David Pogues' experience with the Vision Pro

[HDFan]

Best desciption I've seen of a 30 minute session with the Vision Pro. The "starting" price may not reflect hardware upgrades but the additional cost of the Zeiss lenses for those who wear glasses. Very likely will require fitting in an Apple Store (as reported elsewhere) as the light shield and headbands each come in 3 different sizes.

Detailed description of the setup process for the hardware and software. Multiple separate steps required to setup eye tracking, face hologram, optical lens correction.

For use on planes, trains, and automobiles, Apple cheerfully suggests that you buy some AirPods and wear those, too.

The outside display face display a three-dimensional live computer-generated hologram of the top half of your face.

Was not working during the demos. [Think he mentioned but can't find reference in the article when re-reading]

Weight was a problem.

My First Immersion in Apple Vision Pro: Heavy, Man!

This morning, I spent half an hour trying the Apple Vision Pro headset. Here’s the punch line: This is one freaking mind-blowing piece of…

medium.com

 

[Longplays]

If I had nothing better to do with $3.5k I'd have preorder this by now.

Sadly I do not have any div from the 112,000 $AAPL shares I should have by now. Stupid me didn't buy it in Jan 2009 during its 20Y low.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Best desciption I've seen of a 30 minute session with the Vision Pro. The "starting" price may not reflect hardware upgrades but the additional cost of the Zeiss lenses for those who wear glasses. Very likely will require fitting in an Apple Store (as reported elsewhere) as the light shield and headbands each come in 3 different sizes.

Detailed description of the setup process for the hardware and software. Multiple separate steps required to setup eye tracking, face hologram, optical lens correction.

For use on planes, trains, and automobiles, Apple cheerfully suggests that you buy some AirPods and wear those, too.

The outside display face display a three-dimensional live computer-generated hologram of the top half of your face.

Was not working during the demos. [Think he mentioned but can't find reference in the article when re-reading]

Weight was a problem.

My First Immersion in Apple Vision Pro: Heavy, Man!

This morning, I spent half an hour trying the Apple Vision Pro headset. Here’s the punch line: This is one freaking mind-blowing piece of…

medium.com

Actually I believe the demo was with 4 different sizes available... but Jason Snell (who apparently has an odd shaped head) was told there would be 12 sizes available on launch.

There was a fair amount of work still needed to be done on the visionOS but one of the things that the announcement allowed is that the headset and number of employees working on it can be greatly increased -- and some senior (trusted) developers will be able to take the device home with them... and developers within Apple that did not 'have a need to know' will now have access to the device. So the hardware is pretty well complete, but the software/OS side will now be full steam ahead to get ready in the next 8 or 9 months.

Weight is not so much of a problem as long as you use the optional head strap that goes over the top of your head... (only one glimpse of that was in the pictures/videos during the presentation - and so quick and obscured that pretty much everyone watching it missed it).

 

[Herbert123]

Weight is a REAL problem here. 7 out of 8 journalists asked found the weight uncomfortable after less than ~20 minutes of use. The Apple reps' excuse is very telling: they must have encountered this in their usability/UX testing with test participants.

The majority (I am guessing off-hand 80% or more) of regular users is not going to be willing to watch an average film of 90 minutes wearing these in one sitting. And that's not even including other "minor"inconveniences such as sweating and skin irritation due to continuous pressure (if you've ever worn ski-goggles for any extended time, you will be familiar with the utter relief that many people feel after taking these off).

And this thing is way heavier than a pair of ski-goggles. The pressure on the skin and head is worse.

Look: this is probably the best attempt so far to bring a consumer-grade VR/AR pair of glasses to the more general market. But it is not enough. It is still too awkward, inconvenient, and gimmicky.

Yes, they will sell. Apple's reality distortion field and the suitability of this product for tangential markets (real estate, engineering, demoing, serious simulations, etc.) will ensure this (I assume). And of course the small niche of early tech adopters / enthusiasts, because the tech that is on show here is quite impressive.
But the processing power is wholly inadequate for AA/AAA VR games, and that niche market is mostly lost from the outset.

Will they be used much by regular people for media consumption? I doubt it. No-one wants to feel uncomfortable after only 15-20 minutes wearing them.

And that has been the Achilles' heel of all wearable VR/AR tech up till this point: its (negative) physical impact on the user is too inconvenient for normal regular daily use by regular average consumers. And while the Vision Pro is impressive, it is STILL too inconvenient and awkward for the general consumer.

The physical weight of the glasses needs to be in the realm of regular eye wear. And ought to be worn like regular eye wear as well. As long as those two criteria are not met, these things will remain a gimmick: nice to demo content with at short time spans.

A better approach (in my opinion) would have been to focus on ultra-light glasses with an external cell-phone sized pack that is worn on the body, i.e. the belt for example, instead of integrating all processing in the same glasses (which is indeed a wondrous achievement, btw). Similar to the original walkmans and ipods (both of which proved to be a huge consumer success!).

PS a secondary issue is the lack of dedicated media content. The walkman and ipod had a wealth of media content specifically suited for these devices and consumers loved them for it.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

The Quest 1 was 503 grams, the Quest 2 is round 570, the Quest Pro is around 722g, weight of Vive Pro is 850g, the weight of Varjo Aero is 717g. Some of those have limited performance on the device and some take different directions.... Apple is building more into the device (except batteries), it does not have as much distance from the heads center of balance, and by all indications it is a more solid build than most...

Could they move the electronics down, yes - but that is not where almost all of the weight is... it would also likely limit on device performance, require a more solid cable for bandwidth, increase latency -- which is very bad for an AR device where you are trying to have the image at most one refresh frame (1/83 of a second maximum) delayed from real life. Will the electronics be moved down to belt level on the eventual Glasses - yes, but it will not be an emersive device - it will be more of an informational device.

Apple's weight is suppose to be 500g (at this point). Where could Apple lose weight? Well they could lose the front screen, they could switch to more plastics, but overall... it is reasonable compromise for the market they seem to be aiming for for a v1 device.

By bandwidth I am talking about bidirectional communication to a device 100s of times farther from the current electronics - a total of 2 x 4K down to the device along with the other sensors.... then the 2 x 4K image etc. back to the display. This would be significant bandwidth requiring a more 'solid' cable and potentially other electronics depending on cable size. It would also affect latency - which is the real killer (and cause more barfers and not as good experience). There is a reason why it has been a 'holy grail' of R&D to put as much performance on the unit itself.... (the R&D spent on that is because what it promises).

 

[Herbert123]

Oh, I agree with all of that. Current reality is simple: the tech does not yet exist to turn this into a mass-consumer product.

I see all of these devices as prototypes, fulfilling and catering for specific limited market niches, and a general work-in-progress technology.

It will take another decade (or two or three) to turn it into a mass-media consumer device. But Apple is probably aware of that and it is smart investing in this tech now to prevent being blind-sided by potential future disruptive movers in that market.

It's not as if Apple as a company is taking any financial risk here: if anything, the R&D investment probably pays for itself even if the Vision Pro hardly sells.

 

[LiemTa]

My bet is $3500 is the starting price for 16 GB of storage, then $3550 for 32 GB, and $5000 for 256 GB

 

[Analog Kid]

I don't understand why people keep making comments like this:

"In five years, it won’t cost $3,500. It will have become a standard big-ticket birthday/Christmas option for your kid, spouse, or parent, just the way Apple Watches or AirPods are now."​

I can't think of many Apple products that started really expensive and got progressively cheaper. Fluctuate a bit, shave a few hundred dollars off here and there, sure... But most high tech products like this tend to hold their nominal price and keep adding capability.

I suspect we're more than 5 years from a value priced, downspec'd Vision. It certainly won't get into the $200-$800 range the Watches and Airpods are at now.

 

[Night Spring]

PS a secondary issue is the lack of dedicated media content. The walkman and ipod had a wealth of media content specifically suited for these devices and consumers loved them for it.

Are you talking about the lack of 3D content? You don't think 2D movies are enough to entice people to try the Vision Pro?

 

[tomtad]

It’s too heavy

 

[Herbert123]

Are you talking about the lack of 3D content? You don't think 2D movies are enough to entice people to try the Vision Pro?

Oh, I suppose people will be curious enough to give it a whirl. And then discover after 20 minutes of use how uncomfortable it is to wear compared to watching a regular large screen UHD television set.

Wearing an uncomfortably heavy set of Vision Pro goggles for 90 minutes or more? Enduring painful and sweaty skin pressure? It's too much of an ask. And what if you want to step away for a quick toilet break? Or get a snack? Keep wearing them?

I also foresee issues in regard to the social aspect: people like watching telly together and comment on stuff. It is a social event. The family or couple watching a show together, for example. Or the news.

Now imagine a family of four all wearing Vision Pros in the same room. Nope, won't work. One of those sets is more or as expensive as a giant 85" UHD 4K screen. Imagine a family having to spend $14.000 to watch 2d movies? And forget about the social experience: it's just very, very awkward.

How about those greasy fingers when having dinner (a burger) while watching? It would potentially damage those nice Vision Pros. "Family destroys Vision Pro with Ketchup hands".

All in all, the Vision Pro sounds great in theory, and it will be used in businesses demoing content. An interior designer wanting to show off their vision, for example.

It is not meant nor ready for the mass media consumer market. It is not meant for general content creation either. Apple knows this. Their aims and goals for the Vision Pro are different.