Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
But ultimately this feature is made for a 2024 product that, at $3,500, it's safe to say most people won't buy anytime soon. Still, the experience is impressive.
God, this kind of reporting is SO lazy. "This thing is nice, but it's expensive."

People buy expensive things ALL THE TIME. They buy them because they're convinced by the usefulness and/or novelty of a feature set -- the feature set you could be reporting on if you weren't so busy reminding people of the most obvious property of the product.

I think it should be clear Apple isn't expecting to sell these things to a lot of people, anyway. Nobody would complain if a medium format camera, carbon fiber bicycle or an ATV was $3500 -- we need to know if the Vision Pro really is a new category of device, one where $3500 is a bargain, or if it's an over engineered Occulus. And because of the nature of the device at this point in its development cycle, we can only to rely on reporters to help us establish this.
 
Nah, the way to capture vidoes/stills such that they become usdz files capable of viewing on Vision Pro in 3D is already well defined with a lot of companies already supporting the format. By leaving money on the table for others, it guarantees a wide range of capture devices with varying feature sets and price points. Plus, everyone knows if Apple releases a device it’s VERY likely that the EU will label it as a gatekeeper device and yank all the profits out of the endeavor. :)

But, I guess that’s only IF Apple decides to release the Vision Pro and it’s App Store in the EU.
If you think that Apple is going to stop releasing new hardware because they’re afraid of the EU, you don’t know Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mech986
Apple is leaving billions on the table by not releasing their own standalone 2D/3D video/still camera. They are also leaving out all of those professional creatives that they still seem very eager to engage with.
I wonder if Apple will introduce a way for you to arrange multiple iPhones in tandem to capture true spatial video, perhaps when mounted on some kind of rack. It's like an extension of allowing people to use their smartphones as a webcam for their laptop or Apple TV, and would be a pretty clever way to get creators to invest in multiple iPhones.
 
Something about the whole idea of this reminds me of a Microsoft Surface parody from 16 years ago, “And if your mom has $10,000 lying around that she isn’t doing anything with, then you can send her a postcard..for free.”

Which kind of to me feels like, ”Hey you know how you spent $1k+ on a phone and $3500+ for a headset with a 2 hour battery? Well if your mom also bought the $3500 headset you can show her her grandkids in weird freaky 3D..for free.”

Video I am referring to:
 
I don't concede the point. For some people the AVP could replace a desktop in the same way the iPad can do so, for some people.
Agreed, but don't ignore the elephant in the room. Wearing something over one's eyes and having something strapped to one's head is a big hurdle. It is nothing like touch. Jobs was right. Touch made devices more personal. I don't think wearing goggles will have the same effect. At all. Techies think it's cool, and I can appreciate that, but it will take a lot to get the average person on board.

I also don't think Vision Pro is an ideal device for replacing a desktop. An iPad or Mac is a lot quicker to access. Pull it out of your backpack, open the lid or swipe up and you're working. With Vision Pro you need to get it out of some protective case, strap it to your head and make sure it fits and feels right, plug in a battery pack.... And what if you just want to look something up quickly? Vision Pro doesn't improve upon anything in scenarios like this.

While Vision Pro can surely replace a computer for some people, the real question is why would anyone want to do that in the first place? For most users Vision Pro will be an accessory, not their primary computing device. I have no doubt that some ardent Apple fans will try very hard to convince themselves that Vision Pro is a better device/platform for all their computing needs...but the other 99.99% of the world will stick with more conventional - and more functional - form factors for many years to come.
 
Agreed, but don't ignore the elephant in the room. Wearing something over one's eyes and having something strapped to one's head is a big hurdle. It is nothing like touch. Jobs was right. Touch made devices more personal. I don't think wearing goggles will have the same effect. At all. Techies think it's cool, and I can appreciate that, but it will take a lot to get the average person on board.

I also don't think Vision Pro is an ideal device for replacing a desktop. An iPad or Mac is a lot quicker to access. Pull it out of your backpack, open the lid or swipe up and you're working. With Vision Pro you need to get it out of some protective case, strap it to your head and make sure it fits and feels right, plug in a battery pack.... And what if you just want to look something up quickly? Vision Pro doesn't improve upon anything in scenarios like this.

While Vision Pro can surely replace a computer for some people, the real question is why would anyone want to do that in the first place? For most users Vision Pro will be an accessory, not their primary computing device. I have no doubt that some ardent Apple fans will try very hard to convince themselves that Vision Pro is a better device/platform for all their computing needs...but the other 99.99% of the world will stick with more conventional - and more functional - form factors for many years to come.

These are great points. I had not considered the difficulty in using Vision Pro for quickly looking things up or working immediately.

With the comparison to pulling a laptop out of a bag, I would submit that Vision Pro is definitely a home, indoor device, but one that is still portable enough to take to work. As someone obsessed with Vision Pro, even we can fully agree that using one at an airport or on a plane is ridiculous. In fact, leaving one in direct sunlight can fry the displays.

I do think Vision Pro will be a viable daily driver computer for many. I think of two reasons: information density and input efficiency. Phones and tablets are much more personal than a Vision Pro, but they inherently have small displays. Vision Pro exploits human perception to give the experience of having unlimited, virtual displays of any size. Sure, the PPD is nowhere near a good 27 inch display or 4k tv (yet), but there is no limit to the size or number of those displays. The second is the efficiency of the input model. Yet to be seen, but it looks like moving within interfaces by gaze and a (physical) keyboard may offer lower latency than using a mouse and keyboard. Time will telll.

I remember in 2010 when people expected iPad to replace laptops. They of course did not. I believe the main reason is that phones got quite large and capable. I expect Vision Pro to live between Mac and Apple TV. It won’t replace either, but still offers advantages over each.
 
It’s hard to put into words the effect being actually inside a VR scene is

The sense of scale is something that you can’t really compare to traditional 3D glasses at the theater, it’s something you have to experience for yourself to really understand.

That said I don’t think this has any shot of becoming the default way of experiencing media, it’s just too inconvenient no matter how sleek and lightweight the headset is
That and when it comes to photos and videos you took the memories are the whole point, you take pictures of things that meant something to you, I guess being immersed into it would trigger some kind of emotional response like you’re back in time but the illusion would instantly break the second you try to look around, which is something curated 360 degree content doesn’t have to worry about

I bet it’s a nice gimmick, it’s probably gonna be fun for a couple weeks before you go back to just scrolling through your photos and videos normally

I’m a huge believer in the Apple Vision platform btw, I just don’t think this particular feature is a big deal but what do I know, I don’t even particularly like taking pictures in the first place
 
Agreed, but don't ignore the elephant in the room. Wearing something over one's eyes and having something strapped to one's head is a big hurdle. It is nothing like touch. Jobs was right. Touch made devices more personal. I don't think wearing goggles will have the same effect. At all. Techies think it's cool, and I can appreciate that, but it will take a lot to get the average person on board.

I also don't think Vision Pro is an ideal device for replacing a desktop. An iPad or Mac is a lot quicker to access. Pull it out of your backpack, open the lid or swipe up and you're working. With Vision Pro you need to get it out of some protective case, strap it to your head and make sure it fits and feels right, plug in a battery pack.... And what if you just want to look something up quickly? Vision Pro doesn't improve upon anything in scenarios like this.

While Vision Pro can surely replace a computer for some people, the real question is why would anyone want to do that in the first place? For most users Vision Pro will be an accessory, not their primary computing device. I have no doubt that some ardent Apple fans will try very hard to convince themselves that Vision Pro is a better device/platform for all their computing needs...but the other 99.99% of the world will stick with more conventional - and more functional - form factors for many years to come.
100%. But it's even worse than that. This the first hardware Apple has released that is truly objectionable...something no one anywhere actually wants to use. No one wants to wear a big bulky headset for any period of time. It's something they have to do, in order to get at the software experience. That is really significant. You can't say that about any other Apple hardware. That is going to have an bigger impact on the adoption of Vison Pro than the price.
 
I wonder if Apple will introduce a way for you to arrange multiple iPhones in tandem to capture true spatial video, perhaps when mounted on some kind of rack. It's like an extension of allowing people to use their smartphones as a webcam for their laptop or Apple TV, and would be a pretty clever way to get creators to invest in multiple iPhones.
I doubt it. It would require multiple identical phone models positioned perfectly. By the time you add up that cost and precision, you might as well buy a specialized camera if you're a pro. And if you're not a pro, you're not going to be too quick to spend that much money for something that doesn't generate revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesHolden
3D has been a failure since the 1960's, but I think this is different. Specifically, the fact each eye gets a fully independent and partitioned signal and dynamic movement/head tracking should be something completely different. There's still a chance it doesn't catch on, in which case the Vision Pro enables a 2D video viewing experience not bound to physical constraints. 55 inch TV's are common because that's about as big of a box one can fit into a car.
It’s called VR and I hope apple lets us record for other VR headsets too
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lyrics23
Apple is leaving billions on the table by not releasing their own standalone 2D/3D video/still camera. They are also leaving out all of those professional creatives that they still seem very eager to engage with.
I also, for years now, have wondered why Apple has not made a standalone fantastic camera for Prosumers. The iPhone is amazingly easy to use for photography, however, I'm not really that impressed with how the pictures look, especially when zooming in.

Apple could make a really great quality camera without the limitations of it being a thin smartphone...put in some fantastic lenses, simple integration to iPhone for texting the pics (in 100% full quality), simple integration to directly transfer to a pc/Mac via wifi and/or bluetooth, generally match DSLR features and manual adjustments, and sell it for $1200 and I'll be first in line.

DSLRs from all the vendors (that I have seen) offer stunning quality, but terrible wireless technology/integration. I don't mind pulling out the SD cards but boy what a timesaver it would be if I could *EASILY* (less than 3 clicks) zap them to my iPhone or a friend's phone or to my PC. If someone knows of such a simple integration, please share with me the makes/models and generally a description of how it works.
 
These are great points. I had not considered the difficulty in using Vision Pro for quickly looking things up or working immediately.

With the comparison to pulling a laptop out of a bag, I would submit that Vision Pro is definitely a home, indoor device, but one that is still portable enough to take to work. As someone obsessed with Vision Pro, even we can fully agree that using one at an airport or on a plane is ridiculous. In fact, leaving one in direct sunlight can fry the displays.
I agree that it is a home/indoor device, generally speaking. When I think about how I use my devices, I don't see Vision Pro being an improvement in any way. I frequently grab my phone or Mac and look something up or answer a text. I'm not going to put Vision Pro on and take it off every time I want to do something like that, nor am I going to go about my day wearing it and experiencing reality through video feeds...just so I can have a big Messages window.

For Vision Pro to be a serious computing platform, it has to improve upon current form factors and the overall user experience those devices deliver. So far, I don't see Vision Pro as an improvement in any meaningful way. That doesn't mean it isn't insanely cool tech...but just how useful, day to day, is that tech? I think having to wear something, especially on one's head, over one's eyes, is going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people. As silly as it sounds, think about how it's going to mess up one's hair.

I do think Vision Pro will be a viable daily driver computer for many. I think of two reasons: information density and input efficiency. Phones and tablets are much more personal than a Vision Pro, but they inherently have small displays.
But is that really a problem for most users? Think about all of the laptop buyers who don't buy an external display. They are perfectly happy with their small screens. Even on these forums I frequently see people complain about monitors that are too big whenever external displays are discussed. I'm not convinced that the promise of huge screens floating in the air will move the needle at all. Most people aren't doing twenty things at once on their computer. Most people don't use external displays, much less multiple monitors, so how is this a selling point for them?

Vision Pro exploits human perception to give the experience of having unlimited, virtual displays of any size. Sure, the PPD is nowhere near a good 27 inch display or 4k tv (yet), but there is no limit to the size or number of those displays.
Do we know that there is no limit to size and number of displays? People on here say they plan to replace their three external monitors with a Vision Pro...but do we even know that Vision Pro can display three virtual monitors? Many of these Vision Pro threads remind me of the Watch threads leading up to its release. People were throwing out all kinds of features and use cases as though they were a given...and many of them turned out (shocker) to be pipe dreams.

The second is the efficiency of the input model. Yet to be seen, but it looks like moving within interfaces by gaze and a (physical) keyboard may offer lower latency than using a mouse and keyboard. Time will telll.
I agree that time will tell. Personally I don't see how Vision Pro's input model is an improvement over the tried and true mouse and keyboard. Apples to apples, multi-touch is not better, and I expect Vision Pro's input model to also fall short of the keyboard/mouse in terms of speed and efficiency too. No doubt (as you suggest), it will be a lot better with a physical keyboard. I do think there are certain user types who will benefit greatly from Vision Pro's input model, though. People with certain disabilities or mobility issues, for example.

I remember in 2010 when people expected iPad to replace laptops. They of course did not. I believe the main reason is that phones got quite large and capable. I expect Vision Pro to live between Mac and Apple TV. It won’t replace either, but still offers advantages over each.
I thought those people were crazy. There was no way that an iPad would ever replace a laptop/desktop for people who need a proper computer. The reasons are numerous and obvious in my opinion. iOS is so limited - and limiting. Multitasking sucks. Touch is much slower than a mouse/keyboard and not nearly as accurate. Copy and paste still sucks, how many years later... Even today there are basically no desktop class apps on iOS.

I'm not sure if Vision Pro lives between products, but I see your point. I think the vast majority of people who buy it will buy it for one reason only: entertainment. The real problem there is the fact that it can't be shared. For less than $1000, a family of four can gather around a huge TV with Apple TV. To get the Vision Pro experience, that same family has to shell out upward of $14,000.

100%. But it's even worse than that. This the first hardware Apple has released that is truly objectionable...something no one anywhere actually wants to use. No one wants to wear a big bulky headset for any period of time. It's something they have to do, in order to get at the software experience. That is really significant. You can't say that about any other Apple hardware. That is going to have an bigger impact on the adoption of Vison Pro than the price.
I completely agree. Will the Vision Pro software experience be so mind-blowing that it convinces people to wear it? I have serious doubts. The entertainment aspects of the device seem compelling, but the computing platform aspects don't seem particularly exciting to me. I think once the gimmick wears off, people will still prefer kicking back on the couch with a laptop or iPad over wearing a headset.

VR headsets have existed for years. The Quest can do most, if not all, of what Vision Pro does. Vision Pro does seem to be an improvement over the Quest in many ways, but fundamentally they are quite similar and yet the general public has not embraced the Quest (or any other VR device). Anecdotally, I know several kids who got Quest headsets for Christmas over the past few years. They were all beyond excited...for a few days...and then they were over it. They all went back to playing games on their iPads and computers.
 
"Better than a TV" is a bit of stretch, considering there are more factors. Having to watch something by yourself while isolated inside goggles is not "better than a TV".
Sure, but many people, myself included, watch TV alone. Was speaking purely from the point of visual quality.
I agree that it is a home/indoor device, generally speaking. When I think about how I use my devices, I don't see Vision Pro being an improvement in any way. I frequently grab my phone or Mac and look something up or answer a text. I'm not going to put Vision Pro on and take it off every time I want to do something like that, nor am I going to go about my day wearing it and experiencing reality through video feeds...just so I can have a big Messages window.

For Vision Pro to be a serious computing platform, it has to improve upon current form factors and the overall user experience those devices deliver. So far, I don't see Vision Pro as an improvement in any meaningful way. That doesn't mean it isn't insanely cool tech...but just how useful, day to day, is that tech? I think having to wear something, especially on one's head, over one's eyes, is going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people. As silly as it sounds, think about how it's going to mess up one's hair.


But is that really a problem for most users? Think about all of the laptop buyers who don't buy an external display. They are perfectly happy with their small screens. Even on these forums I frequently see people complain about monitors that are too big whenever external displays are discussed. I'm not convinced that the promise of huge screens floating in the air will move the needle at all. Most people aren't doing twenty things at once on their computer. Most people don't use external displays, much less multiple monitors, so how is this a selling point for them?


Do we know that there is no limit to size and number of displays? People on here say they plan to replace their three external monitors with a Vision Pro...but do we even know that Vision Pro can display three virtual monitors? Many of these Vision Pro threads remind me of the Watch threads leading up to its release. People were throwing out all kinds of features and use cases as though they were a given...and many of them turned out (shocker) to be pipe dreams.


I agree that time will tell. Personally I don't see how Vision Pro's input model is an improvement over the tried and true mouse and keyboard. Apples to apples, multi-touch is not better, and I expect Vision Pro's input model to also fall short of the keyboard/mouse in terms of speed and efficiency too. No doubt (as you suggest), it will be a lot better with a physical keyboard. I do think there are certain user types who will benefit greatly from Vision Pro's input model, though. People with certain disabilities or mobility issues, for example.


I thought those people were crazy. There was no way that an iPad would ever replace a laptop/desktop for people who need a proper computer. The reasons are numerous and obvious in my opinion. iOS is so limited - and limiting. Multitasking sucks. Touch is much slower than a mouse/keyboard and not nearly as accurate. Copy and paste still sucks, how many years later... Even today there are basically no desktop class apps on iOS.

I'm not sure if Vision Pro lives between products, but I see your point. I think the vast majority of people who buy it will buy it for one reason only: entertainment. The real problem there is the fact that it can't be shared. For less than $1000, a family of four can gather around a huge TV with Apple TV. To get the Vision Pro experience, that same family has to shell out upward of $14,000.


I completely agree. Will the Vision Pro software experience be so mind-blowing that it convinces people to wear it? I have serious doubts. The entertainment aspects of the device seem compelling, but the computing platform aspects don't seem particularly exciting to me. I think once the gimmick wears off, people will still prefer kicking back on the couch with a laptop or iPad over wearing a headset.

VR headsets have existed for years. The Quest can do most, if not all, of what Vision Pro does. Vision Pro does seem to be an improvement over the Quest in many ways, but fundamentally they are quite similar and yet the general public has not embraced the Quest (or any other VR device). Anecdotally, I know several kids who got Quest headsets for Christmas over the past few years. They were all beyond excited...for a few days...and then they were over it. They all went back to playing games on their iPads and computers.
Grear responses! We should start a podcast.
 
  • Love
Reactions: JamesHolden
will apple care+ be available, and for how much? $$$. Wondering what the cost of the glass front would cost to replace, as a guess approx. $1500-$1800 out of warranty maybe
 
I doubt it. It would require multiple identical phone models positioned perfectly. By the time you add up that cost and precision, you might as well buy a specialized camera if you're a pro. And if you're not a pro, you're not going to be too quick to spend that much money for something that doesn't generate revenue.
My point is that I don't see Apple making a custom camera rig just to sell to creators wishing to create spatial video. This is likely something that they will leave to other camera manufacturers to fill the gap, or attempt to simulate using existing Apple hardware.
 
If you think that Apple is going to stop releasing new hardware because they’re afraid of the EU, you don’t know Apple.
Well, as of today, Apple has not committed to releasing the Vision Pro in the EU. If the EU rejects Apple’s arguments, that affects ONLY hardware that’s released in the region. Considering how they don’t need EU customers for a $3500 device to be profitable (and, anyone in the EU will still be able to buy one on the gray market if they REALLY want one), I could see how they could make life easier on themselves by just avoiding selling those specific low volume products in the EU.
 
3D has been a failure since the 1960's, but I think this is different. Specifically, the fact each eye gets a fully independent and partitioned signal and dynamic movement/head tracking should be something completely different. There's still a chance it doesn't catch on, in which case the Vision Pro enables a 2D video viewing experience not bound to physical constraints. 55 inch TV's are common because that's about as big of a box one can fit into a car.
3D has been a failure because you always needed special glasses. This time it's a headset, instead of glasses. The problem is the same, there's an extra cost and effort involved.

Basically, to watch 3D video, your eyes need to be viewing two different video streams.
 
Exactly this , it’s nothing more than using two cameras possibly all 3 and stitching them together to simulate 3d for both eye perspective.
Its also not proper 3D because depth information cannot be captured behind an object. What we get is the sort of video seen when Tom Cruise is watching old family footage in minority report rather than an actual scene you can view from any angle.

The end is this effect: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/record3d-3d-videos/id1477716895 where the 3D is like having several layers.
 
In 10 years it won't look like the headset coming out next year. Search for what cell phones looked like back in the 1980s - the people having them then couldn't imaging what we do today with an iPhone. The headset technology in the future will probably be more like a pair of sunglasses - which are already considered normal to wear.

I keep seeing this being brought up, but go and search for what a MacBook Air looked like 10 years ago, or an iPhone, or an Apple Watch nearly 10 years ago.

Yes some tech develops very quickly but it’s not inevitable. The idea that of course this will be as thin as glasses and have all day battery life will hit the same issues that phones have had with things like battery life. And ironically my iPhone is bigger and heavier than one I had 10 years ago
 
Well, as of today, Apple has not committed to releasing the Vision Pro in the EU. If the EU rejects Apple’s arguments, that affects ONLY hardware that’s released in the region. Considering how they don’t need EU customers for a $3500 device to be profitable (and, anyone in the EU will still be able to buy one on the gray market if they REALLY want one), I could see how they could make life easier on themselves by just avoiding selling those specific low volume products in the EU.
Apple always releases new hardware in the US first and we're still months away from a US release so I'm not reading into it one way or another.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.