Report: Vision Pro Headset's Complex Design Forcing Apple to Make 'Drastic' Production Cuts

orbital~debris said:
Important to remember there's an inherent delay in this kind of information reaching people like us (rumour fans). And the information is almost certainly mutating along the way (or manipulated for various reasons, such as leak-control or for the benefit of various players).

Before Apple introduce something with this much riding on it, and provide the level of detail given at WWDC, I'm sure it has to have passed through a process of waypoint checks that make the kind of challenges reported here unlikely to still be issues*.

*Yes, I know – AirPower – but that was on a totally different scale, and outside of us lot of 'minutiae aficionados', hardly causes any serious ructions when quietly cancelled.
Click to expand...
So...I should accept your coherent and logical analysis instead of 'unnamed sources' and 'people in the know'? Sounds so last century to me.....almost pre-internet!
 
Surf Monkey said:
And even if we ignore all of that the issues don’t disappear. They compound. Now you have people actually wearing it, but to do… what exactly? Apple didn’t show anything that pointed towards a revolutionary use case. They did the opposite. They failed to show any use case that suggests people will keep putting it on over and over.

Maybe some compelling use case will emerge, maybe it won’t. If media consumption is the primary plan for it, it’ll fail before it gets shipped. As much as I’d love to see this succeed I just don’t see a valid path to wide spread acceptance.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sceptical about the short-term prospects for this, although I'm actually more open to the idea of this being a media consumption device.

However, the fundamental problem is that I don't think Apple has shown a use case that would justify the price, although one might of course emerge later, nor does it have a product at a price point for the use cases it has shown.

I could see myself watching an immersive movie or playing a game on this, but I'd probably need at least two so I could share the experience with my wife, and I'm absolutely not prepared to spend $3.5k for that. Combine that with the fact that, at least initially, they'll probably struggle to get people to produce content that actually takes advantage of the glasses for a minuscule number of people and it seems less appealing.

Again, the use case may not be immediately obvious. Maybe we'll look back in a couple of years and discuss how their success is so incredibly obvious in hindsight. Maybe, but not necessarily by a long shot.
 
d686546s said:
I'm quite sceptical about the short-term prospects for this, although I'm actually more open to the idea of this being a media consumption device.

However, the fundamental problem is that I don't think Apple has shown a use case that would justify the price, although one might of course emerge later, nor does it have a product at a price point for the use cases it has shown.

I could see myself watching an immersive movie or playing a game on this, but I'd probably need at least two so I could share the experience with my wife, and I'm absolutely not prepared to spend $3.5k for that. Combine that with the fact that, at least initially, they'll probably struggle to get people to produce content that actually takes advantage of the glasses for a minuscule number of people and it seems less appealing.

Again, the use case may not be immediately obvious. Maybe we'll look back in a couple of years and discuss how their success is so incredibly obvious in hindsight. Maybe, but not necessarily by a long shot.
Click to expand...

I see advantages in the realm of media consumption, but they do ignore the fact that television and movies are inherently social.
 
laptech said:
Ad's are already on things that are planned to be used on the headset such as movies and streaming plus I have no doubt there will be an app to watch youtube videos. You can also find ad's in reading apps.

What will make it pass or fail in my opinion will be if publishing houses/publishing companies were to use the eye tracking feature to show ad's when the eye's move over a product brand. So, say for example you have product sponsors of a movie who want product placement within the movie, a drinks manufacturer, a clothing manufacturer, a watch manufacturer, a jewelry manufacturer and when watched normally we would see the name of the product BUT in the headset it would go one step further and bring up a small product info box/square giving info about the product and website address if the users eyes focuses too long on the product in the movie. Remember the day's of DVD's when production companies started putting ad's on DVD's where they prevented you from skipping the ad's and you was forced to watch the ad's before you could play the movie? what's to say this will not happen with movies and tv shows and streaming services?

Once the headset becomes available for sale, I have no doubt movie publishers and streaming companies will purchase one for the purpose of seeing how they can put ad's into it.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly from the Keynote, Apple explained that the eye-tracking is restricted to the OS level. The Apps themselves don't know where you are looking and can't access that information. They know only when you have looked at AND selected an object by pinching your fingers together.

Presumably there could be another level of access, where an App does request eye tracking, and you need to grant permission or something, but do you think YouTube would be allowed to release an App that ONLY worked if you let it track your eyes?

I'm guessing, or maybe hoping, that Apple wouldn't allow an App on the App Store that did that. Similar to all the privacy protection they currently have on iPhone.

An App can't just request to listen in on your microphone, because when you submit an App to the App Store part of that submission is to explain exactly why your App needs access to the microphone.
 
SmoMo said:
If I remember correctly from the Keynote, Apple explained that the eye-tracking is restricted to the OS level. The Apps themselves don't know where you are looking and can't access that information. They know only when you have looked at AND selected an object by pinching your fingers together.

Presumably there could be another level of access, where an App does request eye tracking, and you need to grant permission or something, but do you think YouTube would be allowed to release an App that ONLY worked if you let it track your eyes?

I'm guessing, or maybe hoping, that Apple wouldn't allow an App on the App Store that did that. Similar to all the privacy protection they currently have on iPhone.

An App can't just request to listen in on your microphone, because when you submit an App to the App Store part of that submission is to explain exactly why your App needs access to the microphone.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make sense. Why would Apple restrict eye tracking since that's the primary navigator without controllers. Eye tracking is on the base level, and any Apps will have access to it.
 
kkee said:
That doesn't make sense. Why would Apple restrict eye tracking since that's the primary navigator without controllers. Eye tracking is on the base level, and any Apps will have access to it.
Click to expand...
So as I understood it from the Keynote, and it has been a while since I saw it.

The OS will track your eyes all the time, it will know what UI elements you are looking at ( buttons, sliders, text input fields etc.. ) and show you in someway that you have selected them ( I think they grow in size slightly ).

At this stage though, the App itself has no idea where you are looking. It doesn't even know what UI elements you are currently staring at.

Then, when you click your fingers together, something similar to an iPhone 'touch event' is sent to the App. So presumably the App is told that the UI element has now been activated ( or slider moved to a new position, or such and such text has been entered ).
 
Timo_Existencia said:
But it wasn't a comment about either going to the Super Bowl or watching the Super Bowl on the headset. The comment is about priority of costs, and what is or is not "expensive." I'd much rather own this device and have use of it for several years, for both computing and media consumption, than to attend the Super Bowl 1 time.

But in general, I don't understand many of the priorities of Americans. There are likely people on this thread who complain about how expensive this device is and then drive a car that costs $50K (the average price of a new car in the United States) or more. It's about what you prioritize. To me, tech that helps me be productive isn't expensive; that's the cost of running my business. But even if it weren't, I prioritize tech over other things, like a car (which I haven't owned since 2005).

There are so many comments about how this device is only for the wealthy. But, there are a lot of people who prioritize tech over many other things, thus rendering it not that expensive in relative terms. A person could spend 50% less than average on cars in the US and easily buy nearly all of the Apple products.
Click to expand...

A real world experience is of significantly higher value than a tech gizmo.
 
Surf Monkey said:
People generally don’t like to wear goggles. The implication that I’m the outlier is wrong. The mainstream context is googles are not considered cool or desirable on any level. The insanity isn’t that some people are enthusiastic about it. The insanity is that Tim Cook actually thinks this will be a mainstream device and the future of computing generally. Neither one is likely to be true.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Tim Cook is not so stupid to think this will go mainstream nor thinks this is the future of computing. The insanity to believe that does not come from Apple.
 
diddl14 said:
I'm pretty sure Tim Cook is not so stupid to think this will go mainstream nor thinks this is the future of computing. The insanity to believe that does not come from Apple.
Click to expand...

He has said as much in so many words. Apple has never been in the business of making products for niche markets.
 
Timo_Existencia said:
Apple Watch Ultra? Apple Watch Hermes? Mac Pro? Mac Studio? AirPods Max?

Some would argue that Apple itself IS a niche market.

The Mac was seen as a niche product for decades.
Click to expand...

Ultra is intended for a mass audience. The Apple Watch Edition doesn’t count since it was a special edition as per the name. The other products you mention are also for a mass audience. Apple is not a niche company.
 
The only way AR will ever be acceptable is when it is crammed into relatively normal looking eyewear. Nobody wants to wear ski goggles except when skiing.
 
Surf Monkey said:
Except that the Mac is very much mainstream now.
Click to expand...
Windows PC is mainstream, Mac is still far less than 10% of all PC’s sold, well away from mainstream. Apple DOES make things that are mainstream, like the iPhone and the iPad. Their Macs, though not mainstream, are still profitable since “mainstream” is not a requirement to be profitable.
 
Unregistered 4U said:
Windows PC is mainstream, Mac is still far less than 10% of all PC’s sold, well away from mainstream. Apple DOES make things that are mainstream, like the iPhone and the iPad. Their Macs, though not mainstream, are still profitable since “mainstream” is not a requirement to be profitable.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on whether “mainstream” is being used to determine economics (market share) or culture mainstream (mindshare) in a given conversation.

Let’s define terms, gentleman.

1688758147852.jpeg
 
Unregistered 4U said:
Windows PC is mainstream, Mac is still far less than 10% of all PC’s sold, well away from mainstream. Apple DOES make things that are mainstream, like the iPhone and the iPad. Their Macs, though not mainstream, are still profitable since “mainstream” is not a requirement to be profitable.
Click to expand...

They sell a massive volume of MacOS devices.

www.statista.com

Apple Mac shipments worldwide by quarter 2024| Statista

In the final quarter of 2024, Apple Mac shipments stood at **** million units worldwide, a decrease from the **** million Mac shipments that were recorded in the fourth quarter of the previous year. Apple Mac products Apple first launched the Macintosh, commonly known as Mac, in 1984.
www.statista.com www.statista.com

They’re mainstream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top