Apple's Unusual Headset Design Has Led to Unprecedented Production Challenges

[Night Spring]

How many people do you see walking around with ski goggles on?

People wear ski googles when skiing because they serve a purpose. If Vision Pro serves useful purposes for people, they'll wear it too. In its current form, I agree the VP is too bulky to be worn while walking around out in the streets. And Apple didn't show it being worn that way, either. The most mobile a user was in the WWDC keynote presentation was the dad taking pictures of his kid's birthday party. All other use cases were either sitting or standing in one place.

And you are right that a computer worn on the face is a much bigger leap in concept than cell phones to iPhone. So sure, it might take a bit longer for the VP to catch on. And yes, it could be a total flop. But I think it has more than 50/50 chance of success, whereas you think it has 0. That's because while I wasn't necessarily clamoring for a computer I wear on my face, I've wanted a computer I could take anywhere with me, probably for as long as I've had computers.

Before I saw the VP, my super-mobile computer dream was a device the size of the iPhone, or maybe even the watch, that could transform into a desktop when slipped into a dock connected to a monitor-keyboard-mouse setup. But the VP is one unit that contains monitor and computer, and perhaps even the keyboard, if the virtual keyboard works out. In other words, it's an improvement on the super-mobile computing model I had in mind. If the cost of that is to wear a bulky google on my face, I'll take it.

 

[Surf Monkey]

People wear ski googles when skiing because they serve a purpose. If Vision Pro serves useful purposes for people, they'll wear it too. In its current form, I agree the VP is too bulky to be worn while walking around out in the streets. And Apple didn't show it being worn that way, either. The most mobile a user was in the WWDC keynote presentation was the dad taking pictures of his kid's birthday party. All other use cases were either sitting or standing in one place.

And you are right that a computer worn on the face is a much bigger leap in concept than cell phones to iPhone. So sure, it might take a bit longer for the VP to catch on. And yes, it could be a total flop. But I think it has more than 50/50 chance of success, whereas you think it has 0. That's because while I wasn't necessarily clamoring for a computer I wear on my face, I've wanted a computer I could take anywhere with me, probably for as long as I've had computers.

Before I saw the VP, my super-mobile computer dream was a device the size of the iPhone, or maybe even the watch, that could transform into a desktop when slipped into a dock connected to a monitor-keyboard-mouse setup. But the VP is one unit that contains monitor and computer, and perhaps even the keyboard, if the virtual keyboard works out. In other words, it's an improvement on the super-mobile computing model I had in mind. If the cost of that is to wear a bulky google on my face, I'll take it.

I get your optimism but there’s a very obvious reason that the only people you saw wearing the AVP were actors, not Apple executives.

And again, while you may want to wear a computer on your face there’s absolutely no evidence to even suggest that most people want to do that. Apple wants this to be iPhone. It will never be iPhone. The barriers to entry, wearing it on your face being one of the highest ones, are too many for that to happen. Adopting iPhone was a simple matter of picking one up. Adopting this or any technology you wear on your face will require a complete social paradigm shift to become universally popular and accepted.

 

[Night Spring]

I get your optimism but there’s a very obvious reason that the only people you saw wearing the AVP were actors, not Apple executives.

Yes, I miss Jobs, he would have worn it, and totally sold it!

And you are right it would be a huge paradigm shift if this were to become widely adopted. I think the VP could be more like the Mac than the iPhone. iPhone went from introduction to being widely adopted in less than 5 years. Macs spent a lot more time being a niche product, and still isn't as widely used as Windows PCs.

 

[fs454]

Because the VAST MAJORITY OF HUMAN BEINGS don’t want to wear anything on their faces, ESPECIALLY something that obscures their eyes from view. And no, a screen displaying a picture of your eyes is not the same thing as your actual eyes any more than looking at a video feed of what’s in front of you is the same as looking directly at what’s in front of you.

Sorry, but the fact that these are goggles will instantly preclude most people from buying them and subject most who do to ridicule.

My man here has never heard of sunglasses apparently.

 

[Surf Monkey]

My man here has never heard of sunglasses apparently.

Bad example and one that only proves my point. Prescription glasses are necessary to see the world. Sunglasses are similarly necessary when the light conditions outside are too harsh. There is no fundamentally necessary function of the AVP as demonstrated by Apple. All the use cases they showed are already being accomplished via other means and none of them represent the kind of necessary utility that glasses and sunglasses offer.

My point absolutely stands. People are generally unwilling opt to put things on their faces if they don’t have to. Especially full on wrap around goggles that make you look like a tool. You remember COVID masks, right? Necessary and yet aggressively rejected by a huge percentage of people.