Kuo: Vision Pro Likely to Launch in Late January or Early February

[Lounge vibes 05]

Glasses aren’t big enough. The size requirement for the battery alone makes it impossible.

External battery pack, usage of a nearby iPhone or iPad battery, the ability to plug it into the wall when stationary…
There are solutions here.

No one but diehard apple fanboys will want this. We'll see who's right.

These types of comments are going to be very amusing when the “Galaxy Vision” or the “pixel MR” or whatever ridiculous name they choose to use is announced with AndroidXR and it’s pretty much the same type of product as the Vision pro.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Oh, and Cybertruck, priced at $61K-$120K, has 2.1 million pre-orders. That’s what happens when you take bold risks, and defy convention. Something Apple used to do regularly when they had bold leadership with, uh… vision.

sure, but Apple never had to delay their product four years before only being able to ship… what is it, 10 units in 2023?
Also just because 2.1 million people pre-ordered it, again most of those orders coming from 2019, does not mean that 2.1 million people (or anywhere close to that) are actually going to pay the full amount and take delivery of the cyber truck.

 

[Zmmyt]

Considering how most “experts” doubted the introduction of iPod, iPhone and AirPods, I’m almost certain this new product will be a great success down the line.

 

[Abazigal]

So did early smartphones but that didn’t stop people from buying those like hot cakes, cos the use case and benefits were clear to everyone.

Not so with Apple VR. The eye tracking is cool and improves UI, but it doesn’t drastically change the use case or benefits.

I believe this is because for all the limitations and issues inherent in early smartphones (like the OG iPhone not coming with 3g), Apple nailed the user experience that made users willing to put up with every other drawback combined. That's what Apple does best. They can give you a small MacBook with just 1 usb-c port and there are still enough people who prize that one killer feature enough (portability) to put up with the other shortcomings.

The problem with other VR headsets like the quest is that the resolution tends to be too low to work comfortably from, the UI is often crap, and you can't see what's around you once the headset is worn (which makes even mundane tasks like drinking a cup of coffee near impossible). There is no redeeming factor here. There are enough pain points to make most people go "Bah, it's just not worth it", even if it's so much cheaper.

The Vision Pro may not be perfect out of the box, and it doesn't have to be. I am willing to bet that after it has been released, there will be tons of articles written about some perceived problem. Maybe the battery life is too short. Maybe it's too expensive. Maybe it will be criticised for still sporting the M2 chip when the M3 is already available. None of them will detract from what really matters, the experience of putting one on and using it to interact with the world around you.

I agree with you - maybe the Vision Pro doesn't do much more than existing VR headsets, but it can do them better, to the point where people are happy to use it when competing alternatives would long have been consigned to the trash heap.

 

[chucker23n1]

Considering the first iPad and Apple Watch had gimped processors I very much believe they will put a m2 in it

The first iPad had the A4, months before the iPhone got it. Hardly gimped.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

The first iPad had the A4, months before the iPhone got it. Hardly gimped.

iPad 1: released in April 2010, 256 MB of RAM
iPhone 4: released June 2010, 512 MB of RAM.
And clearly that lack of ram wasn’t helping, that iPad only went from version 3.2 to version 5.1.1.
Even the iPhone 3GS got software support longer than the original iPad.
The iPhone 4, again with the same processor but double the RAM, received an extra two years of software support.

 

[The Game 161]

February seems what a few others have said

 

[chucker23n1]

iPad 1: released in April 2010, 256 MB of RAM
iPhone 4: released June 2010, 512 MB of RAM.

Fair.

Even the iPhone 3GS got software support longer than the original iPad.
The iPhone 4, again with the same processor but double the RAM, received an extra two years of software support.

Yes, but the iPhone was at the time more mature. The original iPhone sucked at running iOS 4. My mistake, I meant the 3G.

What I object to is the implication that Apple deliberately gave the original iPhone, iPad, Watch poor specs. I don't think that's true. For the Watch, it's pretty clear to me that they had trouble scaling the chips down at all, so this is what we've ended up with. It's not like competitors offered more efficient chips at the same sizes.

So while there's a good chance the second or third generation of the Vision Pro will be stronger, I think that's mainly because Apple has to ship at some point.

 

[tomtad]

Oh, and Cybertruck, priced at $61K-$120K, has 2.1 million pre-orders.

This was largely kids putting down $100 refundable ‘deposits’

 

[darngooddesign]

Why are there so many apologists for Apple? Not everything is a hit.

Why are there so many people who go out of their way to predict failure?

Not everything which doesn’t appeal to you requires your cynicism.

 

[Abazigal]

Considering the first iPad and Apple Watch had gimped processors I very much believe they will put a m2 in it

What’s gimped about the M2? It’s not the best, but it’s hardly a bad processor by any stretch.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

The original iPhone sucked at running iOS 4.

no it didn’t, because it never ran iOS 4.
The original iPhone stopped receiving updates after 3.1.3

 

[chucker23n1]

no it didn’t, because it never ran iOS 4.
The original iPhone stopped receiving updates after 3.1.3

My mistake. I meant the 3G. I had a 3G; it shipped with 2.2.1 as I recall. I naïvely kept upgrading it; it ran 4.x very poorly.

 

[chucker23n1]

What’s gimped about the M2? It’s not the best, but it’s hardly a bad processor by any stretch.

I don't know what they mean either. But at this point, the M2 is a year and a half old, and its cores are more than two years old. If the Vision Pro does ship with the M2 rather than M3, I'd be curious about the reasons.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

What I object to is the implication that Apple deliberately gave the original iPhone, iPad, Watch poor specs. I don't think that's true. For the Watch, it's pretty clear to me that they had trouble scaling the chips down at all, so this is what we've ended up with. It's not like competitors offered more efficient chips at the same sizes.

I don’t think anyone has implied that, at least not here.
Although Apple giving the original iPad half the ram of their then only two months away brand new phone was definitely a strange decision.
A decision that would be totally reversed a year later, when the iPad 2’s A5 was clocked 20% higher on the iPad than it was the iPhone 4S.
Either way, it wasn’t even the speed or the processor That was the biggest issue with the original Apple Watch, it was the software, which sucked.
The original Apple Watch was all based on actually *using* applications, the same way you would use them on a phone or a tablet, which was… Not what anyone wanted to be doing on a watch, and certainly contributed to it feeling as slow as it did, because it just was not meant to be that type of device.
This was a problem until I’d say watchOS 3, where they finally started to get it right.

 

[bobcomer]

This definitely will be a huge step forward for those with sight and the use of a pair of fingers who are otherwise immobilized or disabled, whether permanently or temporarily. For some, a phone did this, but I’m sure this will be a new and only option for many.

You need more than just sight and a pair of fingers, you need 3D sight, and you need a pair of fingers that move well and the hardware needs to be able to see and understand that movement. It's a fail for me, I don't see in 3D (Dwayne syndrome), and no thumbs to do the pinch and not much finger movement otherwise. I also wouldn't want to wear one for any length of time! I really hoped this product would be more accessible for the disabled, but given the UI so far, it's not really for the disabled at all.

However I do have the money to buy one easily if I could use it, so it's not like I'm jealous as some seem to think around here. (that's ridiculous)

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

My mistake. I meant the 3G. I had a 3G; it shipped with 2.2.1 as I recall. I naïvely kept upgrading it; it ran 4.x very poorly.

Indeed, it did, and it didn’t even receive any updates after November 2010, despite iOS 4 still being the latest for an additional 11 months.
Probably the biggest contributing factor is that, besides the 3G radio and the GPS chip, the iPhone 3G was really just the original iPhone repackaged with a plastic back.
Same processor, same ram, same display, same camera, much smaller battery.

 

[zombierunner]

Why are they pushing this so much? I don't believe there will be much demand for this. Can we please get some proper iMacs instead?

 

[spazzcat]

AirPod max? Mac Pro? Mac cube? Newton? Lisa?

There have been failures before.

In what world do you live in that you believe $3500 vr headset will be a hit?

I live in world where I say let's see what happens. There are headsets that cost more.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

You need more than just sight and a pair of fingers, you need 3D sight, and you need a pair of fingers that move well and the hardware needs to be able to see and understand that movement.

you literally don’t, you can control it with just your eyes.

Apple Highlights Vision Pro's Accessibility Features with Head, Wrist, and Index Finger Controls

Apple's new Vision Pro headset is controlled with eye and hand movements by default. For those with accessibility needs, however, features like...

www.macrumors.com

You can use it without fingers, you can use it without eyes.

Notice the people most critical about this product are also the ones who refuse to put 10 seconds of research into their concerns about it.

 

[Abazigal]

I don't know what they mean either. But at this point, the M2 is a year and a half old, and its cores are more than two years old. If the Vision Pro does ship with the M2 rather than M3, I'd be curious about the reasons.

One possibility is that the Vision Pro was designed around the M2 chip and optimised for it, and Apple may not want to risk upsetting that equilibrium with a different processor.

I know what you are all thinking, and I don’t think it’s because of forced obsolescence.

 

[spazzcat]

If we compare iPhones success to iwatch and iPad, both were a failure. iPads are currently on a steep decline and the iwatch has been pulled.

What is this iwatch thing?

 

[chucker23n1]

I don’t think anyone has implied that, at least not here.

I feel the use of the word "gimped" implied it.

Either way, it wasn’t even the speed or the processor That was the biggest issue with the original Apple Watch, it was the software, which sucked.
The original Apple Watch was all based on actually *using* applications, the same way you would use them on a phone or a tablet, which was… Not what anyone wanted to be doing on a watch, and certainly contributed to it feeling as slow as it did, because it just was not meant to be that type of device.
This was a problem until I’d say watchOS 3, where they finally started to get it right.

I never got to use watchOS 1.x, but yes, there were unusually significant UI changes between the releases. Some of the features originally heavily featured barely existed any more by 2.0.

But, having had an OG Apple Watch, the chips were absolutely an issue. Not just speed-wise (launching any app at all was very sluggish), but also in terms of battery life. Did a workout? Well, better charge again afterwards.

Which is… OK by me. Apple has to let their platforms out at some point, to gather feedback, gain momentum from third-party developers, etc. They can't wait until the hardware specs are perfect.

Indeed, it did, and it didn’t even receive any updates after November 2010, despite iOS 4 still being the latest for an additional 11 months.

That part — cutting it off mid-4.x — was especially weird, yes.

Probably the biggest contributing factor is that, besides the 3G radio and the GPS chip, the iPhone 3G was really just the original iPhone repackaged with a plastic back.

…which is why part of my brain was convinced the 2G, too, ran iOS 4.

I guess the engineers didn't want the 3G to run 4.x either, but marketing had decided that it was too early to cut off support. At a technical level, surely the footprint is roughly the same for both devices.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

If we compare iPhones success to iwatch and iPad, both were a failure. iPads are currently on a steep decline and the iwatch has been pulled.

The iPad sells something like 30 million units a year, so definitely not a failure.

The Apple Watch is literally the world’s best selling watch, and has been since 2017. Again, not a failure.

 

[chucker23n1]

One possibility is that the Vision Pro was designed around the M2 chip and optimised for it,

I've read this a few times, and as a software engineer, that doesn't ring true for me.

Now, in terms of hardware, yes, of course, they'd need to design the logic board differently. (We haven't seen what the board looks like, have we?)

and Apple may not want to risk upsetting that equilibrium with a different processor.

It's possible that the R1 has some timing expectations that are tweaked towards the M2, I suppose. But that really only repeats the question: why? Why wouldn't it already be designed around the M3? Surely at least some of the chip design people who make the R1 also know about the M3.

I know what you are all thinking, and I don’t think it’s because of forced obsolescence.

I don't think that either. I just think it's a weird planning mishap. Like, maybe they meant for VP to actually ship by 2H 2023, but the software wasn't ready, or something like that.

(Another possibility is that excessive secrecy between teams hurt them here.)