I mean, did Apple provide any first gen Apple product with a “killer app”? With the exception of the iPod which is basically a single app device, almost everything major Apple released relied on developers creating those “killer apps”.
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.
Meta Cancels High-End Mixed Reality Headset After Apple Vision Pro Struggles
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah I spoke to the Apple Store employee who did my Vision Pro demo about this. I’m really reluctant to spend 3.5K on something that’s going to be outdated in a couple years. If I could keep using the high end display by connecting to my Mac I’d absolutely be more on board.More like couldn't out-over-engineer Apple/j
Or maybe they just didn’t want to price themselves out of the AR/VR market - or at least out of their targeted tier of it.
I’d prefer if they focused on just making a display device. If all the power-hungry tasks (both in terms of computing and wattage) were handled by my existing devices, like a MacBook or iPhone, then the slim, lightweight headset could simply serve as a screen for my eyes with only the necessary sensors (cameras, IMU, etc.). Perhaps this approach could also help reduce the cost of the device. Hopefully, advances in technology over the years, like Wi-Fi 7, could enable such a solution. I know there are devices like that already. But they're not Apple
Thankfully, they didn’t put the battery in the headset.
It’s like the iMac problem.
A good recent take by 9to5mac on why VisionPro struggles:
9to5mac.com
Vision Pro will live or die on Apple’s own words: ‘spatial computer’ - 9to5Mac
After six months, the Vision Pro‘s future success seems entirely uncertain. But that success hinges on Apple’s own words: ‘spatial computer.’
9to5mac.com
I use my Vision Pro every day. I use it for AR for the most part and it’s brilliant.
Watching VR content in the VP is also phenomenal. I think VR gaming sucks though. Just in general. Not specifically on the VP
Is there anyone who still believes that AR/VR headsets are the future? The iPhone only struggled with supply meeting demand far exceeding expectations. They couldn't make enough iPhones fast enough for people to buy them.
Developer test hardware or not, unless it is $1500 or less and smaller and doesn't require obnoxious workarounds to unlock my phone, something my watch can do, I do not see any future for this product other than hobbyist.
Developer test hardware or not, unless it is $1500 or less and smaller and doesn't require obnoxious workarounds to unlock my phone, something my watch can do, I do not see any future for this product other than hobbyist.
My main reservation against those head sets is that they cover your whole field of view and sooner or later will place ads anywhere. If you do only want to pay $1000 instead of $3500, you will be forced to accept those ads in return. They also track where you are looking, which is really creepy.
Adult content so far is the only really convincing usage for those head sets.
Adult content so far is the only really convincing usage for those head sets.
Or $799 for that matter. I am tech-obsessed and will justify anything to use new tech but I don’t see the appeal of this tech outside of entertainment when a TV does the job. I know they’re pitching it as a TV you take on the plane with you but if you can’t sit through a 2-hour flight (or however short the battery on it lasts) without an 80” screen in front of you maybe what you need is to reconnect with nature and not a $3,499 headset…
And especially when visionOS has none of the capabilities of macOS since it’s based on locked down iOS, it’s useless on arrival for its primary target, it’s not for me.
There are some shops that use AR headsets for demonstration purposes but that's about it. There are bunch of YT videos how big groups use AR pieces to design CAD or mold 3D meshes but that's just BS. I don't doubt there are people who can do it and who have enough of interest and experience in doing it but it's not even close to be something out of experimental stage.
To me Apple Vision is more like single experience headset or AR general computing than collaboration tool. If software development picks up it could be but even then, you are limited with battery life and performance cause other AR headsets are actually accessories to your PC which does all the heavy lifting.
I also think Sony VR2 has better eye tracking than Apple Vision. Apple Vision bugs too often tracking your eyes while VR2 doesn't. But VR2 does have lower resolution panels compared to Apple Vision. And like Apple Vision Sony VR2 does not have enough of variety in developed software to actually justify the purchase.
Spot on. Many people assume others' needs are required to mirror theirs.
Apple knows what they're doing and have a plan. That some people on tech forums aren't able to see the larger picture and Apple's strategy is not surprising.
Developers probably don’t want to pay that 30% fee anymore and they’re tired of it
Is this accurate? Has Apple announced the Vision Pro will not have a second generation?
This behavior of Apple’s reminds of the times when here, in the former soviet bloc, govt had its own idea of what music and activities shall be played at nightclubs (incl. performing pantomimes).
The way Apple treats Arcade and used to treat gaming overall like this, are way too ridiculous.
I’m beginning to realise I am in the user group for whom this entire device category makes no sense at any price.
It’s laughable Apple tried to sell this as anything but a toy. I understand they had to justify the price somehow but Cook’s campaign to brand it a workplace device is just so disingenuous it crossed the line into being a scam.
Someday I might be interested in a similar device merely to use in bed to watch a movie, even one from Apple. But their slimy used car sales pitch on this product further hurt their reputation in my eyes. The company has become unfocused and rudderless.
It's laughable that you think Apple would have sold more if they marketed it as a toy.
It's a tool. My father had a workshop full of tools, which he used to build bookcases, stools, clocks, sculptures, airplanes, etc. All for his own enjoyment. He didn't make money doing it. He spent a lot of money on his tools. He was an amateur engineer who made money as a physician, but decided at a young age that it made more sense to do it that way than to make money as an engineer and practice medicine on the side for fun.
Back to your premise: That Apple tried to brand it as a workplace device. Their marketing showed it being used in different ways, including watching movies on airplanes and capturing and reliving you kids' birthday parties.
All Apple products are eye-watering expensive as a matter of course. The problem isn't the price, it's the product.
You are mistaken, I don’t think they would have sold more if marketed as a toy. The executive team’s decisions over this product indicates they all suffered from intellectual hernias.
On the other hand Meta made sound decisions here.
The spin on this one is a bit nonsense.
Amazon tried to out engineer Apple on the iPad and bombed and they readjusted strategy. Meta is doing the same here.
If people want the best, they spend on Apple. If they want a budget device, they get a Fire tablet from Amazon.
No one is going to spend through the nose for a Quest headset. If they’re going to drop the money, they’ll get a Vision Pro.
Meta already released a Quest Pro 1 and it tanked.
Amazon tried to out engineer Apple on the iPad and bombed and they readjusted strategy. Meta is doing the same here.
If people want the best, they spend on Apple. If they want a budget device, they get a Fire tablet from Amazon.
No one is going to spend through the nose for a Quest headset. If they’re going to drop the money, they’ll get a Vision Pro.
Meta already released a Quest Pro 1 and it tanked.
Chicken egg situation. You need apps for peeps to buy this stuff, you need a market to get devs engaged and committed.
Ive said it before, but a product like this needs to be $999 and identical to a pair of designer sunglasses. If the tech isnt there for that to be possible, then dont bother making it.
I think Meta is the closest to achieving this, as they already have a partnership with rayban.
Meta probably realized they can't just slap together something in 6 months to compete with something that has almost 10 years of development behind it. The only thing holding the Vision Pro back from becoming a blockbuster success is its price. When that comes down everybody will want one. Remember, the iPod... when people start seeing their friends with one and they have a chance to try it out for themselves, Apple Vision For-The-Rest-of-Us will be huge.