At $3,500, will you buy a Vision Pro?

[FSMBP]

You sound like a blackberry user when the iphone was unveiled. “We already have a keyboard”

Nah...I was totally smitting with the iPhone when it was announced and embraced the new tech (ex. immediately loved Apple Pay when announced when everyone else dismissed it). No need to incorrectly judge because my opinion differs from yours.

For $3,500, I don't see what value this has for me:

• When I watch movies, I typically do it with others. And I'd want to do it comfortably.
• When I FaceTime someone, it defeats the purpose if they don't actually see me.
• If a moment is precious and I want to 'save it' as a 3D movie, I definitely wouldn't be wearing Apple Vision Pro to remove myself from that moment to begin with.
• Why do I need giant spreadsheets, Safari floating above my coffee table?! What value does this actually bring?
• Lastly, this type of tech, no whatever what Apple says, isolates people from others when using it.

I still haven't found a use-case that makes this worth $3,500.

 

[zapmymac]

No.

Gen2+–> I’m calling it now, it will never be $1500

Macs, phones, iPads, watches never dropped that much % in price. This is never going to be a NEEDED device unlike a phone or computer or tablet for school kids imo.

 

[KaiFiMacFan]

Why do I need giant spreadsheets, Safari floating above my coffee table?! What value does this actually bring?

Agreed with everything you said, but this in particular. This keeps getting touted as the potential “killer app”, as in “why would anyone want to use a laptop when you can have giant spreadsheets floating above your coffee table?” but I don’t get why that is actually better. It being “cool” doesn’t make it a superior way to be productive.

 

[Herbert123]

Whoa there my friend. M2 renders multiple 8k videos in editing software.
Even the lowly MacAir M2 runs 8k. 8k video is 4 times larger than 4k, so two 4k(ish) displays is easy for the VisionPro.

Accelerating 2d/video editing is a completely different ball game compared to rendering full double 4K highly realistic 3D VR environments/AAA games with complex 3D shaders.

It's already quite obvious the M2's GPU isn't up to this task seeing how it performs in current games. Just for VRAM you'd require at least 10GB or more to manage and load high res textures in a AAA game that would resolve well enough for VR.

Displaying a single 3d raptor is child's play. Even an older game like Skyrim VR requires 8GB VRAM minimum on a graphics card to handle the graphics (and that is aside from actual RAM usage).

That is why Apple is marketing this thing more as AR rather than VR. It's not meant to handle heavy 3D environments. But it will do very well in industries like real estate with simple 3d environments, for example.

 

[Night Spring]

Congrats to those who are willing to blow out a year's worth of rent for these

$3500 is a year's worth of rent? Where do you live?

 

[TheFluffyDuck]

I have an Oculus Quest 2. It has had many of those features for years, and many of the features advertised by Apple in this like movies and photos, I've used half a dozen times and moved on. The strength is gaming, and what other productivity apps developers can come up with. The Third version of the quest comes out in September and will do ~80% of what Apple claims it does at a fraction of the price. I don't see the need to spend MULTIPLE THOUSANDS more to close that last 20%. Also, the Quest does things that the Apple one doesn't, like have VR controllers, and yes that is a good thing as they provide feedback, and provide immersion. Yes, the quest has hand tracking, and its ..... ok.

Throw in the current economic climate and this will be a VERY rich person's toy. People will spend money on known quantities like phones and computers. If they want VR, Sony and Meta have very competent offerings these days. I have no doubt the Apple Vision is the best headset on the market. BUT, its compatibility with things like steam is non-existent, it has not 3D controllers, and cost more than a tricked out laptop or desktop.

Why buy this experiment when you can get a Macbook Air, Last year's budget iPhone, Apple Watch AND airpods?

 

[Stevenyo]

$3500 is a year's worth of rent? Where do you live?

Yeah, sadly that's a lot closer to monthly housing costs than annual where I am. Even if I moved back to a smaller city where I had a paid off modest house, I spent far over $3500 a year on insurance, utilities, maintenance, etc. Can't imagine many places in the US where rent is under $300/month, even for a shared bedroom.

 

[Stevenyo]

I have an Oculus Quest 2. It has had many of those features for years, and many of the features advertised by Apple in this like movies and photos, I've used half a dozen times and moved on. The strength is gaming, and what other productivity apps developers can come up with. The Third version of the quest comes out in September and will do ~80% of what Apple claims it does at a fraction of the price. I don't see the need to spend MULTIPLE THOUSANDS more to close that last 20%. Also, the Quest does things that the Apple one doesn't, like have VR controllers, and yes that is a good thing as they provide feedback, and provide immersion. Yes, the quest has hand tracking, and its ..... ok.

Throw in the current economic climate and this will be a VERY rich person's toy. People will spend money on known quantities like phones and computers. If they want VR, Sony and Meta have very competent offerings these days. I have no doubt the Apple Vision is the best headset on the market. BUT, its compatibility with things like steam is non-existent, it has not 3D controllers, and cost more than a tricked out laptop or desktop.

Why buy this experiment when you can get a Macbook Air, Last year's budget iPhone, Apple Watch AND airpods?

You;re missing the point completely if you think gaming is the strength of AR. I'll be paying for VisionOS far more than the VisionPro, software is what really makes this work. Same reason I pay for Macs instead of PCs for everyday computing, the software works the way I expect. The high price is actually encouraging, they cant charge $3500 and pitch it as a new paradigm for computing then lock down basic features like file management or development, right? It has to become a standalone platform, far more than iPadOS, right?

 

[Night Spring]

Agreed with everything you said, but this in particular. This keeps getting touted as the potential “killer app”, as in “why would anyone want to use a laptop when you can have giant spreadsheets floating above your coffee table?” but I don’t get why that is actually better. It being “cool” doesn’t make it a superior way to be productive.

It's not the "floating" part that's useful, but the fact that you can have any size monitor you want, and have multiple screens up at once. I remember times when I was working with a big spreadsheet where I wished I could stretch the monitor so I could see more of the spreadsheet at once. With Vision Pro, I can. I can also have multiple screens whenever I want, whereas with physical monitors, I can't suddenly conjure up another monitor if I run out of space on the monitors I have.

 

[Night Spring]

You;re missing the point completely if you think gaming is the strength of AR. I'll be paying for VisionOS far more than the VisionPro, software is what really makes this work. Same reason I pay for Macs instead of PCs for everyday computing, the software works the way I expect. The high price is actually encouraging, they cant charge $3500 and pitch it as a new paradigm for computing then lock down basic features like file management or development, right? It has to become a standalone platform, far more than iPadOS, right?

We can hope! I'm not feeling optimistic on this front though, usually when they don't mention an issue, it's because they know the answer would disappoint people if they were to admit to it.

 

[TheFluffyDuck]

You;re missing the point completely if you think gaming is the strength of AR. I'll be paying for VisionOS far more than the VisionPro, software is what really makes this work. Same reason I pay for Macs instead of PCs for everyday computing, the software works the way I expect. The high price is actually encouraging, they cant charge $3500 and pitch it as a new paradigm for computing then lock down basic features like file management or development, right? It has to become a standalone platform, far more than iPadOS, right?

Facebook has nearly tanked their company throwing money at VR and it shows, The VR is phenomenal, and I have never owned a device that has had so many features added over the years as the Oculus Quest. The VR now versus the crappy Samsung Gear thing from 5 years ago is night and day. Facebook are banking heavily on VR/AR to become a productivity thing and that's where most of its development has gone. The Quest OS is awesome for web browsing. HOWEVER, its never quite as good as in the real world. Gaming is what is keeping it afloat. Vision OS looks identical to Facebook VR OS, just with more Apple reality distortion field.

The vision OS is VERY similar to the current quest OS with floating panels, putting them where you want. You can even get steaming third-party apps to steam your PC to your device as demoed.

Im not missing the point. I am an early adopter of this tech, and I am telling you what I thought I wanted it for, what it was/is marketed as, its future potential, that many features are solutions looking for a problem, and what I keep coming back to the tech for.

 

[rcappo]

I still remember paying $1600 for a 37” 1080p monitor back in 2004/2005…. This is easily much better than that monitor, even though I got my money’s worth out of it.

I wish they would make a model that didn’t come with a battery pack and reduce the price by a small amount. I think I would only use this in my house and won’t be walking around with it on.

It makes vanlife/sailboat life a lot better for the single people that don’t have computer monitors. And this is easier to move with for the young adults in apartments/dorms. But it will be interesting to see how groups watching a HDTV changes if VR takes off.

I think this hardware is fine, it is up to the software to make or break this now. Cable companies will need to adapt to this, streaming services will need to put their content on it. This has the potential to change things a bit. It will be interesting to see where this tech goes in the next 10 years.

 

[Night Spring]

You can even get steaming third-party apps to steam your PC to your device as demoed.

But in Vision OS, this feature is built into the OS. I don't have any previous experience with VR/AR headsets, but Apple's presentation left me with the impression they are pushing the Vision Pro as a productivity tool that can also be used for entertainment functions. Whereas the product video for Meta Quest left me with the impression it's a gaming device. Now, I don't know yet how useful the Vision Pro will be at productivity tasks, but I think chances are good that Apple has put more thoughts into that than Meta, and therefore they are more likely to achieve success in that area.

 

[Drewps5co0tt]

Hell to the NO's! I'm not even interested in this but if I was, not a chance!

 

[Drewps5co0tt]

Count me as a maybe. It’s expensive, but it seems like Apple has put of a lot of fancy technology in it and may have some new use cases for it.

You're going to buy it because it has new cases? 😂🤣

 

[traderdude123]

I would buy it for no less than $5000.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

I more hands on reviews that I watch, the more closer I am in making the decision to buy it.

The hardware, software, and visual quality is getting a lot of praise.

 

[TheFluffyDuck]

They might as well price it for $100k for how absurdly out of reach for most people it is. What completely tone-deaf pricing. "Oh it has pro in the name". Sure, watching Disney better than ever before is "pro". Are people really that easily fooled by marketing?

 

[engbren]

This device is curious, I'd like to test it out. However, I just don't have any use case for me that I think this is the solution for. I was at an event a few weeks ago where they spoke about "serious games", which was the application of gaming technology for purposes other than entertainment. Think things like firefighting simulation, surgery visualisation / simulation etc. Maybe there's a use case in that space that would justify the investment.

 

[iPadified]

Searched "price mobile phone 80s" and Google returned
Motorola DynaTAC ($3,995): After the first mobile cell phone demonstration, it took about a decade of further development before it was available to consumers. The Motorola DynaTAC 8000X hit the market in 1983 with a hefty price tag of $3,995. That would be $12000 today in todays purchasing power!

Other interesting information:
The Motorola DynaTAC (an abbreviation of Dynamic Adaptive Total Area Coverage) was the first commercially available portable handheld cell phone. The phone was a 9-inches tall, weighed 2.5 pounds, had 30 minutes of battery life, and sold for $4,000.

I got the warm nice feeling about the Vision capabilities as I got from the release of iPhone and iPad. Give it a few generations and it will be fine for the average person both feature and price wise. For those who wonder about the killer app: free floating resizable windows always in focus is a very good start.

Does it have the same picture quality as the XDR screen for professional color work?

 

[addamas]

For The same price you can get:
1)PS5
2)PSVR2
3)Extended thunderbolt USB cable
4)Bunch of games
5)Buy something else with half of the money Vision cost

Also with this amount of px per eye I highly doubt it will be same quality they showed. You will have mora effect, tiny pixels visible and maybe other things as resolution is very close to PSVR2

 

[Rainshadow]

For some users, absolutely. But for universal use? That depends both on eye strain, and the ability to correct vision. Right off I see a major challenges for folks with contact lenses and reading glasses. Do you correct for contacts out, contacts in, or contacts plus readers? My focal distance with out any lenses is about 3 inches, which is the distance of screen to eye, so that should work if I have them in opaque mode. But if in transparent AR mode, I couldn't see distant. Correct for distance, and there's no way I could read the screen. Really interested to know how that gets resolved (VR is actually easier than AR).

I’m confused. Or maybe you’re confused. There is no “AR transparent mode”. This isn’t seeing through the device. You are looking at a screen that is 3 inches from your face emulating what it would look like if you COULD see through the device.

In reality, it should be magic in that it would allow nearsighted people to feel as though they could see both near and far sighted at once since the image they see is actually in front of their eyes.

 

[laptech]

I wonder how many people will buy one just for the purpose of keeping it factory sealed so 20 years later they can try and sell it for $100,000 saying it is a super rare 1st edition.

 

[russell_314]

I will wait and see. It’s a lot of money and also the first generation. I expect the full potential won’t be realized for at least 5-10 years.

I see a lot of confused posts equating this thing to some existing VR gaming headset.

 

[franzkfk]

I wouldn't buy it for $1. It may have niche success as a gaming device, but that's it.

Virtual reality, augmented reality........ there will be a shift back to old fashioned actual reality very soon.

There is this strange misunderstanding for what the product is.
I blame Apple, because there are no geeks anymore who can sell it to you.
BUT, this is not a VR, it is a spacial computer.
It is a new form for monitor and computer.
I won’t buy it … yet. But I do think this is the future.