That is precisely the reason why I have never purchased any VR headset, regardless of who makes it. It’s the same reason I don’t speak to my phone with Hey Siri or OK Google to call up a digital assistant. That’s dorkmania.
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.
Report: Apple May Stop Producing Vision Pro by the End of 2024
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm skeptical of any form factor, including lightweight glasses.
Consider the laptop: we still use them today. A laptop consists of a screen and a keyboard designed for the size of human hands, just like a big, chunky $12,000 personal computer sold in 1984. A laptop of today is much faster, cheaper, and more compact and powerful but it still has the same basic structure as a computer from the 1980s.
A mobile phone still involves holding a piece of plastic up to your ear, just like the telephones of yore.
"Spatial computing" is something entirely new and has no precedent other than virtual reality gaming devices that never went beyond a small niche. I'm not saying it won't be the next thing and replace all our phones some day. Maybe it will. I'm just saying constantly comparing it to devices we already use is not quite accurate, because in many ways it is a significant departure from the tech we've been using for decades.
Consider the laptop: we still use them today. A laptop consists of a screen and a keyboard designed for the size of human hands, just like a big, chunky $12,000 personal computer sold in 1984. A laptop of today is much faster, cheaper, and more compact and powerful but it still has the same basic structure as a computer from the 1980s.
A mobile phone still involves holding a piece of plastic up to your ear, just like the telephones of yore.
"Spatial computing" is something entirely new and has no precedent other than virtual reality gaming devices that never went beyond a small niche. I'm not saying it won't be the next thing and replace all our phones some day. Maybe it will. I'm just saying constantly comparing it to devices we already use is not quite accurate, because in many ways it is a significant departure from the tech we've been using for decades.
no ones wearing this thing walking around. they're using it at home. I could care less what it looks like but it's still the coolest looking VR headset
Tim "Mr Vain" Cook should stop sticking himself in magazines and focus on actually running Apple, his little vanity project is a spectacular failure make no mistake.
He pulled resources from iOS and iPhone for this POS and it shows.
Look at the state of the hardware team right now, knocking out the same design 7 years in a row ffs.
How many people have jumped ship the last 2 years?
He is holding them back because of his own ego.
Once Jony and his team all left, this is what we have now, company devoid of design, UI, UX and vision "lmfao" run by yes men bean counters like Jeff Williams.
He pulled resources from iOS and iPhone for this POS and it shows.
Look at the state of the hardware team right now, knocking out the same design 7 years in a row ffs.
How many people have jumped ship the last 2 years?
He is holding them back because of his own ego.
Once Jony and his team all left, this is what we have now, company devoid of design, UI, UX and vision "lmfao" run by yes men bean counters like Jeff Williams.
I’m just going to ahead and block you. Have a good one.
They should have started with the low-budget version to introduce people to VR. That way, they could get them hooked and then introduce the “Pro” version, which would be like, “Now that we’ve got you hooked, here’s an even better version!” Now, the low-budget version will always leave people feeling like they’re getting a less-than-impressive product.
100% agree here. I use my quest 2 mainly for fitness and expected apples device to be health focused as well but once I got my hands on it I realized this would never be there case with the current iteration. it's just too delicate and high end for fitness. it needs to be made out of plastic and silicon and easily cleaned to hold up to sweat. My quest 2 gets soaked every time I use it. I mean they could make some of this happen but selling fitness face interfaces but I'd think they woulda done that already.
I agree totally
To some extent, the whole notion of "this being the future" is simply because this was tried and it sort of parallels some tech concepts seen in movies, etc..
But it's so clearly not actually better for a wide of variety of use cases, that's it's really hard to see it being "the future"
It doesn't matter if I can afford it. If few others can, the product has a perilous future. The ecosystem barely got a gasp of oxygen, even from Apple's dev team.
Excatly. Could it be better some day? Well maybe, I can't predict the future. But tech has fundamentally not consisted of an interface directly against our faces, that is something new. I'm not convinced yet that it's better than an interface at a distance, like a phone, laptop, TV, watch, or PC. We shall see.
The tablet could be argued to be the greatest departure from previous tech in recent years. But while touch interface is better for art and certain games, it's not better for typing, hence the popularity of the keyboard folio for the iPad. Some things just aren't going to change.
They need to pick a direction and stick with it.
If the goal is a consumer device the it needs to be cheaper and have a greater level of compatibility. If the plan is to use it interface with other devices then offload the processing to them and integrate the battery into the headset. And stop building everything from glass and metal! These are fine for skyscrapers and cars but not what should be light, durable pieces of technology. If they aimed to just build a better version of the Meta Quest 3 for £999 they'd sell a shedload.
If the goal is to keep building a cutting edge device then ignore the consumer market and treat it like the Mac Pro instead. Aim it at research, industry, medicine and higher ed markets where it can be written off as a tax deductable and the cost easily swallowed. Get big names like Adobe and Autodesk building workflows for it that add to their software they already use rather than garage developers building YouTube apps.
If the goal is a consumer device the it needs to be cheaper and have a greater level of compatibility. If the plan is to use it interface with other devices then offload the processing to them and integrate the battery into the headset. And stop building everything from glass and metal! These are fine for skyscrapers and cars but not what should be light, durable pieces of technology. If they aimed to just build a better version of the Meta Quest 3 for £999 they'd sell a shedload.
If the goal is to keep building a cutting edge device then ignore the consumer market and treat it like the Mac Pro instead. Aim it at research, industry, medicine and higher ed markets where it can be written off as a tax deductable and the cost easily swallowed. Get big names like Adobe and Autodesk building workflows for it that add to their software they already use rather than garage developers building YouTube apps.
The costs only matter if it's a useful product. I suspect it could have cost less than an iPhone and it wouldn't be in much better of a place than it currently it is.
It's just not useful for the majority.
But your opinion is rather binary. If you don’t value it it’s a turd in your opinion. That’s just ridiculous. Of course you are entitled to your opinion but it’s rather worthless if that is your criteria when judging anything.
A Porsche Taycan is something I can afford but don’t want it therefore it’s a turd.. like really?
I'm honestly sort of happy the AVP isn't a $599 device, as I suspect I'd find it infinitely depressing and dystopian to see how many parents would have them and just "plug their kids into it" all over the place
I already get really saddened when I see kids in restaurants, at a table with people, and they are watching movies on devices with headphones on.
A huge part of growing up is learning to interact with other people in those settings, especially those older than you or new to you ... I have so many memories of that growing up and I think it's such a disservice to dismiss your kids away by plugging them into a tech consumption thing
It's often retailers ("Apple Authorized Resellers") that do the price lowering/discounting on products like Macs and HomePods more so than Apple. However, I believe Apple did lower the suggested retail price of the original HomePod mid-cycle from $349 to $299.
During "Apple 1.0", lowering prices was pretty common whether by MSRP reduction or rebates. For example, the suggested retail price of the original Macintosh was lowered from $2,495 to $2,195 within its first year. Additionally, Apple dealers routinely discounted computers and, unlike today, education discounts could be quite significant especially in the 1980s.
If they discontinue this category, they should allow those who bought it to return it and get a refund.
Last edited:
Bill Clinton knew first hand: "It's the ergonomics, stupid". Tim didn't.
Clearly an early adopter/luxury device that was never meant to be for the masses.
AVP was more a large scale pay to play beta test than a product. I don't think Apple ever intended to make a profit from, or sell a lot of these.
It did get cutting edge technology out in the public eye. A lot of people used it that never would have if Apple had just kept it in the lab. It generated interest in a product that while much more expensive, was clearly more advanced than any other product available for purchase up until that time.
I suspect they're ending production to move on to making something different. A lot of the technology will make its way into the next version of the device. A version that will undoubtedly be lighter, less expensive, and more technologically advanced. A pattern that Apple has followed in the past.
Not everything is a home run or even a double the first time out. Viable mass market products take a lot of trial and error to produce and profit from. I suspect Apple expected to lose money on the AVP from the start.
The data collected in manufacturing and putting it into the hands of end users is far more valuable than the profit made from such a "halo" product. Recording the dynamics of how users actually use the product, how manufacturers respond to technological challenges placed upon them by the design teams, and using that in future bids to drive the price of the product down to a profitable price point that balances technology and price point are really the name of the game for AVP.
The success was actually mass producing it, writing the software, and getting it into the hands of people on the street. It's a jumping off point for something better.
AVP was more a large scale pay to play beta test than a product. I don't think Apple ever intended to make a profit from, or sell a lot of these.
It did get cutting edge technology out in the public eye. A lot of people used it that never would have if Apple had just kept it in the lab. It generated interest in a product that while much more expensive, was clearly more advanced than any other product available for purchase up until that time.
I suspect they're ending production to move on to making something different. A lot of the technology will make its way into the next version of the device. A version that will undoubtedly be lighter, less expensive, and more technologically advanced. A pattern that Apple has followed in the past.
Not everything is a home run or even a double the first time out. Viable mass market products take a lot of trial and error to produce and profit from. I suspect Apple expected to lose money on the AVP from the start.
The data collected in manufacturing and putting it into the hands of end users is far more valuable than the profit made from such a "halo" product. Recording the dynamics of how users actually use the product, how manufacturers respond to technological challenges placed upon them by the design teams, and using that in future bids to drive the price of the product down to a profitable price point that balances technology and price point are really the name of the game for AVP.
The success was actually mass producing it, writing the software, and getting it into the hands of people on the street. It's a jumping off point for something better.
Consider revisiting this Apple Press Release from June
Introducing Apple Vision Pro: Apple’s first spatial computer
Apple today unveiled Apple Vision Pro, a revolutionary spatial computer that seamlessly blends digital content with the physical world.
www.apple.com
Apple has dramatically shifted the narrative since then
This didn't release as some obscure "play beta test" that "wasn't meant for the masses"
tldr It's been a massive swing and miss
So they rushed it out the door, in no small part because they had to release something to take the limelight off titan. This thing. needed to bake 2-3 more years and it would’ve been a hit. One of those rare misses for Apple because it was a self-own