I’m just slightly creeped out on a conceptual level about this whole thing

[vmachiel]

Don’t get me wrong the tech is amazing. But I dunno.. the whole ‘look at this fake lake while the real world is falling apart‘ aspect of the presentation gave me a bad vibe. Also the part with having it on while your kid is interacting with you.

Just sitting in your house producing and consuming content with this thing on your face.. it’s the perfect metaphor. ‘Just be happy and don’t think about it’

Am I alone in this, or is anyone else feeling this?

 

[Kierkegaarden]

First off — the image they show of a lake is real, not fake. Secondly, this is not being looked at as a replacement for real human interaction. It may enhance it, in some scenarios.

If all the device did was immerse the user in calming environments that reduced stress, it would be worth the cost for that alone. Reducing stress will end up lowering health care costs long term.

 

[KaiFiMacFan]

I think eventually “augmented reality” will just superimpose a more pleasant “reality” over the real one. If you step outside your house with your AR glasses on and you see homeless encampments on the sidewalk, the glasses will replace them with an image of beautiful flower gardens. It sounds like a joke, but I could totally see it happening.

 

[vmachiel]

First off — the image they show of a lake is real, not fake. Secondly, this is not being looked at as a replacement for real human interaction. It may enhance it, in some scenarios.

If all the device did was immerse the user in calming environments that reduced stress, it would be worth the cost for that alone. Reducing stress will end up lowering health care costs long term.

I know the image is real. But it’s fighting the symptoms and not the cause. It’s like: “just forget about the real world dear consumer. Just relax, and pay for our services. Let them entertain you while we literally cover your eyes to hide reality“

 

[sunapple]

If you have your computer in a separate room and close the curtains, you're also isolated. At least with "Spatial Computing" an effort is made to have people appear in your virtual world. In the end it is the user's responsibility how much they wear them.

 

[Longplays]

Don’t get me wrong the tech is amazing. But I dunno.. the whole ‘look at this fake lake while the real world is falling apart‘ aspect of the presentation gave me a bad vibe. Also the part with having it on while your kid is interacting with you.

Just sitting in your house producing and consuming content with this thing on your face.. it’s the perfect metaphor. ‘Just be happy and don’t think about it’

Am I alone in this, or is anyone else feeling this?

That could be said with our behavior on online forums like MR and Reddit.

Why are you here when you can look at the real world and your kid?

The Vision Pro is the natural progression of technology. It is sad that this will become more addictive than Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit and Twitter combined.

Apple's pretty much siphoning all the revenue relating to consumer electronics, entertainment, healthcare, financial services and "life itself". Apple Car will probably be out before 2030s.

Depression and suicide will skyrocket. I hope these companies realize that it isn't unprofitable to kill off your user base especially when they prefer to have 0-2 children.

 

[Absrnd]

Don’t get me wrong the tech is amazing. But I dunno.. the whole ‘look at this fake lake while the real world is falling apart‘ aspect of the presentation gave me a bad vibe. Also the part with having it on while your kid is interacting with you.

Just sitting in your house producing and consuming content with this thing on your face.. it’s the perfect metaphor. ‘Just be happy and don’t think about it’

Am I alone in this, or is anyone else feeling this?

This is what you see when you walk down the street, what's the difference ?

And this at a concert.

Smartphones are used for 99,99% for media consumption anyway
nobody is looking at the real world anymore.

 

[Longplays]

This is what you see when you walk down the street, what's the difference ?
View attachment 2215833

And this at a concert.
View attachment 2215834

Smartphones are used for 99,99% for media consumption anyway
nobody is looking at the real world anymore.

Makes you wish you bought $AAPL on 20-Jan-2009 for $78.20.

Its Pre-Split Share Price today would be $5,066.88 per 20-Jan-2009 share with a quarterly div of $6.44.

So say you bought 4,000 shares in 20-Jan-2009 for $312,800.00.

That specific portfolio would be worth $20,267,520.00 by now. Even more than that during WWDC 2023.

Quarterly dividend would be $25,760.00.

Not a bad div for a single person without dependents living in a poor nation where min wage is $1.00/hr.

 

[sunapple]

This is what you see when you walk down the street, what's the difference ?
View attachment 2215833

And this at a concert.
View attachment 2215834

Smartphones are used for 99,99% for media consumption anyway
nobody is looking at the real world anymore.

I agree that isolation is already happening.

At least Vision Pro mimics real sight closely as opposed to having a small iPhone screen in front of you. It's like transparency mode on AirPods; for the user it's almost like wearing no earbuds but to others it still looks like you've isolated yourself. One-way traffic (despite virtual eyes on the outside screen).

 

[temende]

I don't understand the line of thinking that says "you're already looking at your phone all day, why not just immerse yourself in a screen?" First, I think that looking at your smartphone all day is one of the negative side effects of the technology for all its benefits. Second, there is a big big difference between looking at a small phone that takes up <10% of your field of view, and having a screen that completely covers your vision with digital pixels.

 

[masotime]

I know the image is real. But it’s fighting the symptoms and not the cause. It’s like: “just forget about the real world dear consumer. Just relax, and pay for our services. Let them entertain you while we literally cover your eyes to hide reality“

I find this representation a bit disingenuous. People already "forget about the real world" all the time. There's a war in Ukraine, forest fires from Canada are blanketing New York in hazardous levels of smoke - but people still go on vacation and don't care about all these events.

I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing to pay to forget about the real world. People do this all the time. I don't believe just because the mechanic is to "literally cover your eyes" makes it wrong.

Is the concern that this feels like a drug, like taking Opium / Fentanyl to forget your troubles?

 

[Analog Kid]

the whole ‘look at this fake lake while the real world is falling apart‘ aspect of the presentation gave me a bad vibe

People need to be aware of what's happening in the world, but I absolutely don't think we all need to sit around joyless until everything is fixed. If people want to read the news in a fancy headset, at least they're reading the news. If they want to take a break so they have the capacity to cope with tomorrow, I support that.

 

[klasma]

I know the image is real. But it’s fighting the symptoms and not the cause. It’s like: “just forget about the real world dear consumer. Just relax, and pay for our services. Let them entertain you while we literally cover your eyes to hide reality“

Yeah, Apple wants you to think different.

 

[MacMan2013]

The same objection could be raised to movies, games or even books. People have always needed to escape from reality for a while, this seems no different to me and I don't expect many people will spend most of their time wearing them (especially with a 2 hour battery life).

 

[subjonas]

The digital crown allows you to choose precisely how immersed or unimmersed you are, and other people can see your eyes, so the device doesn’t disconnect you from the world unless you want it to.
Apple has gone to great lengths to give the user complete choice of whether or not to be connected to the world while using this device—the same choice we all have all the time with or without technology. People like to use devices and technology as a scapegoat for human vices, and some products are indeed inherently designed to profit off our vices, but this is not. It’s a neutral tool for us to use as wisely or unwisely as we choose.

And the fact that you are technically looking at the world via pixels may bother some at first, but it’s only a conceptual/mental hurdle. It doesn’t have any functional consequence, as photons are photons. The important thing is you and the people/world around you can see and interact with each other freely, which I think this headset achieves.

 

[4087258]

AR original goal was to use transparent displays, but there’s no technology for that yet (for mass production).
AR is not about isolation, but VR is.
AR improves life with the use of web communications and ease of visualization without the need to stare at a device like a phone; it’s like putting the web in the physical world itself.
AR is not about replacing the world, but VR is.

 

[ogawa]

It makes me wonder how the announcement of this new device would have differed under Steve. The design would somehow have been more approachable. Something about the deadpan delivery of this shamelessly cyborg-looking face armature was definitely a bit strange.

 

[Enzo Morocioli]

How about this: imagine putting on the device and being instantly immersed in a true-to-life environment set on present day Earth. Over a period of a few minutes, the environment begins to transform around you. This transformation is based upon climate data reflecting the forecasted negative effects of anthropogenic climate change in the next several decades.

You pull the device off. Back in your living room, you are inspired to take action to prevent the devastating effects. You become more politically active. More active in your community. More responsible in the corporations and elected officials you support.

It just works.

 

[rgwebb]

I think the scariest thing about this new computing paradigm is the unknown directions companies will go to maximize profit.

I don’t think Apple wanted the iPhone App Store to be in the business of delivering glorified gambling to kids but they can’t do much about it on their platform besides bandaids. Apple shareholders cannot abide by more draconian solutions.

What are the new, bad things the come along with the new, good things? Does the ledger work out such that the good is worth the bad?

 

[Jensend]

AR original goal was to use transparent displays, but there’s no technology for that yet (for mass production).
AR is not about isolation, but VR is.
AR improves life with the use of web communications and ease of visualization without the need to stare at a device like a phone; it’s like putting the web in the physical world itself.
AR is not about replacing the world, but VR is.

I think all the quibbling about AR vs VR is mostly irrelevant.
Even before the Vision Pro, VR devices were moving towards better camera passthrough. The primary reason many current VR headsets have poor passthrough is to save cost. When you're developing a VR headset focused on gaming, you compromise on cameras instead of screens.

Transparent devices are probably best when your primary focus is the real world, but otherwise opaque devices will be the best option for quite a long time.

 

[rgwebb]

Also Vision Pro can do VR and I bet many companies will be primarily focused on that aspect.

 

[antiprotest]

I won't be buying 1st gen, if ever. But I am not creeped out by it at all. It would take much, much more than this to creep me out.

However, the scenarios OP raises have already been happening for years with phones, tablets, computers, game consoles, etc. Just because the phone is not directly pasted on your face does not make THAT much of a difference.

And the way people use it, it's actually pretty much pasted on their face. And don't worry about kids trying to talk to you either -- their faces are glued to their phones too.

Every day, we see whole families or groups of friends sitting together, each glued to their own phones. There is a marginal difference between this, and one or more of them using a headset.

So get creeped out if you want, but don't be selective about it. If you can get used to the existing devices to have become oblivious, then you will get used to this too, and much more, given time.

Bruce Willis in Surrogates

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Throughout all of history, humans always fear the new & different at first glance... then gradually come to understand a bit more about it... then some basic acceptance... then more acceptance... and then sometimes embracing it with up to great passion.

Our ancestors greatly feared the "horseless carriage", the "aero-plane" ("if God wanted man to fly..."), etc. How fortunate those of us who enjoy any life beyond perhaps about 50 miles from where we were born were not doomed to those 50 miles by those fears supplanting the development of both of those insane concepts.

As recently as now, we still have people worried about basic vaccinations, in spite of enormous success at practically eradicating many terrible diseases where they have been broadly applied. How fortunate much of the developed world is NOT suffering from Smallpox, Cholera, etc... or even Polio on a consistent basis. I would bet most of the people reading this post have not given a thought to such diseases in the last year? 5 years? 10 years?

Right now, there's a lot of people worried about AI ("will it eradicate us humans?", "will it take over everyone's jobs?", etc). It too is in the "now & new tech" zone where people run to "fear the unknown" first- express those fears- and then perhaps get their brains fully around it later... and sometimes-to-often feel very different.

This is just another thing in a long line of tech innovations. Instead of exercising the same old pattern, perhaps we should imagine a time 10 or 20 years from now and look back at this one? What's our best guess at how will we feel about THIS in 2043? Because like the car, plane, vaccines, television, light bulb, etc, our view of it (and AI) will be substantially different than when it is practically brand new and- in this case- not yet released or even in-stored demoed so we can "see" (for ourselves) what it is and is not.

OR, AI will have exterminated us by then and we won't be able to care about the effects of yet another new bit of technology.

The great catch in this "I don't like <new tech>" or sometimes "I'm afraid of <new tech>" is that it's basically Pandora's box. It's out. We can't put it back in again. If Apple killed Vpro now, the copycats have seen new potentials and their attempts at "copies" are coming fast... and would still come whether Apple makes another move or not.

 

[unchecked]

Throughout all of history, humans always fear the new & different at first glance... then gradually come to understand a bit more about it... then some basic acceptance... then more acceptance... and then sometimes embracing it with up to great passion.

Our ancestors greatly feared the "horseless carriage", the "aero-plane" ("if God wanted man to fly..."), etc. How fortunate those of us who enjoy any life beyond perhaps about 50 miles from where we were born were not doomed to those 50 miles by those fears supplanting the development of both of those insane concepts.

As recently as now, we still have people worried about basic vaccinations, in spite of enormous success at practically eradicating many terrible diseases where they have been broadly applied. How fortunate much of the developed world is NOT suffering from Smallpox, Cholera, etc... or even Polio on a consistent basis. I would bet most of the people reading this post have not given a thought to such diseases in the last year? 5 years? 10 years?

Right now, there's a lot of people worried about AI ("will it eradicate us humans?", "will it take over everyone's jobs?", etc). It too is in the "now & new tech" zone where people run to "fear the unknown" first- express those fears- and then perhaps get their brains fully around it later... and sometimes-to-often feel very different.

This is just another thing in a long line of tech innovations. Instead of exercising the same old pattern, perhaps we should imagine a time 10 or 20 years from now and look back at this one? How will we feel about it in 2043? Because like the car, plane, vaccines, television, light bulb, etc, our view of it (and AI) will be substantially different than when it is practically brand new and- in this case- not yet released or even in-stored demoed so we can "see" (for ourselves) what it is and is not.

OR, AI will have exterminated us by then and we won't care about the effects of yet another new bit of technology.

The great catch in this "I don't like <new tech>" or sometimes "I'm afraid of <new tech>" is that it's basically Pandora's box. It's out. You can't put it back in again. If Apple killed Vpro now, the copycats have seen new potentials and their attempts at "copy" are coming fast... and would still come whether Apple makes another move or not.

Not every innovation stuck around though. It really comes back down to a few pain points and the biggest barrier is "it obtrusive or too clunky for us to carry with us?"

This is another thing for us to carry. The iPhone or our earbuds are small and portable. If we can choose to not carry it, then there's a very good likelihood for it's newness to wean off quickly, and once we realise we can live without it, it will be just another fad. Out of sight, out of mind.

I see this headset as a business to business thing. It's a great tool for businesses to use AR to showcase their stuff. But on a consumer front, it'll be like the PS VR2 or the Switch Ring-Fit controller or other accessory or peripheral. It's great that it's there and they are fun to have around and play with, but they won't hit mainstream because of the point above: it's something optional/extra that we can choose to not get, and that it's something we can live without.

 

[masotime]

Not every innovation stuck around though. It really comes back down to a few pain points and the biggest barrier is "it obtrusive or too clunky for us to carry with us?"

I don't understand why these are crucial pain points. To continue the analogy by @HobeSoundDarryl, people also don't carry TVs, aeroplanes or vaccines with them, but they are still successful. Why does Vision Pro have to be compared to the portable iPhone? It doesn't have to have similar characteristics to be successful.