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.
TestFlight Now Supports visionOS Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Define "succeed". Revenue is 10x more than when Jobs was alive. Demand for products with more ports and complexity are much greater than the ones Ive ever offered.
And if you just define "succeed" as the ability to wow audiences, it was a different world back then. Apple has created their own news release cycle every WWDC, September and November so audiences have become conditioned to accept regular progress. Rumor sites like this one were few. Now an entire industry exists just to look behind the curtain of technology and Apple has fed into it by relying heavily on so many international manufacturing partners that leak news all the time.
It appears to me that their success with this kind of approach has become increasingly less effective.
People don’t like to wear goggles. You don’t have to believe it but it’s true.
And people wear glasses because they have a disability. They’re a necessity. Totally different context.
No one likes to wear a watch either. Many people do because they believe the utility outweighs the discomfort or inconvenience. A headset is just another set of tradeoffs but offers much more utility. The size of the headset will inversely shrink proportionately to the number of users that adopt it over the years. The price and discomfort will keep 99% of users away for the first few years. I don't think anyone thinks otherwise, including Apple.
False. Watches are jewelry. Not only do people like to wear them, the often have collections of them. They’re viewed as a status symbol.
Goggles? No.
Maybe when it comes to AppleWatch, but I was talking about watches generally.
What utility? I haven’t seen anything this can do that other hardware can’t.
Maybe. But let’s not fool ourselves. The hardware for this system is always going to be large. It won’t ever be eye glasses. It’ll always be goggles.
I mean, if it doesn’t completely flop, which is a distinct possibility.
The price is the LAST issue with the product. If it made sense and showed some sign of mass appeal the price would be a non-factor. Everyone would want the “next computing paradigm shift.” But as much as Tim Cook begs us to look at the Vision Pro like that, the marketing hype just doesn’t live up to the reality.
It's not a desktop computer, it lets you remote view into a desktop computer ( and run iOS apps)zero proof it runs mac OS apps.
Yeah, it absolutely does not run MacOS or MacOS apps. It acts as a second screen for a Mac. The device itself is on an iOS foundation. It’s a closed system like iPhone and iPad. Apple won’t ever put MacOS on this device.
I've always though AR would be great for navigation/directions where it could highlight the path you're supposed to take. (excuse the bad photoshop)
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
Except it’s highly unlikely that this will ever be approved for use while driving.
Does it matter? What's the difference between remote control of a PC in the cloud and one on your desktop? With the exception of hardcore gamers, no one would know the difference if you didn't tell them. The lines between desktop and mobile continue to blur where Apple is concerned. Hardcore users will insist on desktop hardware and interface until the next paradigm which will be more powerful and intuitive than desktop. There's no reason to believe that Apple Vision or some variant won't be that next paradigm.
You could just as easily be looking through a windshield in your image so I fail to see the need for wearing anything when you can produce the same results in a windshield or monitor HUD.
But say I was using directions to get home, and when I get home I want to put a holographic pool table in my living room to play a game of pool, the ar goggles/glasses would allow me to accomplish both tasks rather than needing a windshield/monitor hud and a seperate device for a pool table.
Quite a lot, actually. As it stands VP runs Mac apps in a window. It’s basically a second monitor, not a Mac. So you can’t really take advantage of VP’s supposed advantages as a “new computing paradigm” with them. You have to interact with them just like you would on a Mac.
They would because Mac apps wouldn’t be running on the VP. They’d be running in a window as a virtual monitor.
Yes and no. Many of the similarities between iOS and MacOS are cosmetic.
There’s a great deal of reasons why the VP won’t be the next paradigm, but those who imagine it will be are welcome to hope.
Of course but isn't it most likely that all modern cars will eventually support some kind of AR projection upgrade to windshield or dashboard so you wouldn't need to wear anything while driving. Of course, by the time any of this becomes common, self driving vehicles will probably be standard as well so it's all moot.
There’s no way these are ever approved for wear while driving. There are dozens of reasons why. Regulators won’t go for it since you’re not looking at the road. You’re looking at a video feed of the road in front of you. Furthermore, auto makers are already trying to distance themselves from CarPlay because they want their own interface in their cars, not Apple’s.
Those are just two of the major reasons an AVP type product will never be legal to use behind the wheel. As you correctly point out, this type of use case calls for a heads up display on the windshield, not a helmet.
Your other prediction though is probably never going to happen either. Self driving car systems have shown themselves to be unsuited to interpreting the absolute mountain of data required to reliably and safely pilot a motor vehicle. There are simply too many variables for such a system to keep up. Notice how Apple and others have backed almost completely away from self driving systems.
Are you replying to the wrong post? Where did I say that any kind of headset would ever be approved or used by drivers in cars?
I was agreeing with you in the first part. Backing up your point. Disagreeing in the second only in regard to self driving cars. I see where my wording was wrong. Sorry that wasn’t clear.