Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Gurman: The virtual keyboard is a wash
- Thread starter XboxEvolved
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry but you are wrong. It was clear it was the future in a way that hadn't happened before or since I had been involved in technology. I was at CES, a Microsoft guy was showing me "Xbox Anywhere" which was something they never actually shipped that they would put on Windows Mobile platform. Almost no one had smartphones back then, even at CES as I recall. The phone they used to show off this new software to me was Motorola Q, one of the phones Steve compared to iPhone. I thought wow this is neat, but it's clunky, and not sure a gamer is going to go out and buy this expensive phone with this crappy data plan just for this.
There of course were rumors that Apple was about to come out with a widescreen iPod, and also that they were working on a phone of some sort. I remember there being some debate about maybe the phone think was the Rokr thing that they made with Motorola or not, but a lot of people expected some kind of widescreen iPod to show up eventually.
Well then the Macworld keynote happened and no one at CES, literally no one cared about anything there. iPhone stole the show and they weren't even there. I remember Nokia, RIM, and Microsoft guys getting very annoyed by questions from me and other press about how they would answer the iPhone. I think that might have been where Ballmer made the infamous comments that they weren't really worried about the iPhone.
I mean dude all they had to do was show unlocking the screen, pinch to zoom, and scrolling and people lost their damn minds. I know I did. The fact that the internet wasn't some stupid WAP crap, the iPod with overflow, etc. It didn't even seem like a real product.
The fact that you didn't need a stupid stylus but it still was better than anything with a stylus sold it, but The Simon other color phones? Cool? They weren't this though. In what sense do you think in your mind the iPhone could have failed like Newton?
The only real problem the iPhone had in the beginning was the price, and within a year or two that got remedied as well. I just won't stand for someone suggesting the market wasn't sure about the iPhone at first reveal, because whole entire industries scrambled after they saw it dude, that's the truth. They all knew they were screwed, except RIM which thought it would never lose customers and would keep having the same customer base forever apparently but within 2 years Apple and a combo of a lot of Android hardware crushed it. I think Blackberry's peak was when they were shipping the Blackberry Perl which did get some traction in the consumer space, but it was more of a feature phone than anything and by then, it was too late.
Apple could have never introduced the App Store, or kept the price too high, let AT&T's exclusive last too long, for example, to make it a flash in the pan. Apple got it right, but that didn't mean it was a sure thing.
Apparently the press demo of the AVP blew some minds as well.
The AVP could be the next iPhone or iPad, or it could be the next HomePod. The HomePod is not a bad, unsuccessful product, but it didn't disrupt the market, it was temporarily discontinued, and it remains niche.
Most people had cell phones when the iPhone came out. The iPhone led to the transition away from flip phones and keyboard phones toward touchscreen smartphones. Most people don't have AR/VR headsets. So one of the key differences is convincing people that a new product category is a must-have. The iPhone didn't have to do that. A better comparison might be the iPad--tablets were not much of a thing before it came out, and it did convince many people that a tablet was something they wanted in addition to or instead of a laptop. The AVP will have to be more like the iPad to be successful, IMO. I said in another thread that it can't just be a cool toy to play with the way many headsets are now. It has to be a functional part of an individual's Apple ecosystem.
Most people had cell phones when the iPhone came out. The iPhone led to the transition away from flip phones and keyboard phones toward touchscreen smartphones. Most people don't have AR/VR headsets. So one of the key differences is convincing people that a new product category is a must-have. The iPhone didn't have to do that. A better comparison might be the iPad--tablets were not much of a thing before it came out, and it did convince many people that a tablet was something they wanted in addition to or instead of a laptop. The AVP will have to be more like the iPad to be successful, IMO. I said in another thread that it can't just be a cool toy to play with the way many headsets are now. It has to be a functional part of an individual's Apple ecosystem.
Gurman's track record is stellar—if he is saying this, it is probably true. That said, we'll know in a few weeks either way...you are all free to have your own lives, but honestly, if you are pre-ordering you seem insane to me unless you have a career in VR or are an app developer moving to AVP or some other esoteric use case.
So since the sane people haven't preordered, we can just wait and see if the keyboard is this bad. And whether a bad virtual keyboard has a big or small impact on using it in an actual workflow.
So since the sane people haven't preordered, we can just wait and see if the keyboard is this bad. And whether a bad virtual keyboard has a big or small impact on using it in an actual workflow.
I wanna touch on some comments I've seen throughout this thread as a VR user since 2019.
Just like typing on the iPhone, you're not gonna be typing paragraphs on visionOS. Most typing done through a virtual keyboard is gonna be for a search bar or a quick message. If you need to type more than that, you can of course use a bluetooth keyboard. Hell a bluetooth keyboard is encouraged if you're gonna use the Apple Vision to daily drive, just like how the iPad is. Plus, people forget the Vision has voice dictation
Now the next point
Besides, the endgoal for Meta is to be able to get their hands free control to the point they no longer have to bundle touch controllers with their HMDs so one day they'll follow Apple's lead and not include controllers "But this means gaming on visionOS will be severely limited without touch controllers." For now it will be but just like with the iPhone third parties will create new experiences with the new controls.
Yes $3500 is absurdly expensive for an HMD, but it's important to emphasize the product's name: Apple Vision Pro. This is clearly the pro model, so that $3500 price tag is not gonna stay that way forever. This is the most highest end device in this new product category Apple can make, and overtime that price will go down as manufacturing becomes easier and parts become cheaper. Remember the first iPhone costed $500 ($800 nowadays adjusting for inflation) and required a two year contract with AT&T. Then less than a year later Apple announces the iPhone 3G with it's big selling point being not it's 3G connectivity, but the fact it was now $200, over half of the price of the first gen. I guarantee the same will be true for the eventual consumer model Apple Vision when that eventually launches. Hell Apple bought AR company Mira to get their manufacturing expertise to figure out how to make the Apple Vision considerably cheaper and easier to build just so they can get the cost down.
So the same will ring true for the Apple Vision headsets. There will be something the HMDs do better that the iPhone, iPad, and even Mac don't, and some are already theory crafting that it could be media consumption and Mac monitor replacement being that thing. Currently this thing's image quality exceeds the Pro Display XDR, and it's almost half the cost of a Pro Display XDR. That alone makes it a compelling case for purchase, and a consumer model could serve as a StudiNo Display replacement if the price is right.
We will just need to see what the early adopters do with their Vision Pros that will shape the future of the headset for generations to come.
Now will Vision Pro be like the HomePod? Highly unlikely. The Vision headsets are spatial computers capable of doing lots of stuff. You can run DJay on it and have your own virtual turntable. You can run Microsoft Office and have personal windows of what you're working on with no one to pry on your personal work. You can watch a movie in your own personal theater at incredible quality. And so many more applications we don't know about or haven't thought of yet.
Now Vision Pro ain't gonna do iPhone numbers lets be real. Hell it won't even do Mac numbers. Apple's only planning on making a million of these things and at a $3500 starting price tag it's clearly a first gen product. But after a year and we start getting the cheaper headsets, we could slowly start seeing the Vision lineup carving itself to become the next iPad
Now if the Apple Vision doesn't do gangbuster numbers, yeah I'll take that L, but y'all are very early to write it off when you've forgotten the past of Apple's others product category launches. Just wait until you actually try the headset when demos go live, and I guarantee you'll go from writing it off, to now being angry from how much you loved it but can't afford one.
The virtual keyboard is awful. A complete writeoff
Virtual keyboards have always been awful ever since SteamVR 1.0. Before you had to point to the key you wanted to press, and only recently can we actually type on a virtual keyboard, but since it lacks haptic feedback it's not good to type on. Sound familiar? Because that's just how it is on touch screens too. And yet people type on those.Just like typing on the iPhone, you're not gonna be typing paragraphs on visionOS. Most typing done through a virtual keyboard is gonna be for a search bar or a quick message. If you need to type more than that, you can of course use a bluetooth keyboard. Hell a bluetooth keyboard is encouraged if you're gonna use the Apple Vision to daily drive, just like how the iPad is. Plus, people forget the Vision has voice dictation
Now the next point
It doesn't have touch controllers like Meta. It's doomed
Like how the iPhone was doomed because it didn't have a physical keyboard? I dunno how many times we've heard "Apple's new X doesn't have this thing like Y does so it's gonna flop" and low and behold it shatters sales records. Apple is known for inventing new input methods. The iPod used the click wheel when everyone else was using d-pads. The iPhone used a touchscreen and only a touchscreen when everyone else used a stylus and a physical keyboard. And Vision Pro is hands free control when everyone else uses touch controllers. It's just the natural evolution of input.Besides, the endgoal for Meta is to be able to get their hands free control to the point they no longer have to bundle touch controllers with their HMDs so one day they'll follow Apple's lead and not include controllers "But this means gaming on visionOS will be severely limited without touch controllers." For now it will be but just like with the iPhone third parties will create new experiences with the new controls.
At $3,500 this thing is gonna flop
Obligatory:Yes $3500 is absurdly expensive for an HMD, but it's important to emphasize the product's name: Apple Vision Pro. This is clearly the pro model, so that $3500 price tag is not gonna stay that way forever. This is the most highest end device in this new product category Apple can make, and overtime that price will go down as manufacturing becomes easier and parts become cheaper. Remember the first iPhone costed $500 ($800 nowadays adjusting for inflation) and required a two year contract with AT&T. Then less than a year later Apple announces the iPhone 3G with it's big selling point being not it's 3G connectivity, but the fact it was now $200, over half of the price of the first gen. I guarantee the same will be true for the eventual consumer model Apple Vision when that eventually launches. Hell Apple bought AR company Mira to get their manufacturing expertise to figure out how to make the Apple Vision considerably cheaper and easier to build just so they can get the cost down.
People are already writing it off, even in MacRumors. It doesn't do anything you can't already do
Funny, because that was the sentiment with the first iPad too, the "Apple fanboys writing it off." So many people in this forum were writing off the iPad as an unnecessary device. "This is just a bigger iPod Touch for twice the price. Why would you buy this?" And then when the tablet actually did come out, it was a smash hit globally. But why? Well because people found stuff the iPad did exceptionally well. Since it was a big display it made it a fantastic device for reading and watching content. Hell there are many people who don't even own a desktop anymore an defaulted to using an iPad as their daily driver (and those people scare me.)So the same will ring true for the Apple Vision headsets. There will be something the HMDs do better that the iPhone, iPad, and even Mac don't, and some are already theory crafting that it could be media consumption and Mac monitor replacement being that thing. Currently this thing's image quality exceeds the Pro Display XDR, and it's almost half the cost of a Pro Display XDR. That alone makes it a compelling case for purchase, and a consumer model could serve as a StudiNo Display replacement if the price is right.
We will just need to see what the early adopters do with their Vision Pros that will shape the future of the headset for generations to come.
This is the next HomePod
I honestly think people bring it up just to point out that Apple can ship flops. Yes, not everything Apple has shipped has been a winner, but this was true even back during Jobs era. Need I remind you of the iPod Hi-Fi or the PowerMac G4 Cube or iTunes Ping? HomePod was certainly not a winner itself and that still holds true due to it's limited functionality compared to competitors. But HomePod carved a niche for itself in one thing and one thing alone: Sound quality. What it lacks in voice assisting functionality (and man does it lack) it greatly makes up for with sound, even the HomePod Mini which btw the Mini has found great success to the point for a while Apple sold only it.Now will Vision Pro be like the HomePod? Highly unlikely. The Vision headsets are spatial computers capable of doing lots of stuff. You can run DJay on it and have your own virtual turntable. You can run Microsoft Office and have personal windows of what you're working on with no one to pry on your personal work. You can watch a movie in your own personal theater at incredible quality. And so many more applications we don't know about or haven't thought of yet.
Now Vision Pro ain't gonna do iPhone numbers lets be real. Hell it won't even do Mac numbers. Apple's only planning on making a million of these things and at a $3500 starting price tag it's clearly a first gen product. But after a year and we start getting the cheaper headsets, we could slowly start seeing the Vision lineup carving itself to become the next iPad
Now if the Apple Vision doesn't do gangbuster numbers, yeah I'll take that L, but y'all are very early to write it off when you've forgotten the past of Apple's others product category launches. Just wait until you actually try the headset when demos go live, and I guarantee you'll go from writing it off, to now being angry from how much you loved it but can't afford one.
Last edited:
The entire product, in my opinion. There may be a handful of people in the world willing to put up with this hardware in order to watch 3D movies once in a while, but there is no mass market appeal here, and not even a mass Apple loyalist appeal. It's an iPad, with severe limitations, that starts at $3,500. What more is there to say, really?
All due respect, it sounds ridiculous and out of touch to compare this product to iPhone, or even iPad. iPad was visionless, directionless product that only cost $500, so it sold. Not as well as iPhone, but it sold. And still does, in decent, but not earth shattering volume. And today it's even cheaper than before, with the median price somewhere around what it originally launched it.
The Vision Pro is $3,500. Thirty Five Hundred. Please allow that to sink in.
The original 128k Macintosh in 1984 costed $2500. That's $7300 adjusting for inflation. When the iPhone launched in 2007 the most expensive phones at the time never even crossed the $200 mark.
Plus, $3,500 is playmoney in hardcore XR land. Allow me to demonstrate:
Oh look it's the Varjo XR4, the top of the line enterprise AR headset. A bargain at $4000
"Oh well that is a big price, but surely you're getting a lot in that standalone headset. I can tell from the cameras on the outside." Uhh, yeah mate, this ain't standalone. This requires a PC that meets minimum VR requirements. Hey, that's another $1500 you can add onto the price if you don't got said PC. And this isn't even factoring in the fact it requires base stations and touch controllers from Valve which is another $500 if you don't got any.
Now you may be thinking "WAIT WHAT?! $4000 FOR THIS AND IT ISN'T EVEN STANDALONE?! WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY THIS THEN?!" And the answer to that is: AR Passthrough. The main purpose of this headset is to provide AR passthrough so good that you can see everything around you as if you weren't wearing it, making it ideal for enterprise. And then here comes the Vision Pro that not only beats the Varjo XR4 in price, but also specs. Vision Pro has better image quality, possibly better pass through, and it isn't tethered to a PC or need base stations.
"Oh well that's just an enterprise headset not meant for average consumers. $3500 is still too much" allow me to present the Bigscreen Beyond, a PCVR headset designed for lightweight content consumption that costs $1000
The Beyond is also Micro-OLED just like Vision Pro, however just like the Varjo is tethered to a PC, and a good midrange PC that can handle VR will cost you around $1500. And then of course it requires base stations and touch controllers as well so that's another $500 (and that's assuming you even have the space for base stations.) So just to be able to use this thing it will cost you at minimum $3000 if you don't already have the necessary PC and other equipment.
Versus Apple Vision Pro, where you just take the headset out of the box, put it on, and boom you're already using it. No additional hardware required. So while Vision Pro is really expensive right now, that's just because it's currently a nightmare to build. Once Apple figures out how to easily manufacture HMDs and gets a better and cheaper supply chain, that price is gonna go way down. Watch, I guarantee 2025 we'll get the announcement for the consumer model Apple Vision and it will be under $2000
But is hardcore XR land all Apple cares about? That's now how they approach markets.
Well hardcore XR land are all who is gonna buy the Vision Pro to try it out and make apps on it until the cheaper consumer model arrives because that's the direction Tim Cook's Apple chose to go in. Make the biggest headset they possibly could now to serve as a benchmark and then build the product category around it, and it shows with how overengineered it is and how much of a nightmare it is to build.
It's not gonna stay $3500 forever. Come time next year we'll already have a new affordable model announced.
So a product that does even less than this one, which already doesn't do much of anything, for what? $2999? This is Apple we're talking about.
I sure hope it's the next HomePod... because I want it to be surpassed by another Apple device in the same category that's 14% of the weight and 28% of the price a couple years later.
What was the mass market appeal of the iPod when it launched in 2001, a time when the vast majority of music was consumed via physical media?
The iPOd wasn't a new idea, people had been making cassettes for use in their Walkmans and car stereos; the iPod's innovation was making it possible to carry hours of music in a small device and not have to swap cassettes. People quickly earned to import their CDs into iTunes and onto the iPod.
And that is a key difference - users already had teh content, what they didn't have was a device to easily carry and listen to an entire collection. The iPod took an existing behavior and greatly improved how it was done.
You must be joking? Literally every human being who listened to music immediately understood the potential and the value of iPod. Even if they didn't have a single digital song to place on it. Digital music was a thing, and plenty of people knew it. Regardless of digital music being an obstacle (for some), absolutely no brain cells were required to see the value of iPod. This is a bad, bad comparison.
The iPod WAS a new idea (well, other smaller manufacturers had beaten it to market but made no commercial headway) as it was orientated around music being digital music files. Walkmen and car stereos were proper analogue and had a cultural and commercial footprint going back to the 70s along with hundreds of millions of installed devices globally to play them on.
Let's not forget that ripping your library (assuming that library was CDs and not vinyl or cassette) was not that easy for the general public. The first version of the iPod was Mac compatible only and hardly anyone had Macs back then. Then people who were unfamiliar with such processes had to grapple with clunky and unreliable software, the mass of horrible DRM that existed back then on CDs and just the sheer time and inconvenience it took to get your music onto your digital player.
It was the absolute epitome of a non-mass market device at outset even though the potential was obvious. There's a strong case to be made that it was the brilliant marketing of the product that pushed it into the realms of mass market and maybe that's what will do the same with the Vision Pro.
Digital music was a thing back then to the Napster generation, but it was not a thing to the general public who had been fed stories - fair ones and unfair ones - about music piracy destroying the industry, viruses etc. These were people - and I count myself as one - who were not going to get involved in running complex looking P2P software on their computers to get crappy low-rate versions of music, if the music was even what you were expecting it to be.
The potential of a product is one thing, and no-one would argue that the potential of the iPod was not apparent, but it can be a country mile to get that product into mainstream acceptance. Apple had to reorientate the whole industry to offer a cleaned up and sanitised version of digital music download culture, not just offer a nice bit of hardware that could have all your favourite songs.
I think you are confusing execution with concept. The iPod, as a concept, was not a new idea; but just an extension of an existing concept. The concept, carrying around your music, was well established. Apple's execution, using digital files rather than cassettes or CDs was a new execution of an existing concept. Since people were familiar with the concept, acceptance of Apple's execution was a lot easier.
Having been around for the original iPod, Zune, MD Walkman, etc., I don't recall ripping CDs all that difficult. The Mac certainly made it easy, just insert CD and copy to iTunes.
I agree - Apple took an existing concept and changed how the world viewed it. Brilliant marketing.