How long until Meta mocks this then copies it?

[bkkcanuck8]

Sure. I even predicted that’s exactly how it would work. https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...et.2390822/page-4?post=32195637#post-32195637
It looks like Apple has the best combination of eye tracking, hand tracking, and software that makes that experience intuitive and reliable. But I’ve also heard good things about the eye-tracking in the PS VR2.

Can you give me a link? I’ve demoed Beat Saber to a dozen people and everyone picks it up quickly and I’ve heard no complaints like that.
Some VR controllers require line of sight to the headset so may be losing tracking. The first PS VR also had limited tracking volume.
I can juggle four objects in VR. I couldn’t do that if the latency was poor. And I doubt I’ll be able to do that with hand tracking alone (but maybe I’m wrong about that?).

What experience do you have with VR?

I reread the link I was thinking of - it reads different... so maybe not not latency issue (link provided anyway):
reddit beat saber

My experience with VR is mostly to do with testing the latest devices over the years and getting disappointed that it is not sufficient to meet the standards I have set. What I want with VR is high fidelity recreations of reality / simulations whether it be technical / scientific / historic or archeological recreations... and being able to work (and read) in the headset and the fidelity is similar to what you can get in 2D (4K minimum). Mindless games - not so interested in.

Assuming that the Vision Pro (when available in my country) is as good as early indications are, I will probably buy one and take the 2 week (no questions asked return period) to see what I can do with it (bonus that I have some experience in Swift/SwiftUI).

 

[holisticrunner]

You said highest accuracy. That’s different than best experience.

Accuracy and the best experience, but it's clear you are a hater, so nothing will convince you otherwise.

I'm on the side of being cautiously optimistic. It's great for Apple to disrupt the market and introduce new ideas into this space.

Which will put the Vision Pro at about 40 PPD, given a similar FOV. That is not Retina resolution. And I think if it did have Retina resolution, Apple would have mentioned that.

From people's experience, they cannot see pixelation of any kind even under close scrutiny. Apple isn't showing specs, so there's no way to know for sure whether it is a retina or whatnot, but safe to say it is 11.5MPx per eye on a 1in screen.

Who tried for over 45 minutes? Most people said their demo was 30 minutes. I’d guess that most people could have an experience with the Quest 2 without motion sickness, if there is no artificial locomotion (such as moving yourself through the virtual world with a thumbstick). The gaming focus of the Quest and most other VR headsets means that people are more likely to be put into experiences that have artificial locomotion, unlike the Vision Pro demo which had things like floating iPad apps.

Some people have mentioned they tried it for 45mins bc they have special connection with Apple (I watched all the videos) while many got only 30mins as you described. No one said they experienced motion sickness and those who review the product and the Quest 2 said they experienced motion sickness with Quest 2 after 30mins of use.

Aside from that, objectively speaking, most people stashed the Quest 2 in the attic after a few months of use. But don't let facts cloud your judgment though. Facts are facts.

Latency is a potential issue. It is not an actual issue to the user of any modern VR system (save for the aforementioned WiFi streaming exception). Saying that the threshold is 20ms does not mean that Apple’s 12 ms is better than competitors.

Yeah, but they weren’t chopping cubes with lightsabers or playing table tennis or climbing a wall.

As I said, all reviewers said the latency is best in the business. It's pointless to debate an unreleased product with no specs.

Very funny.
I know that their controllers for the Vision Pro don’t have IMUs, because the controllers are your hands. I know that it can’t track your hands when they are behind your back, because the headset needs a direct line of site to your hands to know where they are. Apple themselves warned against fast hand motions, for tracking quality reasons.

Why would you need to track your motions behind your back? there's no need for that. They aren't selling your VR games using hand motion for the controller. You still think Apple is a VR headset for games ... it's not. But that's how you see it, then I can see why you think it's a problem.

Quality VR gaming is a dead business. Nobody is gonna play subpar games that are not AAA title quality on a $500/$100/$3500 headset. You can get a gaming PC, Xbox and do all that. Apple knows this.

VR Gaming won't be ready for prime time in the foreseeable future. You'll have to wait until performance per watt catches up before it becomes viable.

There's really no need to debate all this. The product isn't even out until next year, so time will tell.

People have made a mockery out of iPhone/iPad/AirPods/Apple Watch/App Store ... swearing to their mother's grave it's gonna be a miserable fail ...

Time will tell. I'll let Apple's track record speak for itself.

It's safe to say that with a revolutionary product like VisionPro ... it will take a few iterations before critical mass and enough refinement is in place before it is ready for the mass market, and the price to come down to an acceptable level.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

From people's experience, they cannot see pixelation of any kind even under close scrutiny. Apple isn't showing specs, so there's no way to know for sure whether it is a retina or whatnot, but safe to say it is 11.5MPx per eye on a 1in screen.

"The breakthrough design of Vision Pro features an ultra-high-resolution display system that packs 23 million pixels across two displays, and custom Apple silicon in a unique dual-chip design to ensure every experience feels like it’s taking place in front of the user’s eyes in real time." -- Apple

The image panel is 1.41 inches I believe but then there are optics that enlarge that a bit otherwise it would not be large enough.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Quality VR gaming is a dead business. Nobody is gonna play subpar games that are not AAA title quality on a $500/$100/$3500 headset. You can get a gaming PC, Xbox and do all that. Apple knows this.

VR Gaming won't be ready for prime time in the foreseeable future. You'll have to wait until performance per watt catches up before it becomes viable.

I am not a 'gamer' but I have to disagree with this a bit... VR gaming for the most part is still in it's infancy and the quality is lagging because the number or quality of the devices is still relatively small so they basically adapt a 2D game for 3D or do a simple mindless repetitive game because it is too risky in investing more. I think we are maybe 3 years away from devices in a moderate price range catching up to where the Vision Pro is now, and I think that is within range of being able to create some really quality games (though they might not be the same standard games available en mass now)... Apple I think knows which is why you are beginning to see a thaw in the behaviour of Apple towards the gaming developers (providing new tools etc.). I would not be surprised if Apple is funding a couple of ventures to show off what can be done - one or two successful titles showing off the best Vision Pro has to offer - could be a worthwhile investment. 3 years is a short time, and you don't want to be late to any new 'fad'. You don't want to chase the games or gaming style as it is now - that is based on what is available now.

 

[holisticrunner]

"The breakthrough design of Vision Pro features an ultra-high-resolution display system that packs 23 million pixels across two displays, and custom Apple silicon in a unique dual-chip design to ensure every experience feels like it’s taking place in front of the user’s eyes in real time." -- Apple

The image panel is 1.41 inches I believe but then there are optics that enlarge that a bit otherwise it would not be large enough.

Sqrt(2) is 1.41 … 1sq+1sq = sqrt(2)sq

 

[holisticrunner]

I am not a 'gamer' but I have to disagree with this a bit... VR gaming for the most part is still in it's infancy and the quality is lagging because the number or quality of the devices is still relatively small so they basically adapt a 2D game for 3D or do a simple mindless repetitive game because it is too risky in investing more. I think we are maybe 3 years away from devices in a moderate price range catching up to where the Vision Pro is now, and I think that is within range of being able to create some really quality games (though they might not be the same standard games available en mass now)... Apple I think knows which is why you are beginning to see a thaw in the behaviour of Apple towards the gaming developers (providing new tools etc.). I would not be surprised if Apple is funding a couple of ventures to show off what can be done - one or two successful titles showing off the best Vision Pro has to offer - could be a worthwhile investment. 3 years is a short time, and you don't want to be late to any new 'fad'. You don't want to chase the games or gaming style as it is now - that is based on what is available now.

You certainly can disagree, but I’m confident it is not ready for any foreseeable future.

1) you need to get the weight of the headset down to a level where you can game for hours without getting neck strain. That’ll take many years.

2) latency have to be exceed desktop (even lower). In 3D, any perceiveable latency will cause headache over time. Current tech doesn’t allow that the happen.

3) profit motive. Why should developers make product for a niche product? Chicken and the egg. Nobody can get developers to make games for it. If it’s easy, it would have been done now. Where’s the AppStore? There are none.

Apple knows this and won’t be making a push for VR gaming until all the ducts are lined up.

For VisionPro to be mainstream, it cannot position themselves as a gaming headset.

Like Apple TV, you can’t position itself to be a gaming console. But it can play games. 😬

 

[bkkcanuck8]

You certainly can disagree, but I’m confident it is not ready for any foreseeable future.

1) you need to get the weight of the headset down to a level where you can game for hours without getting neck strain. That’ll take many years.

2) latency have to be exceed desktop (even lower). In 3D, any perceiveable latency will cause headache over time. Current tech doesn’t allow that the happen.

3) profit motive. Why should developers make product for a niche product? Chicken and the egg. Nobody can get developers to make games for it. If it’s easy, it would have been done now. Where’s the AppStore? There are none.

Apple knows this and won’t be making a push for VR gaming until all the ducts are lined up.

For VisionPro to be mainstream, it cannot position themselves as a gaming headset.

Like Apple TV, you can’t position itself to be a gaming console. But it can play games. 😬

I am not talking about positioning it as primarily a gaming unit, but Apple is pushing into new services areas to diversify their income stream. They have invested heavily into visual media for Apple TV, they have invested in fitness, it is only natural that you invest into gaming. You won't really have a good idea of all what you are missing if you don't dogfood it.

 

[kkee]

I agree with this. They have made this goggle as easy as humanely possible. Now only the size&weight and price are holding it back from being “ubiquitous“.

Kane Muehlehback from Kane&Pia channel was invited to try this in person and said that the weight is just like Airpods Pro Max. I wear Airpods Pro Max the whole day with zero discomfort, if Vision Pro is the same weight and size as that I can see people wear it all day long.

 

[Jensend]

Accuracy and the best experience, but it's clear you are a hater, so nothing will convince you otherwise.

Haha, I'm far from being a hater. I think the Vision Pro is clearly the best headset, overall. But for people who primarily want VR to play a variety of games, a VR system that includes spatially tracked controllers will be a better option.

I just don't have to say every aspect of current VR headsets is awful to say that the AVP is good.

I'm on the side of being cautiously optimistic. It's great for Apple to disrupt the market and introduce new ideas into this space.

Me too!

From people's experience, they cannot see pixelation of any kind even under close scrutiny. Apple isn't showing specs, so there's no way to know for sure whether it is a retina or whatnot, but safe to say it is 11.5MPx per eye on a 1in screen.

11.5 MP is not enough to cover the directly viewable FOV of humans (about 45° left, right, and down, and a bit less upwards) at Retina PPD. If it were, there would be little reason for the 5K and 6K screens that Apple sells.

Some people have mentioned they tried it for 45mins bc they have special connection with Apple (I watched all the videos) while many got only 30mins as you described. No one said they experienced motion sickness and those who review the product and the Quest 2 said they experienced motion sickness with Quest 2 after 30mins of use.

Who has said they experience motion sickness with the Quest 2 after 30 minutes, but not the AVP? What were they playing? People can get motion sickness from a traditional monitor, depending on the content.

Aside from that, objectively speaking, most people stashed the Quest 2 in the attic after a few months of use. But don't let facts cloud your judgment though. Facts are facts.

Not sure how that's relevant to anything I've said. I use my VR headset a lot less than I used to. Much of that due to how uncomfortable the headset can become because of pressure on my face... and that's one area where people who tried the AVP were not blown away. And I need to upgrade my PC...

As I said, all reviewers said the latency is best in the business. It's pointless to debate an unreleased product with no specs.

There have been no reviews of the AVP headset. Just 30 minute demos in a controlled environment*. If it's pointless, why are you making claims?

*for example, we don't know how different lighting frequencies and contrast may effect passthrough quality.

Why would you need to track your motions behind your back? there's no need for that. They aren't selling your VR games using hand motion for the controller. You still think Apple is a VR headset for games ... it's not. But that's how you see it, then I can see why you think it's a problem.

I don't think it's a headset primarily for games.

Quality VR gaming is a dead business. Nobody is gonna play subpar games that are not AAA title quality on a $500/$100/$3500 headset. You can get a gaming PC, Xbox and do all that. Apple knows this.

I rarely play AAA games anyways. I've found several great VR games.

VR Gaming won't be ready for prime time in the foreseeable future. You'll have to wait until performance per watt catches up before it becomes viable.

Performance is good enough for great experiences in VR. Developers will always want more power... there is no catching up to viability.

People have made a mockery out of iPhone/iPad/AirPods/Apple Watch/App Store ... swearing to their mother's grave it's gonna be a miserable fail ...

I haven't.

It's safe to say that with a revolutionary product like VisionPro ... it will take a few iterations before critical mass and enough refinement is in place before it is ready for the mass market, and the price to come down to an acceptable level.

AVP looks like a big step forward for AR/VR in many ways... though I wish they could have competed with the Bigscreen Beyond for physical comfort.

 

[TLewis]

There's really no need to debate all this. The product isn't even out until next year, so time will tell.

People have made a mockery out of iPhone/iPad/AirPods/Apple Watch/App Store ... swearing to their mother's grave it's gonna be a miserable fail ...

Time will tell. I'll let Apple's track record speak for itself.

This.

While Apple may or may not have the "best product" technically (I'm not going to waste time arguing this), that doesn't really matter. It just needs to be among the leaders. Apple's marketing and retail presence will do the rest. None of Apple's headset competitors have this, except maybe for Samsung (and then only once they enter the market). Maybe.

I don't think it looks good for the competition:

• Microsoft has already canceled the Hololens 3 (long before the Vision Pro announcement). Here, the big question is, "Has Microsoft stopped development and is only milking the Hololens 2, or are they actually still working on something better?"
• IMO, Meta is likely dead in the long run because they use mainly off-the-shelf parts, some of which don't apparently perform well. I also have a hard time believing they'll spend the tens- to hundreds-of-millions of dollars to catch up.
• I think Varjo's only hope is to be acquired. Technically, they seem OK, but Apple's marketing and retail presence will likely steamroller them in the long term.
• Google might someday be a competitor, but they're really not a hardware company. They tend to acquire other companies or have other companies make stuff for them, like the Pixel. Well, they can't exactly have other companies build headsets for them, so that leaves either acquiring a company or working with a company that can possibly/maybe produce a Vision Pro competitor: Samsung. So, let's see if Google acquires Varjo or works with Samsung.
• Samsung is probably the only real possible (and likely, IMO) competitor as they have the hardware divisions that can produce customized headset parts. I'll guess that they'll start with Android just to take advantage of Android app stores. However, Samsung will either have to fork android (far from ideal) or work with google (may slow down development). I'm sure Samsung will try to copy many Vision Pro features, and it'll be interesting to see how many Apple patents will cause problems for Samsung.

On the other hand, Apple has issues, too. I think Apple announced this waaay early, and this gives the competition time to pivot. Heck, the Vision Pro won't be shipping for at least another 7ish months, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't ship for another 10 months (nearly a year!). Also, there are rumors that Apple can only produce maybe 100K units a year due to parts production issues. If so, and if Apple has already finalized the hardware design, that would give Apple time to produce and stockpile units for release day. However, that would also mean very long delivery times once the initial stockpile sells out. It'll be interesting to see if this happens.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

This.

While Apple may or may not have the "best product" technically (I'm not going to waste time arguing this), that doesn't really matter. It just needs to be among the leaders. Apple's marketing and retail presence will do the rest. None of Apple's headset competitors have this, except maybe for Samsung (and then only once they enter the market). Maybe.

I don't think it looks good for the competition:

• Microsoft has already canceled the Hololens 3 (long before the Vision Pro announcement). Here, the big question is, "Has Microsoft stopped development and is only milking the Hololens 2, or are they actually still working on something better?"
• IMO, Meta is likely dead in the long run because they use mainly off-the-shelf parts, some of which don't apparently perform well. I also have a hard time believing they'll spend the tens- to hundreds-of-millions of dollars to catch up.
• I think Varjo's only hope is to be acquired. Technically, they seem OK, but Apple's marketing and retail presence will likely steamroller them in the long term.
• Google might someday be a competitor, but they're really not a hardware company. They tend to acquire other companies or have other companies make stuff for them, like the Pixel. Well, they can't exactly have other companies build headsets for them, so that leaves either acquiring a company or working with a company that can possibly/maybe produce a Vision Pro competitor: Samsung. So, let's see if Google acquires Varjo or works with Samsung.
• Samsung is probably the only real possible (and likely, IMO) competitor as they have the hardware divisions that can produce customized headset parts. I'll guess that they'll start with Android just to take advantage of Android app stores. However, Samsung will either have to fork android (far from ideal) or work with google (may slow down development). I'm sure Samsung will try to copy many Vision Pro features, and it'll be interesting to see how many Apple patents will cause problems for Samsung.

On the other hand, Apple has issues, too. I think Apple announced this waaay early, and this gives the competition time to pivot. Heck, the Vision Pro won't be shipping for at least another 7ish months, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't ship for another 10 months (nearly a year!). Also, there are rumors that Apple can only produce maybe 100K units a year due to parts production issues. If so, and if Apple has already finalized the hardware design, that would give Apple time to produce and stockpile units for release day. However, that would also mean very long delivery times once the initial stockpile sells out. It'll be interesting to see if this happens.

You did not add Sony - which provides many of the important parts for this... but then I think Sony is happy with just building one for the Playstation and making money off components where they make money on every Apple sale without the risk.

 

[TLewis]

You did not add Sony - which provides many of the important parts for this... but then I think Sony is happy with just building one for the Playstation and making money off components where they make money on every Apple sale without the risk.

Yes, I see Sony as being a major parts supplier (to all), but I don't see them making a viable competitor to the Vision Pro. They're much better off making specialized headsets for Playstation 3D gaming, as those can be made for much less and can also be console-optimized.

This is for the foreseeable future, though. Who knows what'll happen in 5-10++ years? Maybe Google or someone will have a workable AndroidVision by then which Sony can leverage.

 

[Jensend]

Microsoft has already canceled the Hololens 3 (long before the Vision Pro announcement). Here, the big question is, "Has Microsoft stopped development and is only milking the Hololens 2, or are they actually still working on something better?"

If VR really starts taking off, Microsoft will want a VR mode for Windows. As far as the Hololens is concerned, I just don’t think transparent AR devices are as viable as video passthrough AR for the consumer market.

• IMO, Meta is likely dead in the long run because they use mainly off-the-shelf parts, some of which don't apparently perform well. I also have a hard time believing they'll spend the tens- to hundreds-of-millions of dollars to catch up.

I think you have a typo there. Surely you mean billions, not millions? Meta has already sunk tens of billions into VR. Apple’s biggest hardware advantage seems to be their custom SoC. Meta can buy 4K micro-OLED displays if they want to make a $3500 headset. Even Meta’s high-end headset was about 1/3 of the price of the AVP, if you remove the cost of the controllers—and now less than 1/4. And it was released over a year earlier, so a direct comparison isn’t really fair. I think Meta has a bigger disadvantage with their OS and non-gaming ecosystem than with hardware.

• I think Varjo's only hope is to be acquired. Technically, they seem OK, but Apple's marketing and retail presence will likely steamroller them in the long term.

Just about the only major advantage the Varjo has left is that it can be connected to a Windows computer running an RTX 4090, and not a closed walled garden on a midrange notebook class GPU . And it supports controllers.

*not an advantage to all potential customers, of course.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I think you have a typo there. Surely you mean billions, not millions? Meta has already sunk tens of billions into VR. Apple’s biggest hardware advantage seems to be their custom SoC. Meta can buy 4K micro-OLED displays if they want to make a $3500 headset. Even Meta’s high-end headset was about 1/3 of the price of the AVP, if you remove the cost of the controllers—and now less than 1/4. And it was released over a year earlier, so a direct comparison isn’t really fair. I think Meta has a bigger disadvantage with their OS and non-gaming ecosystem than with hardware.

Billions in just the first quarter of this year....

Reality Labs (Meta) ran a deficit of $13.72 billion last year, and $3.99 billion the first quarter of this year. If they keep on growing at this rate, their deficit may pass Apples entire R&D budget for everything in a few years 🤣 (the reason why I am pretty sure they lose money with every unit sold ...)

 

[matrix07]

If VR really starts taking off, Microsoft will want a VR mode for Windows. As far as the Hololens is concerned, I just don’t think transparent AR devices are as viable as video passthrough AR for the consumer market.

It will be interesting to see who's gonna become a Vision Pro competitor. Microsoft seems to be a sure bet considering people will want a kind of VP on Windows system but I wouldn't count out Google just yet.

And yes, the Varjo will be acquired in a few years. I think that's what's their plan anyway (built it to be acquired).

 

[bkkcanuck8]

It will be interesting to see who's gonna become a Vision Pro competitor. Microsoft seems to be a sure bet considering people will want a kind of VP on Windows system but I wouldn't count out Google just yet.

And yes, the Varjo will be acquired in a few years. I think that's what's their plan anyway.

Hololens was cancelled, they were only manufacturing for existing customers... but that model would be the last... that was about a year ago I think... so the team behind that device has dispersed... to re-enter the market they would have to rebuild the team and expertise... no quick thing to do normally. Google... pfft, they keep on cancelling things if they make one - it would just be one more device to cancel (still sore about having to move some domains I bought last year to a new company - I don't want to go with squarespace for that).

 

[matrix07]

Hololens was cancelled, they were only manufacturing for existing customers... but that model would be the last... that was about a year ago I think... so the team behind that device has dispersed... to re-enter the market they would have to rebuild the team and expertise... no quick thing to do normally. Google... pfft, they keep on cancelling things if they make one - it would just be one more device to cancel (still sore about having to move some domains I bought last year to a new company - I don't want to go with squarespace for that).

Wow. That - together with Zuckeberg losing big money - just doesn't look good for VR/AR (outside of Apple of course).

 

[dante_mr]

Meta can't copy the Vision Pro. They simply don't have the hardware or software resources. To begin with, they don't have the silicon to power the hardware, and they don't own or control any system software that could deliver a comparable platform.

Honestly, I think Meta has the hardware resources (besides processors) but their software is abysmal. And that's where Apple dominates.

Not saying Apple's software is perfect (far from it), but their vertical hardware and software integration is simply unparalleled.

I truly think Meta can offer something comparable to the Vision Pro hardware-wise. If anything, Meta clearly isn't hampered by a specific design philosophy like Apple. But software is key and the Quest's user experience is just god-awful imo. The avatars are hideous. UI changes every update seemingly randomly etc.

Apple offers a certain polish that other players seem not to bother paying attention to.

 

[dante_mr]

That is indeed true, but it still doesn’t solve the “large bulky device strapped to your face” problem. And I believe Meta has an option to use a Quest without a controller, it’s just not as good as Apple.

What Apple has done here is take all the best ideas people have had about headsets from a design perspective and brought them to reality. It’s a genuinely impressive technological feat. But neither Apple nor Meta has still not come up with a reason why someone would want to use a headset as a serious computing device outside of some niche cases.

The use case problem is fair but personally I see the potential.

I really like the angle Apple took with the Vision Pro being marketed as a "Spatial Computer." The idea of doing the same tasks that I would on my Mac in mixed reality intrigues me--from writing reports to surfing the web to gaming. And even describing it as a computer rather than a headset shifts how I imagine it will be used (e.g hearing "VR headset" immediately brings my mind to just gaming rather than productivity)

There have been countless times (especially during lockdowns back in 2020*) where I desperately wanted not just one extra screen (I use Sidecar) but several at once. Sure, I could invest in a multi-monitor setup, but here's the problem: I want to be able to do that wherever I go--whether I'm on my bed, at the desk, or in the kitchen. Just like I can with my laptop rather than a desktop.

Something like the Vision Pro solves that for me. And I'd argue that's not necessarily a niche at all. Even the average Joe would benefit from multiple screens--I see dual monitor setups at work all the time.

If Apple can truly make visionOS comparable to macOS (rather than iPadOS which is too walled to make it practical) and enough progress can be made on slimming the device down, I genuinely see a lot of people owning it, even casually.

It might not reach computer-level adoption but definitely tablet-level at the very least.

* god forbid another pandemic happens, but if it does then AR/VR could probably make all our lives easier if it's affordable enough for mass adoption Both from a productivity and leisure standpoint but also a mental health stand point of keeping people interacting socially.

 

[TLewis]

Wow. That - together with Zuckeberg losing big money - just doesn't look good for VR/AR (outside of Apple of course).

Well, for the foreseeable future (say, 5ish+ years), I think the only things that have a remote chance at succeeding are:

• Samsung and Google partner together. Samsung does hardware while Google does android software.
• Google acquires Varjo. Possible, but unless Varjo uses android (I have no idea what they use), this would be an acquisition done purely for the hardware expertise.
• Samsung goes it alone. Possible, but Samsung needs android software, and I don't really see Samsung forking Android to do this.

 

[Rigby]

So you agree, Apple wasn't the first with touch screen. Capacitive touch screen and resistive touch screen isn't revolutionary, it was an evolution. microLED vs LED ... is it revolutionary?

Here's what they solved.

1) Eye tracking (high accuracy so it is usable unlike previous attempts from other companies)
2) Gesture control (you can make gestures anywhere, not just in your eye's field of vision)
3) Retina resolution display (no more blurry images causing eye fatigue and motion sickness)
4) Motion sickness (Previous headset gave users headache after 30mins of use)
5) Security (OpticID, and API that only allows developers to get events, no info about eye tracking)
6) Seamlessly immerse and get out of AR/VR modes and allow user to set the amount of immersion, not just either or.
7) Latency (Apple is the first company to integrate a DESKTOP class SoC and a Co-processor to reduce the latency to 12ms). No other company can compete because ... who's got the best performance per watt, who can cram a desktop SoC on a headset without overheating? NOBODY. Speak to anyone using AR/VR ... their biggest gripe is latency. It makes the user experience unbearable when UI doesn't react the way you want it to. Users get frustrated having to wait for the glasses to catch up to them.

All of these things (with the exception of the very Apple-specific #5) have been done before. They packed expensive high-end hardware into the product (at the cost of a high price and high energy consumption that prevented an integrated battery) and created a very polished software experience, but haven't solved any of the fundamental issues for xR in the consumer space. The only real innovation I can see is the outside "eye display", but its value seems questionable (though I will reserve judgement until people have actually tried it).

 

[Piggie]

This.

While Apple may or may not have the "best product" technically (I'm not going to waste time arguing this), that doesn't really matter. It just needs to be among the leaders. Apple's marketing and retail presence will do the rest. None of Apple's headset competitors have this, except maybe for Samsung (and then only once they enter the market). Maybe.

I don't think it looks good for the competition:

• Microsoft has already canceled the Hololens 3 (long before the Vision Pro announcement). Here, the big question is, "Has Microsoft stopped development and is only milking the Hololens 2, or are they actually still working on something better?"
• IMO, Meta is likely dead in the long run because they use mainly off-the-shelf parts, some of which don't apparently perform well. I also have a hard time believing they'll spend the tens- to hundreds-of-millions of dollars to catch up.
• I think Varjo's only hope is to be acquired. Technically, they seem OK, but Apple's marketing and retail presence will likely steamroller them in the long term.
• Google might someday be a competitor, but they're really not a hardware company. They tend to acquire other companies or have other companies make stuff for them, like the Pixel. Well, they can't exactly have other companies build headsets for them, so that leaves either acquiring a company or working with a company that can possibly/maybe produce a Vision Pro competitor: Samsung. So, let's see if Google acquires Varjo or works with Samsung.
• Samsung is probably the only real possible (and likely, IMO) competitor as they have the hardware divisions that can produce customized headset parts. I'll guess that they'll start with Android just to take advantage of Android app stores. However, Samsung will either have to fork android (far from ideal) or work with google (may slow down development). I'm sure Samsung will try to copy many Vision Pro features, and it'll be interesting to see how many Apple patents will cause problems for Samsung.

On the other hand, Apple has issues, too. I think Apple announced this waaay early, and this gives the competition time to pivot. Heck, the Vision Pro won't be shipping for at least another 7ish months, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't ship for another 10 months (nearly a year!). Also, there are rumors that Apple can only produce maybe 100K units a year due to parts production issues. If so, and if Apple has already finalized the hardware design, that would give Apple time to produce and stockpile units for release day. However, that would also mean very long delivery times once the initial stockpile sells out. It'll be interesting to see if this happens.

Please remember something very important.
Hololens is/was an AR Augmented Reality headset.
Apple's Vision Pro is just a VR Headset with nice quality pass-through camera's.
This is a very different thing, and a much easier thing to deal with than overlaying a see thru lens over the top of the real world.

 

[Abazigal]

It will be interesting to see who's gonna become a Vision Pro competitor. Microsoft seems to be a sure bet considering people will want a kind of VP on Windows system but I wouldn't count out Google just yet.

And yes, the Varjo will be acquired in a few years. I think that's what's their plan anyway (built it to be acquired).

I suspect this is why Apple is going all out with premium components for the vision pro. They are trying to set a baseline experience (eg: dual 4k displays) that only they will be able to replicate (because they control supply, and because only Apple customers will be willing to pay that much for such a product).

It may turn out like the iPad or Apple Watch market. Yes, there are alternatives, but there are no true competitors.

 

[dante_mr]

I suspect this is why Apple is going all out with premium components for the vision pro. They are trying to set a baseline experience (eg: dual 4k displays) that only they will be able to replicate (because they control supply, and because only Apple customers will be willing to pay that much for such a product).

It may turn out like the iPad or Apple Watch market. Yes, there are alternatives, but there are no true competitors.

If Meta, Google, Samsung or Microsoft etc. don't step up their game I definitely see this happening.

Apple is flexing its capabilities with the Vision Pro. Sure, it's priced well beyond the average consumer's budget, but just by launching this Pro product, they can show what Spatial Computing/ARVR is capable of.

I sense an analogy to pre-Retina to post-Retina phones.

Once high PPI displays were introduced, they sort of set the "standard" of what a display should look like. Similarly, headsets like the Quest 3 will sell great I'm sure but once people catch on to what they're missing out on, they might not want anything besides what Apple offers.

I wouldn't be surprised if Meta completely shifts to just VR gaming since that's a market they already have a head start on compared to Apple (VR gaming that is), and the lack of included controllers on the Vision Pro might present the Quest as a better alternative for gaming. Not to mention lower price points is crucial in the gaming segment.

This all assumes Apple can deliver the same high-res experience at a lower price point (i.e. a non-Pro Vision) down the line. And of course the software though I don't doubt they'll deliver there.

If so, Apple might dominate the industry much like they do with tablets, despite competitors fully capable of creating good hardware.

 

[TLewis]

It doesn't really matter if Apple is the first to do something. In fact, it's better if Apple isn't the first to market, as history has shown that first to market is not a good place to be. For example, the history of personal computing is littered with the corpses of dead companies who were "first". Surprisingly, however, Apple is the only one still around, I believe.

Anyone remember the IMSAI 8080 or the Altair 8800? What about the Tandy TRS-80, the Commodore 64, Sinclair PC, Amiga, or even the IBM PC (IBM is no longer in the PC hardware business, and so that part is dead). For smartwatches, anyone remember the Pebble?