Well, for a 'non-computer' it is much more powerful than my 2008 Mac Pro, and I figure my 2008 Mac Pro was more powerful than my original IBM PC (by at least 100,000 times - probably much more but hard to compare because of additions to instruction set i.e. floating point, etc. and cycles per instruction and number of instructions to do the same thing). Of course the US hinders power users using the iPad to it's full extent, but it is a computer... so is your phone... all general computers.
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.
At $3,500, will you buy a Vision Pro?
- Thread starter KPOM
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mac ANE is on demand, and uses not only for Siri but also for finding objects in images like landmarks, pets, plants, books, and flowers using the Photos app or Spotlight search; Getting additional information about recognized objects using Visual Look Up in places like Safari, Mail, and Message, detection of faces and objects on video in apps like Final Cut Pro and automatic cropping with Center Stage, background blurring during FaceTime video calls, providing optical character recognition (OCR) in Camera and Photos, allowing you to easily copy handwriting or text like a Wi-Fi password or address from images, memories curation and stylistic effects in Photos, personalized recommendations like wallpaper suggestions, VoiceOver image captioning, finding image duplicates in Photos, etc.
I would concern if it doesn't always keep close to 0% if not in used.
How powerful a computer system is is much more than just processor speed. It’s also about how many tools can be used to accomplish a task, and how well those tools work together. I’m not really a programmer, but I make small tools to help me with my job, such as Excel macros, Python scripts, shell scripts, JavaScript, and other automation tools. I can’t effectively do my job if I don’t have access to those tools. Shortcuts won’t cut it.
I also need access to the file system and something like Finder or Windows explorer.
I also need a lot of desktop space. That’s what makes me interested in something like the Vision Pro, but if I can’t use the tools I need, unlimited desktop space won’t matter.
I believe the Apple Neural Engine is also used for MetalFX with regards to raytracing and upscaling.
My annual income is about $10,000. I canèt afford to pay rent and buy groceries. Besides people in my neighborhood get held up at gunpoint to get their headphones and cell phones so they would get stolen and you might get shot minutes after walking out the door while crossing the street (A girl got shot exactly like this for her cellphone here last week. It will be a cute toy for the wealthy billionaires but that is about it. the average person will never accept these into widespread adoption even at the price of a cell phone you still can't put them in your pocket. A friend was using an oculus. His girlfriend wanted to talk to him so she ripped them off his face and threw them out the window 13 stories to the ground. $There goes one girl friend and $1,00 pair of VR goggles.
Between this and pet pictures, there’s barely any internet space remaining for news, sports, and the weather.Isn’t that like a third of all internet use anyway?
I don't see buying it as nearly as big of an issue as using it. This thing, like all other at-home VR equipment, is going to see a massive drop off in usage after a short amount of time. Unlike every single other Apple product, this thing is a chore to use. It requires wearing a massive, heavy, uncomfortable headset. That alone limits the amount of time one is willing to spend on it, and early impressions agree. It needs to be tethered to the wall, or to a 2-hour battery, but that doesn't appear to be as much of an issue as it sounds, because demo participants have said that 30 minutes was all they could handle anyway. It isolates you completely from your environment, despite all of Apple's claims to the contrary. Perhaps it isolates you a little less than a typical VR experience, but a little less than total is still a lot.
The first and only product to come out of Apple where using it is something that no one actually wants to do, and few will tolerate, in order to get at the software experience inside. No one actually wants to have a massive headset strapped to their face. That's universally brushed aside as a necessary tradeoff to get to the experience of VR. And its also why VR is precisely no where. For spatial computing to really become a thing in the future, it has to become popular. Apple has shown time and again that it will not tolerate products that are anything but a runaway success. And that makes me very concerned for the future of spatial computing.
The first and only product to come out of Apple where using it is something that no one actually wants to do, and few will tolerate, in order to get at the software experience inside. No one actually wants to have a massive headset strapped to their face. That's universally brushed aside as a necessary tradeoff to get to the experience of VR. And its also why VR is precisely no where. For spatial computing to really become a thing in the future, it has to become popular. Apple has shown time and again that it will not tolerate products that are anything but a runaway success. And that makes me very concerned for the future of spatial computing.
3500 to strap that junk to my face, hard pass
For $200-500 maybe, but like others said it’s going to get some early use than be cast away to a drawer, or given to some kid in the family
See this is my question though: regardless of what it costs, what is going to motivate you to strap it to your face. If Apple gave you one FOR FREE, how much are you really going to use it?
Even if I was given one, I don’t think it would be an everyday device for me personally. I wouldn’t want to wear something like that for extended periods of time. I think even before this is released, it’s a very Marmite product.
They need to support more than one virtual macOS screen. Will probably be an M3 Pro/Max feature but it needs to happen. Apparently future ultrawide band chips are being developed to support super high bandwidth streaming of data between Apple devices so they're probably planning on doing it.
I hope a future version of the virtual monitor will go beyond the 1:1 AirPlay style emulation of a monitor we saw at WWDC and instead allow you to create a custom sized 'work area' in front of you with (optionally) no wallpaper/background so all of your macOS windows can float in space in front of you within user defined bounds. That would essentially be macOS app streamed from your Mac with visionOS style floating windows. I think that's the 'killer app' for me that I will be using 90% of the time and a legitimate reason to put away all of my desk monitors. The existing virtual monitor only goes so far and is seemingly more useful as a 'monitor on the go' rather than a desktop paradigm replacement.
No, having an M2 inside does not make this a Mac replacement before anyone suggests it (maybe for some it is). Right now I can only envision myself using the native visionOS app paradigm for the same things I would use my iPad for: media/entertainment and photo editing.
I hope a future version of the virtual monitor will go beyond the 1:1 AirPlay style emulation of a monitor we saw at WWDC and instead allow you to create a custom sized 'work area' in front of you with (optionally) no wallpaper/background so all of your macOS windows can float in space in front of you within user defined bounds. That would essentially be macOS app streamed from your Mac with visionOS style floating windows. I think that's the 'killer app' for me that I will be using 90% of the time and a legitimate reason to put away all of my desk monitors. The existing virtual monitor only goes so far and is seemingly more useful as a 'monitor on the go' rather than a desktop paradigm replacement.
No, having an M2 inside does not make this a Mac replacement before anyone suggests it (maybe for some it is). Right now I can only envision myself using the native visionOS app paradigm for the same things I would use my iPad for: media/entertainment and photo editing.
I think it'll be great for comparison reading. Open up as many books as you want and have them spread out so you can see them all at once. Surely there are other usages that require glancing at more data that can be displayed in a single monitor, seeing how so many people have multi-monitor setups. So the Vision Pro is one device on your face that can give you basically infinite monitors. Of course, we don't know whether it is comfortable enough for practical use until it is actually released, but if it is reasonably comfortable, I'll be in heaven. I can open up all the translations of Beowulf, along with the original, and compare them all at once!
Except...its not. Not even close. I don't know where people get these illusions from.
It will have a limit on the number of monitors for macos (especially at the beginning), but then you will will be able to spread out windows across the environment within visionOS. I use multiple monitors (3x4K on one desk, 3x4K on another - different computers), but I probably only need one remote desktop to a mac when using if I can load my resource documents - pdfs, web resources, chat windows, scheduling, etc within the VisionOS environment windows. The current limitation is bandwidth limited (there are certain apps that use too much bandwidth to be used remotely), but then by the time the next revision comes around we should be up to Wifi 7 which provides a weeee bit more bandwidth....
Where are you getting the information that there is a limit to the number of windows?
1. Yes it will have a limit. One. That's the limit. One 4K display does nothing for me, and is worse than what I have access to without an annoying $3500 headset.
2. What difference does it make if I can add vision Pro apps into that mix? Have you even seen vison Pro apps? You're not going to be using them for anything along side a Mac. They're even more baby than iPad apps.
Is this something that Apple said in WWDC developer session? I just want to know where this info is from, thanks.
@bkkcanuck8 already said how they'll use multiple pdf, safari, chat windows, etc, alongside a Mac window. My usage would also be similar, except I wouldn't necessarily need a Mac window. Sorry VP isn't useful to you, but that doesn't make it useless for everyone else.
It was reported in a number of publications as a 'current' limitation that only one 4K display would be supported on launch. (I think Gurman mentioned it, and definitely 9to5 Mac) - shortly after the demos.
It makes sense because although the protocol seems to have been extended to make the remote desktop feature more efficient, current wifi has limited bandwidth available and if you have ever used the remote desktop feature (Microsofts being more efficient) you will know that latency and bandwidth limitations restrict how useable the feature is... I don't expect them to remove that restriction until the device supports Wifi 7 (which has much more bandwidth and latency improvements).
You don't even understand some of the basic facts of the unit and yet you're over exaggerating its usefulness already. The person you are citing is talking about ways to work around its severe limitations by running some of VP's baby versions of apps alongside a Mac. That's stretching reality to find utility. Stop exaggerating the utility of a poor offering.
I don’t think WiFi bandwidth is the limiting factor.
You can use methods like foveated transport to save on bandwidth… basically just sending the area the user is focused on in the highest quality. There will be more latency with that method than with foveated rendering, but is should be good enough. Just to be clear, I am speaking of more latency on the contents of a virtual monitor, not on the position of the virtual monitor, so there is no increased chance of VR sickness.
I'm not exaggerating anything. Just saying that, for me, being able to have multiple epubs, PDFs and Safari windows open and fully visible at once would be very useful. If that isn't useful for you, then I can understand that Vision Pro isn't useful *for you*. But please stop saying that just because it's not useful for you, it isn't useful for me, or that I don't have an understanding of what I would find useful from a device like the VP.
Nah. I will continue to declare it not useful across the board, until it proves otherwise. It hasn't. So far it has proven to be even less useful than an iPad. There are a million ways to look at multiples PDFs bud.