Could Vision Pro make visits to theme parks obsolete?

[Surf Monkey]

You (Surf Monkey) seem to have adopted a binary absolutism to your arguments here - it's can't replace real experiences, full stop. I'm not sure if even the most ambitious marketing executive at Apple has, or will, even attempt to suggest that it can provide an experience that is indistinguishable from the original, but what it can do is potentially provide a good approximation of an experience that the great majority of us cannot ever hope to experience in real life anyway.

Some of the examples mentioned here - touring the Titanic or the Space Station - would be experiences that none of us will ever get close to, so why would something that could potentially give some sort of immersive representation of those experiences not be a good thing? Taylor Swift concerts are expensive and hard to get tickets for, so why would a virtual participation in one via a headset not be at least better for her fans than sitting at home glumly watching clips that people upload to YouTube?

And what you lose from the slightly detached sense of being an outsider and the lack of social interaction, you will gain back in other ways through the potential the tec should give you to enhance your session. I'm imagining that you could position yourself on stage alongside Taylor Swift and walk around as she belts out her deeply mediocre canon.

I'm fascinated to see what they do with sports coverage, specifically football. The idea that I could watch coverage of games (which I almost exclusively do via television already) but position myself on the pitch and see the action from the closest of close-up positions is a fascinating one. I mean it might prove to be a gimmick in the longer run, but it should at least offer an experience beyond traditional television watching.

Absolutism? No. It’s a response to all the people who gleefully say that the VP is going to replace any number of real world experiences including live music performances and sporting events.

And let’s take sports as an example: sure, you can probably get a pretty great virtual experience of a Super Bowl or an F1 race inside Apple’s plastic headset, but it won’t be anything even approaching the experience of actually going to one of those events.

It’s kind of remarkable that a fairly large contingent of people don’t see any substantial difference. It’s also odd that many of the things people seem excited about doing inside the Apple helmet are inherently social behaviors. Things that won’t be satisfying inside an isolating device.

 

[Jensend]

Absolutism? No. It’s a response to all the people who gleefully say that the VP is going to replace any number of real world experiences including live music performances and sporting events.

And let’s take sports as an example: sure, you can probably get a pretty great virtual experience of a Super Bowl or an F1 race inside Apple’s plastic headset, but it won’t be anything even approaching the experience of actually going to one of those events.

It’s kind of remarkable that a fairly large contingent of people don’t see any substantial difference. It’s also odd that many of the things people seem excited about doing inside the Apple helmet are inherently social behaviors. Things that won’t be satisfying inside an isolating device.

Movies didn't completely replace live theater, but most people watch movies a lot more often the attend live theater. And movies can do a lot of things live theater can't.

Recordings of people acting, telling stories, playing music, and playing sports have already become vastly more popular than the live versions of those events.

Some people seem to resent the fact that in some ways VR can come closer than other technologies to recreating an in-person event, or even surpassing it in some aspects.

At best you're making a pedantic argument that VR isn't exactly the same as in-person events. We all know that.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Movies didn't completely replace live theater, but most people watch movies a lot more often the attend live theater. And movies can do a lot of things live theater can't.

No doubt. But the reason isn’t the quality of the experience. The reason is the cost. It was VASTLY less expensive to make a film of a performance and change a dime for people to watch it than it was to mount a tour of said performance and take it all from town to town to town. Given the vastly different context around these two technologies I don’t see the comparison as valid. Film, after all, was in its infancy during the Great Depression.

Recordings of people acting, telling stories, playing music, and playing sports have already become vastly more popular than the live versions of those events.

Tell that to Taylor Swift and the NFL.

Live events have always had a cap on the number of people who can attend them. That’s part of what makes them BETTER than recordings.

Some people seem to resent the fact that in some ways VR can come closer than other technologies to recreating an in-person event, or even surpassing it in some aspects.

“Resent?” There’s no evidence of resentment here. Looks like a sidelong personal swipe more than a legitimate criticism.

At best you're making a pedantic argument that VR isn't exactly the same as in-person events. We all know that.

I’m not. I’m responding to people who have argued that there is no significant difference between a VR experience and attending actual live event. That’s patently and obviously false.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

I think some virtual experiences will be exciting enough so that most will skip some live experiences. Of course the experience won’t be the same, but it will be good enough for some. For others, like myself, that don’t like attending live events — they may experience events that they wouldn’t have attended in the first place.

 

[Alameda]

Bob Iger said that Vision Pro could bring Disney World into Your World. Does this mean that he plans to use it to create a VR/AR version of Disney theme parks?

I took my kids to Disneyland every year. They were fantastic, loving family experiences. You cannot virtually recreate something like that anymore than you can virtually recreate a family hike in the forest. Sure, you can create something entertaining and fun, but it’s not a substitute for three days of outdoor fun with your kids.

 

[JohnnyQuest]

I'm sure there would be a ride simulation element, but I would see this more focused on viewing the nighttime fireworks and other shows, specifically filmed for the Vision.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I'm sure there would be a ride simulation element, but I would see this more focused on viewing the nighttime fireworks and other shows, specifically filmed for the Vision.

And you’ll have to pay for this limited experience that is in fact nothing like what Iger and Cook suggested it is.

 

[MisterSavage]

I think some virtual experiences will be exciting enough so that most will skip some live experiences. Of course the experience won’t be the same, but it will be good enough for some. For others, like myself, that don’t like attending live events — they may experience events that they wouldn’t have attended in the first place.

That's my take on it also. Saying it can replace them is absurd IMO. But being a "good enough" alternative for many to experience or choose sometimes will be great. At this point in my life I'd rather do anything than attend a multi-day outdoor music festival but if that was something I could experience with Vision Pro? Sign me up.

 

[jcmc]

Regarding sports coverage, how do you feel about watching football at home with friends? How is the Vision Pro a great experience with a group of people? Only seems great alone.

I watch virtually all my football (Italian) via my iPad and alone. Any social element for me might involve discussing it afterwards on Twitter. The social detachment thing that the Vision Pro represents is absolutely not an issue for me, though I appreciate that's not the case for everyone.

 

[jcmc]

That's my take on it also. Saying it can replace them is absurd IMO. But being a "good enough" alternative for many to experience or choose sometimes will be great. At this point in my life I'd rather do anything than attend a multi-day outdoor music festival but if that was something I could experience with Vision Pro? Sign me up.

This is a very good example. The idea of experiencing two thirds of the positives of a festival with absolutely none of the negatives very much appeals to me.

 

[jcmc]

Absolutism? No. It’s a response to all the people who gleefully say that the VP is going to replace any number of real world experiences including live music performances and sporting events.

And let’s take sports as an example: sure, you can probably get a pretty great virtual experience of a Super Bowl or an F1 race inside Apple’s plastic headset, but it won’t be anything even approaching the experience of actually going to one of those events.

It’s kind of remarkable that a fairly large contingent of people don’t see any substantial difference. It’s also odd that many of the things people seem excited about doing inside the Apple helmet are inherently social behaviors. Things that won’t be satisfying inside an isolating device.

I just don't see anyone on this thread, or more widely, making claims that VR experiences will ever be interchangeable with reality. What people ARE saying is that it when the option is currently binary ranging from 0 (cannot experience or attend) to 10 (can experience and attend), then something that can offer you up a 6 or 7 is way, way better than nothing.

A propos of nothing at all, a good, curated F1 VR experience would probably be preferable to the real thing for most people - quite aside from the crazy costs. I used to be involved with making F1 video games and so attended a couple and the actuality is that they are not remotely fun. The noise is just hideous and relentless. If you're just in the stands you have a fixed view looking at nothing for 90 seconds until the cars all whizz past, then another 90 seconds of nothing. Even if you have paddock access as I did it's not fun, shoulder-to-shoulder crowds mean you can hardly move anywhere and scornful team employees who resent you anywhere near them while they are doing their work.

I notice you don't address experiences like the Titanic or the Space Station which offer up incredible educational opportunities as well as entertainment ones.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I just don't see anyone on this thread, or more widely, making claims that VR experiences will ever be interchangeable with reality. What people ARE saying is that it when the option is currently binary ranging from 0 (cannot experience or attend) to 10 (can experience and attend), then something that can offer you up a 6 or 7 is way, way better than nothing.

But that isn’t the context. There’s video. There’s audio. It isn’t all or nothing.

A propos of nothing at all, a good, curated F1 VR experience would probably be preferable to the real thing for most people - quite aside from the crazy costs. I used to be involved with making F1 video games and so attended a couple and the actuality is that they are not remotely fun. The noise is just hideous and relentless. If you're just in the stands you have a fixed view looking at nothing for 90 seconds until the cars all whizz past, then another 90 seconds of nothing. Even if you have paddock access as I did it's not fun, shoulder-to-shoulder crowds mean you can hardly move anywhere and scornful team employees who resent you anywhere near them while they are doing their work.

The fact that you personally aren’t a fan of Formula 1 is an anecdote.

I notice you don't address experiences like the Titanic or the Space Station which offer up incredible educational opportunities as well as entertainment ones.

Why would I? Those are obviously reasonable use cases. But they remain isolated and niche. Apple isn’t going to launch a whole new product class based on looking at the wreck of the Titanic.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I watch virtually all my football (Italian) via my iPad and alone. Any social element for me might involve discussing it afterwards on Twitter. The social detachment thing that the Vision Pro represents is absolutely not an issue for me, though I appreciate that's not the case for everyone.

The vast majority of people experience sports as a communal event. Reducing that to a singular, isolated experience inside a helmet is a step backwards, not forward.

 

[Harry Haller]

The vast majority of people experience sports as a communal event. Reducing that to a singular, isolated experience inside a helmet is a step backwards, not forward.

Not for the people who don't enjoy communal events.
The VP won't keep the people who enjoy communal from continuing to do so.
For those who don't enjoy or are unable to attend communal events the VP allows them to do so vicariously
Choice is good, imo.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Not for the people who don't enjoy communal events.

Which is a minority. You can’t launch a new paradigm on a little minority of shut-ins. In order for it to be a success mainstream buyers need to get it. Mainstream. Like your mom.

The VP won't keep the people who enjoy communal from continuing to do so.
For those who don't enjoy or are unable to attend communal events the VP allows them to do so vicariously
Choice is good, imo.

In other words, for the little segment of people who don’t mind having an isolated experience of an event that is inherently communal at its core. A tiny niche that won’t make this product a success. It has to have WAY more appeal than that.

 

[jcmc]

The vast majority of people experience sports as a communal event. Reducing that to a singular, isolated experience inside a helmet is a step backwards, not forward.

I'd like to see your workings on this one. In reality the vast majority of people experience sports either in their living room via their television or somewhere in their home via their mobile device.

 

[jcmc]

But that isn’t the context. There’s video. There’s audio. It isn’t all or nothing.



The fact that you personally aren’t a fan of Formula 1 is an anecdote.


Why would I? Those are obviously reasonable use cases. But they remain isolated and niche. Apple isn’t going to launch a whole new product class based on looking at the wreck of the Titanic.

1) Keeping with the example of a Taylor Swift concert playing on a different continent, well there's not necessarily video or audio is there. She has a concert film out at the moment but not every concert she plays is recorded and released. The best most people might get is shaky clips uploaded from peoples mobile phones to YouTube. So keeping with the 0-10 scale then that might represent a 2 or 3, which leaves a whole lot of room for a better experience between that and being able to attend in person.

2) I did not say I was not a fan of F1 though did I. You quoted a race as an event to which personal attendance could never be replicated by using a plastic headset. I'm pointing out that it's a good example of an event, as with music festivals, where a curated VR experience could actually be better than the reality, where you can get most of the good parts without having to suffer the bad ones.

3) They are just examples of how the product could bring considerable educational advantages. The specifics of the Titanic or the Space Station aren't really that important when set against the evident educational promise that experiences like this could bring. You just need a bit of imagination to appreciate the potential.

 

[Alameda]

Which is a minority. You can’t launch a new paradigm on a little minority of shut-ins. In order for it to be a success mainstream buyers need to get it. Mainstream. Like your mom.

In other words, for the little segment of people who don’t mind having an isolated experience of an event that is inherently communal at its core. A tiny niche that won’t make this product a success. It has to have WAY more appeal than that.

The TV audience size of professional sports is VASTLY larger than the stadium capacity. Broadcast sports isn’t usually competing with live sports, it competes with other broadcasts.

Sports went to HD because it’s better, and they’ll go to 4K and someday 8K. We CAN’T all get tickets to all the events we want to attend, no matter how large the stadiums get.

 

[Harry Haller]

Which is a minority. You can’t launch a new paradigm on a little minority of shut-ins. In order for it to be a success mainstream buyers need to get it. Mainstream. Like your mom.

In other words, for the little segment of people who don’t mind having an isolated experience of an event that is inherently communal at its core. A tiny niche that won’t make this product a success. It has to have WAY more appeal than that.

They are not mutually exclusive.
That seems to be eluding your crusade against the VP.
Choice is good.
Good luck with your paradigm launching and tilting at windmills.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I'd like to see your workings on this one. In reality the vast majority of people experience sports either in their living room via their television or somewhere in their home via their mobile device.

With others. Not inside a plastic helmet.

 

[Surf Monkey]

The TV audience size of professional sports is VASTLY larger than the stadium capacity. Broadcast sports isn’t usually competing with live sports, it competes with other broadcasts.

Sports went to HD because it’s better, and they’ll go to 4K and someday 8K. We CAN’T all get tickets to all the events we want to attend, no matter how large the stadiums get.

And? Watching sporting events is still inherently social.

 

[Surf Monkey]

They are not mutually exclusive.
That seems to be eluding your crusade against the VP.
Choice is good.
Good luck with your paradigm launching and tilting at windmills.

It isn’t a crusade. But it is interesting how emotional and negative people get when faced with simple, valid criticism.

 

[Alameda]

And? Watching sporting events is still inherently social.

We agree that the live event is better. But the phone is unquestionably successful and it is an isolated experience, at least to the local user.

You and I are being social right now, but I’m sitting alone in a room, at the moment.

 

[JohnnyQuest]

And? Watching sporting events is still inherently social.

...that doesn't discredit the fact that a small minority of people watch it alone and will do so on the Vision.

 

[Surf Monkey]

We agree that the live event is better. But the phone is unquestionably successful and it is an isolated experience, at least to the local user.

You and I are being social right now, but I’m sitting alone in a room, at the moment.

This is not social interaction. People coming over to your house to watch the game. That’s social interaction.