Eyepod Pro

[f1vespeed]

If I'm getting the gist of the reviews, at one extreme Nilay is suggesting this form factor is a dead end for real computing, and Gruber is saying it's worth buying just as an amazing personal theater.

If Gruber is not mistaken, that would make this the very first *good* consumer TV goggles, a category that's been dreamt about and tried for decades, and it could be enough to make a huge hit product especially as prices come down, it might be that's all this current generation of headsets is meant to be.

Great displays, that are for the first time accompanied by all the video content you could want, very easily accessible. A "transparency" mode and a "noice cancelling" mode but for video. A usable and un-cumbersome input method (which we'll soon stop being so amazed by), some built-in apps not too far removed from a smart TV that enable maybe some light web browsing and gaming. And if you really want you can futz with connecting it wirelessly to your computer.

Over time, maybe this just becomes a very focused gadget, like the iPod was for music and the Apple Watch is for fitness tracking. It might just be headphones for your eyes and never needs to be much more for a long time.

 

[AlastorKatriona]

At worst, it's a complete dead end for serious computing.

At best, it's a way of watching movies by yourself (lame) that completely isolates you from everyone else around while you're watching them (irritating).

I watch stuff at night while falling asleep after everyone else has gone to sleep, but I'm not going to be wearing a giant headset while doing that.

 

[jclardy]

Nilay's review is too self-centered, he can't empathize with anyone outside of his own experience. He is editor-in-chief of a popular news website, with an open office in NYC. Of course he hates using it for his work - his work is literally talking to people 95% of the time.

For a large portion of the population now working remotely...this thing is amazing for work. I get his point - the "real world" is real, but for most people the choice is staring at a screen on a desk, or staring at the AVP. And then they seem to forget something - you can take the headset off. Just like you leave your monitor at your desk, you leave your headset at your desk.

Of course - his review is also hedging on price. If AVP was $1000 I think his take would be way different.

 

[tomtad]

I'm with you on this and was going to post something similar.

I see this finding a place as a companion device that elevates certain experiences. Things like viewing a 3D architectural model, playing a game, viewing a panorama photo, choosing some trainers, watching a movie etc.

These are things that you put the Vision Pro on for, but then you take it off again. Your main productivity will continue to be on screens, you will take it off to interact with someone.

For this to work Apple will need to aggressively price cut this device and remove some elements (do you need EyeSight?, does it need to ship with two bands?, does it need to ship with a battery? etc) to get it in people hands but lets say this thing is half the price, and offers the same core experience as today they have a winner.

 

[Bodhitree]

Over time, maybe this just becomes a very focused gadget, like the iPod was for music and the Apple Watch is for fitness tracking. It might just be headphones for your eyes and never needs to be much more for a long time.

There is certainly value in that, isolating you from the environment in a selective fashion and letting you focus on work or entertainment. But headphones are 500 dollar appliances at most.

 

[f1vespeed]

There is certainly value in that, isolating you from the environment in a selective fashion and letting you focus on work or entertainment. But headphones are 500 dollar appliances at most.

I look forward to the day these are just a simple, lightweight, cozy device made of white apple headphone plastic and fabric for $500 that I can just toss in my backpack as a simple pleasure.

I realize this sounds a lot like the meta quest already, but you know, even thinner and lighter and with the entire Apple hw/sw stack thrown in

 

[Ubuntu]

Nilay's review is too self-centered, he can't empathize with anyone outside of his own experience. He is editor-in-chief of a popular news website, with an open office in NYC. Of course he hates using it for his work - his work is literally talking to people 95% of the time.

For a large portion of the population now working remotely...this thing is amazing for work. I get his point - the "real world" is real, but for most people the choice is staring at a screen on a desk, or staring at the AVP. And then they seem to forget something - you can take the headset off. Just like you leave your monitor at your desk, you leave your headset at your desk.

Of course - his review is also hedging on price. If AVP was $1000 I think his take would be way different.

I think his point was more that Apple's attempt to keep you connected to the outside world via EyeSight just won't work. That and no matter how good the technology is it's still way off reality (hence this direction being a dead end vs AR glasses). It's also pretty weird that Tim has been talking for years about AR and then Apple releases a VR headset.

I don't think his take would be that different if the cost was lower. Sure, it'd get an extra point in their score but I think many of his points still stand. Also, as a remote worker my eyes need a break as it is so I can't see myself wearing this all day (same goes for my Quest 3).

 

[mattopotamus]

At worst, it's a complete dead end for serious computing.

At best, it's a way of watching movies by yourself (lame) that completely isolates you from everyone else around while you're watching them (irritating).

I watch stuff at night while falling asleep after everyone else has gone to sleep, but I'm not going to be wearing a giant headset while doing that.

As a big movie buff, that has a home theater and watches a lot of movies alone, I am super excited. Some reviews I have read said the movie experience alone is worth $5K and it's amazing that you can experience something like that in the comfort of your home. If that is the experience I have, it is worth the cost alone.

 

[NT1440]

I think his point was more that Apple's attempt to keep you connected to the outside world via EyeSight just won't work. That and no matter how good the technology is it's still way off reality (hence this direction being a dead end vs AR glasses). It's also pretty weird that Tim has been talking for years about AR and then Apple releases a VR headset.

I don't think his take would be that different if the cost was lower. Sure, it'd get an extra point in their score but I think many of his points still stand. Also, as a remote worker my eyes need a break as it is so I can't see myself wearing this all day (same goes for my Quest 3).

…this is the first step towards real AR glasses. How is that not obvious to everyone?

Apple is delivering a platform that sets the UI and UX for AR, the dev toolkits and API’s. This means all the apps and use cases are already in place while the screen technology for glasses continues marching forward but is absolutely not viable today.

No idea why you’re viewing this as a VR headset, it just simply isn’t. It’s based from the ground up on being an AR *platform* and the AVP is the MVP (minimal viable product) to get the *platform* into the world.

 

[f1vespeed]

…this is the first step towards real AR glasses. How is that not obvious to everyone?

Apple is delivering a platform that sets the UI and UX for AR, the dev toolkits and API’s. This means all the apps and use cases are already in place while the screen technology for glasses continues marching forward but is absolutely not viable today.

No idea why you’re viewing this as a VR headset, it just simply isn’t. It’s based from the ground up on being an AR *platform* and the AVP is the MVP (minimal viable product) to get the *platform* into the world.

One thing I like about Nilay is that he wants to "review the product that's in the box", which is very different from "someday this will be the future of x"

While your perspective is absolutely valid, the other side of the coin is that this is a real product being sold at every Apple store right now. It's important for it not to just be a preview of things that could come in 10 years (and have been in the works for the past, like, 4 decades). For all we know, they still have no idea how to make AR glasses, we might still be doing this form factor 10 years from now.

The Apps and system design ideas that foresee an AR future but launch 10 years too soon are just gonna fall flat, until we really have AR glasses.

Vision Pro in my mind isn't the "first step" at all, Apple is launching the best headset ever in a market that's existed for years, that too without any real AR apps.

 

[Ubuntu]

…this is the first step towards real AR glasses. How is that not obvious to everyone?

Apple is delivering a platform that sets the UI and UX for AR, the dev toolkits and API’s. This means all the apps and use cases are already in place while the screen technology for glasses continues marching forward but is absolutely not viable today.

No idea why you’re viewing this as a VR headset, it just simply isn’t. It’s based from the ground up on being an AR *platform* and the AVP is the MVP (minimal viable product) to get the *platform* into the world.

Is it? There’s barely anything AR about this product. The APIs you described are for mixed reality, which isn’t the same. The whole point of AR is augmenting physical objects whereas the Vision Pro is placing digital objects around your room - the same as the Quest 3 does (to a much higher standard).

It is 100% a VR headset - pass through doesn’t change that as otherwise we’d be saying the Quest 3 is an AR headset too.

 

[NT1440]

Is it? There’s barely anything AR about this product. The APIs you described are for mixed reality, which isn’t the same. The whole point of AR is augmenting physical objects whereas the Vision Pro is placing digital objects around your room - the same as the Quest 3 does (to a much higher standard).

It is 100% a VR headset - pass through doesn’t change that as otherwise we’d be saying the Quest 3 is an AR headset too.

Can you elaborate on this? Mixed reality (my understanding) IS AR.

I’ve never seen an explanation of AR as somehow manipulating physical objects? I’m a bit lost on the distinction you’re making here.

Regarding the Quest, there’s a massive difference in a system that is designed for pass-through first (and therefore all UI/UX choices stem from there) and simply bolting on some lousy cameras and having pass through merely be a “mode”.

 

[Ubuntu]

Can you elaborate on this? Mixed reality (my understanding) IS AR.

I’ve never seen an explanation of AR as somehow manipulating physical objects? I’m a bit lost on the distinction you’re making here.

Regarding the Quest, there’s a massive difference in a system that is designed for pass-through first (and therefore all UI/UX choices stem from there) and simply bolting on some lousy cameras and having pass through merely be a “mode”.

My understanding is that while the two are similar augmented reality is applying digital information/improvements over physical objects, e.g.:
- pointing a device at the engine of a car you need to repair and the software overlaying which part is next in the series of steps
- holding your phone up at a road and having it identify that road as part of the route you need to take and highlighting it.

Hence it being called augmented reality.

Whereas mixed reality seems to be more of a blend of AR/VR and so far involves placing digital objects in the world like app windows.

So with the Vision Pro I'd argue it's more MR because you're simply taking digital apps and placing them around your physical environment. There's nothing wrong with that but it's exactly what my Quest 3 does, too. I don't know if you've tried it but it's the same deal - passthrough is the default for the Quest 3 and while it's nowhere near as nice as what the VP does it's the same kind of thing.

 

[NT1440]

My understanding is that while the two are similar augmented reality is applying digital information/improvements over physical objects, e.g.:
- pointing a device at the engine of a car you need to repair and the software overlaying which part is next in the series of steps
- holding your phone up at a road and having it identify that road as part of the route you need to take and highlighting it.

Hence it being called augmented reality.

Whereas mixed reality seems to be more of a blend of AR/VR and so far involves placing digital objects in the world like app windows.

So with the Vision Pro I'd argue it's more MR because you're simply taking digital apps and placing them around your physical environment. There's nothing wrong with that but it's exactly what my Quest 3 does, too. I don't know if you've tried it but it's the same deal - passthrough is the default for the Quest 3 and while it's nowhere near as nice as what the VP does it's the same kind of thing.

The first use case you’re describing is 100% possible to develop on the AVP. That’s up to Devs though. The tools to do it are there, you might be interested in perusing the AVP WWDC developer sessions for more details. I believe internally Apple is working with heavy industry companies to help them develop applications for that kind of training. We’ll find out that these companies are doing this internally at wwdc.

That functionality is part of the platform.

This is a spotlight, not the sessions going over the API’s I was referring to above.

Spotlight on: Apple Vision Pro apps for enterprise - Discover - Apple Developer

Learn how JigSpace and PTC are approaching the new world of visionOS.

developer.apple.com

 

[Ubuntu]

The first use case you’re describing is 100% possible to develop on the AVP. That’s up to Devs though. The tools to do it are there, you might be interested in perusing the AVP WWDC developer sessions for more details. I believe internally Apple is working with heavy industry companies to help them develop applications for that kind of training. We’ll find out that these companies are doing this internally at wwdc.

That functionality is part of the platform.

This is a spotlight, not the sessions going over the API’s I was referring to above.

Spotlight on: Apple Vision Pro apps for enterprise - Discover - Apple Developer

Learn how JigSpace and PTC are approaching the new world of visionOS.

developer.apple.com

And where are the first party offers? Most of the use cases I’ve seen in their adverts don’t feel like AR and tbh wouldn’t be practical anyway given the size or the headset etc. This is why I feel it’s really just a VR/MR headset. I don’t doubt the potential of this product and will no doubt buy a gen 3 or 4 but for now it feels like a much better competitor to my Quest 3 for a lot more money.

 

[NT1440]

And where are the first party offers? Most of the use cases I’ve seen in their adverts don’t feel like AR and tbh wouldn’t be practical anyway given the size or the headset etc. This is why I feel it’s really just a VR/MR headset. I don’t doubt the potential of this product and will no doubt buy a gen 3 or 4 but for now it feels like a much better competitor to my Quest 3 for a lot more money.

I really do think this device has to be tried out for someone to truly understand how different this is from VR headsets.