201327723-MacRumors-Rules-for-Appropriate-Debate

Just FYI, a laughing smiley reaction isn't a citation.

 

[Surf Monkey]

But why doesn’t closing eyes work? Because as far as I can tell I’m doing it right now. If I close my eyes and picture a fly buzzing in front of my face and around my room, under my eyelids I feel my eyes following it and changing focus accordingly. Any kind of scientific data that says what I’m experiencing is impossible?

Thanks but that still doesn‘t really explain it in the depth I‘m looking for, but also I don’t think that explanation is accurate. Our individual eyes actually only see 2D. It’s only after the two slightly different 2D images from each eye’s retinas are sent to our brains that they are composited to give us a 3D understanding. So there should be no difference with a headset in that regard. Which is why I’m confused about the focus thing.

I’m not an optometrist. Feel free to search around. All I can do is relate what I’ve read in various sources.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Ah okay

Saying that it doesn’t matter if it isn’t because it’s functionally the same (it isn’t.)

Sketchy Rumor Says Vision Pro Will Launch in Final Week of January

They never explain why it matters that video passthrough isn't exactly the same thing as photons bouncing off an object directly into your eyes. They just state an obvious fact like it's an argument. The fidelity of audio is much more important to in-person human communication than the fidelity...

forums.macrumors.com

Saying that Vision is “2 or 3x better than a TV.”

Apple Claims Vision Pro SDK Downloads Exceeded Expectations Amid Developer Lab Attendance Concerns

Right now I watch NBA finals on a flat TV because I cannot afford the tickets. What if instead of the TV I am using a vision pro which is 2-3x better than TV but still only 50% as good as being there. Well…that’s a huge leap isn’t it? Because I never was going to be able to afford 10k court...

forums.macrumors.com

Better than being there:

Apple Claims Vision Pro SDK Downloads Exceeded Expectations Amid Developer Lab Attendance Concerns

OK, as also shared in many other threads, average Joes will readily spend several thousand dollars each year (sometimes 2X+ the price of Vpro) for box seats to a season of major sports. Even better courtside seats can go for north of $100K for a single game (no average Joe can likely afford...

forums.macrumors.com

Thing is, the search terms and the names of the product make it pretty difficult to resurface all the relevant posts, and of course that’s part of why you disingenuously demand “proof.”

And let me save you some time:

“Oh! Oh!! No one actually typed the specific words ‘it’s the same as looking at it with your eyes’!! Ha ha!! I win!!” But that’s disingenuous nonsense. Read those threads. The exact words may not appear but the basic premise of many people’s argument is “there’s no practical difference between the VP live feed and actually looking at it with your eyes.” Denying that people have argued that point over and over again is futile.

 

[MacFan782040]

Tim doesn’t want to wait another 10 years to retire.

His legacy should have been Apple Watch. And creating $3 trillion company. Let Vision Pro be for the next ceo.

 

[MacFan782040]

Future iterations will improve said product in one form or another, but the core experience of using one won't really change. This thing comes with 16gb ram and up to 1tb of storage. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.

The iPhone, iPad, even the Apple Watch all received a ton of criticism when they were released, but Apple tends to usually get the core experience right, even if you can tell that there is something missing. For example, the iPad 2 would get cameras and a much better processor and even a retina display subsequently, but the core experience of it being a giant iPod touch has never really changed, and it's what continues to resonate with consumers even today.

I believe the vision pro is ready. The core experience of a near-infinite canvas (eg: stage manager, freeform), the modes of interaction (Face ID), even the ecosystem (TV+, Apple Arcade) are all in place. In hindsight, it's fascinating to see features like Memoji debut, and realise how everyone Apple has done over the years was really just laying the foundation for the vision pro. From TV+ being criticised in 2019 to not really having much content, to it now serving the critical function of supplying much needed spatial content for the vision pro because Netflix won't play ball? Genius.

And this, my friends, is the lesson that Apple keeps teaching, and which others keep ignoring. Everything Apple does leads somewhere, even if it's not immediately apparent today (and it often isn't). Apple plays the long game better than anyone else in the industry. They are in it for the long haul, and you know the Vision Pro will continue to be iterated on relentlessly, and the ecosystem surrounding it will only get better, long after the competition has dropped out of the race because there's no money to be made for them (there's no market for a $3500 android VR headset).

Apple also has a very noted track record of suddenly killing off its products. One day it’s the best thing ever, the next day it’s quietly discontinued. Time will tell.

 

[Junior Amboy]

Humans are designed to use computers at all? Lol. I gave my take on isolation vs collaboration before so I won’t go into it again. But as far as showing work to colleagues and movie cuddling with wife, you’d continue using 2D screens (unless they also use headsets). VP shouldn’t replace 2D screens, it serves other functions.

Humans are designed to be physically connected.

 

[Junior Amboy]

Many would argue that smartphones have isolated us from each other...

Those many people, if they’ve tried a VR headset know the isolation I’m talking about.

 

[subjonas]

Humans are designed to be physically connected.

Do you mean people are designed to be physically present with other people? Sure but not at all times. People need private/solitary times too.

 

[svnty6rs3]

Ah okay, "a lot of people are saying". Got it. Now where have I heard that before?

Citation please. It's in the forum rules. Rule #1 in fact:


Link: https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201327723-MacRumors-Rules-for-Appropriate-Debate

Just FYI, a laughing smiley reaction isn't a citation.

a tale as old as time on the internet haha.

 

[svnty6rs3]

Saying that it doesn’t matter if it isn’t because it’s functionally the same (it isn’t.)

Sketchy Rumor Says Vision Pro Will Launch in Final Week of January

They never explain why it matters that video passthrough isn't exactly the same thing as photons bouncing off an object directly into your eyes. They just state an obvious fact like it's an argument. The fidelity of audio is much more important to in-person human communication than the fidelity...

forums.macrumors.com

Saying that Vision is “2 or 3x better than a TV.”

Apple Claims Vision Pro SDK Downloads Exceeded Expectations Amid Developer Lab Attendance Concerns

Right now I watch NBA finals on a flat TV because I cannot afford the tickets. What if instead of the TV I am using a vision pro which is 2-3x better than TV but still only 50% as good as being there. Well…that’s a huge leap isn’t it? Because I never was going to be able to afford 10k court...

forums.macrumors.com

Better than being there:

Apple Claims Vision Pro SDK Downloads Exceeded Expectations Amid Developer Lab Attendance Concerns

OK, as also shared in many other threads, average Joes will readily spend several thousand dollars each year (sometimes 2X+ the price of Vpro) for box seats to a season of major sports. Even better courtside seats can go for north of $100K for a single game (no average Joe can likely afford...

forums.macrumors.com

Thing is, the search terms and the names of the product make it pretty difficult to resurface all the relevant posts, and of course that’s part of why you disingenuously demand “proof.”

And let me save you some time:

“Oh! Oh!! No one actually typed the specific words ‘it’s the same as looking at it with your eyes’!! Ha ha!! I win!!” But that’s disingenuous nonsense. Read those threads. The exact words may not appear but the basic premise of many people’s argument is “there’s no practical difference between the VP live feed and actually looking at it with your eyes.” Denying that people have argued that point over and over again is futile.

The basic premise isn't.

1. First link is to a post literally saying that saying pass-through isn't the same as seeing it directly with your own eyes is "just state an obvious fact"
2. The second link says only 50% as good as being there and 2-3x better than a regular TV. Why can't a Vision Pro be 2-3x better than a TV? Did you see the NBA experience that Brian Tong showed off. That seems way better to me than the experience you get on a regular TV. That's without even mentioning the ability to make the screen 2,3,10x your current TV's size.
3. The third link is to a post saying you get an illusion of being courtside at a much Lower cost than being there. What's controversial about that.

None of these posts come anywhere close to what you were trying to pass off earlier as the exact same experience as seeing it with your eyes.

There's enough actual pieces of information to debate about the product such as weight, isolation, FOV etc that I'm not sure why folks need to make up entire points to debate against lol.

 

[Junior Amboy]

Do you mean people are designed to be physically present with other people? Sure but not at all times. People need private/solitary times too.

Agree. So people can enjoy Vision Pro during their solitary time.

My point was the use of Vision Pro in the context of human interactions at work and in the context of human relationships.

Vision Pro is amazing for what it is. But until it becomes a true AR device, small and convenient like a normal pair eyeglasses, it’s difficult to see each one of us living inside that virtual world, mostly alone and physically disconnected.

 

[Abazigal]

Vision Pro is amazing for what it is. But until it becomes a true AR device, small and convenient like a normal pair eyeglasses, it’s difficult to see each one of us living inside that virtual world.

I mean, would you be okay if AR glasses ever became mainstream and everyone was wearing one and you wonder if the person you are talking to was secretly streaming Netflix right in front of you even as you are trying to hold a conversation with him?

It seems like any social concerns, be it legitimate or imagined, would apply either way.

 

[Junior Amboy]

The killer app today must be immersive video live streaming of sports and events.
In order to make this attractive for a few millions instead of a few hundred thousands, I believe that would be enough, and would accelerate development and resources available.
Also, I do think that people would absolutely pay extra for like a front row live seat at an nba or soccer match.

In other words, a totally worth it very expensive “tv” that will in time also do other cool stuff.

Fair point and makes a lot of sense. Though I’m still not sure if a simulated front row experience is better than watching on my 65” inch TV holding my beer, sharing the whole experience with my family.

 

[Surf Monkey]

The basic premise isn't.

1. First link is to a post literally saying that saying pass-through isn't the same as seeing it directly with your own eyes is "just state an obvious fact"
2. The second link says only 50% as good as being there and 2-3x better than a regular TV. Why can't a Vision Pro be 2-3x better than a TV? Did you see the NBA experience that Brian Tong showed off. That seems way better to me than the experience you get on a regular TV. That's without even mentioning the ability to make the screen 2,3,10x your current TV's size.
3. The third link is to a post saying you get an illusion of being courtside at a much Lower cost than being there. What's controversial about that.

None of these posts come anywhere close to what you were trying to pass off earlier as the exact same experience as seeing it with your eyes.

There's enough actual pieces of information to debate about the product such as weight, isolation, FOV etc that I'm not sure why folks need to make up entire points to debate against lol.

Just as I predicted. Disingenuous nonsense.

Sorry, but I proved my point. The argument that there’s no functional difference has been made countless times. I’ve been told, for example, that doing pre-press ops in a VP shouldn’t be a problem because the device is so close to reality. So don’t jump up on a high horse and start accusing me of lying, because that’s just self-serving BS on your part. You’re splitting hairs and you’ve failed to do what I said, which is read the threads, not just the single posts I pointed towards.

It’s amusing when people imagine they’re taking to total rookies. Your mistake.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Agree. So people can enjoy Vision Pro during their solitary time.

My point was the use of Vision Pro in the context of human interactions at work and in the context of human relationships.

Vision Pro is amazing for what it is. But until it becomes a true AR device, small and convenient like a normal pair eyeglasses, it’s difficult to see each one of us living inside that virtual world, mostly alone and physically disconnected.

Exactly. Yet the argument gets made again and again that there’s no significant isolation going on with VP at all.

“Well, headphones isolate you just as much.” Wrong.

I think one of the primary problems with discussing the isolating nature of the device is that lots of people here are bachelors who have never lived with a wife or girlfriend.

 

[svnty6rs3]

Just as I predicted. Disingenuous nonsense.

Sorry, but I proved my point. The argument that there’s no functional difference has been made countless times. I’ve been told, for example, that doing pre-press ops in a VP shouldn’t be a problem because the device is so close to reality. So don’t jump up on a high horse and start accusing me of lying, because that’s just self-serving BS on your part. You’re splitting hairs and you’ve failed to do what I said, which is read the threads, not just the single posts I pointed towards.

It’s amusing when people imagine they’re taking to total rookies. Your mistake.

Nothing like being accused of being on a high horse by a person that has no intention of buying an Apple Vision Pro yet still jumps into every single Apple Vision Pro thread to tell people how awful the product is, how they are making a mistake buying it and how they shouldn't be excited for it and should listen to them instead because they know more.

I commend you for your devotion to the shtick.

 

[imtoretto]

DO NOT WATCH IJUSTINE. THIS B’’’C WILL SAY EVERYTHING IS COOL AND WISH IT WAS PINK, SHE SO LAME.

 

[deepspacecowboy]

Exactly. Yet the argument gets made again and again that there’s no significant isolation going on with VP at all.

“Well, headphones isolate you just as much.” Wrong.

I think one of the primary problems with discussing the isolating nature of the device is that lots of people here are bachelors who have never lived with a wife or girlfriend.

I don't view the "isolation" issue as Vision Pro's primary problem. Existing tech - our Macs, iPhones, etc - is often very isolating as well.

For me the issue with Vision Pro is lack of purpose. Looking at screenshots of some "optimized" apps, I can't help but scratch my head and wonder why anyone needs this. Everything is still just big 2D windows floating around the room. I'm sure there's a small number of people out there who are likely very disorganized and have 20 windows open at a time on their computers. These people will love littering their environment with windows. Maybe it'll make them more productive...or maybe it will just exacerbate their existing window chaos. Either way, they'll probably love it.

But the rest of us...I don't see huge 2D app windows as a compelling reason to buy this thing, much less wear it. Watching Ted Lasso on the ceiling is the best use case Tim Cook could highlight?? I'm quite shocked that Apple hasn't been able to deliver a use case/app experience that truly gets us excited about the product's possibilities. One would think they would have reimagined one or more of their existing apps with a 3D "spatial" interface that sets the bar for what is possible, that gives us a glimpse of the future. Instead, we get giant 2D iPad windows and Ted Lasso on the ceiling. So amazing.

I also wonder how receptive the general public will be to the Vision Pro's UI/UX. It's the exact opposite of what Apple has been doing for decades now with touch. Jobs was 100% correct about how touch makes our devices feel more personal. With nothing to touch, will people connect with Vision Pro in the same way? I doubt it.