The MacRumors Show: Vision Pro Deep Dive Following Our WWDC Demo

[Jensend]

Can anyone (@Dan Barbera or otherwise) tell me if the dinosaur was pre-rendered or not? I've heard many anecdotes and retellings of the dinosaur, butterfly, etc. demos and no one has indicated if the dinosaur was actually reacting to hands and the user's position and movements. They all say that the butterfly landed on their hand and stayed on it (a few journalists said that it was a little glitchy when they moved their hand) but I haven't heard much about the Dino. I bring this up because the one demo that we know was interacting live with the viewer was glitchy by some accounts and yet the dinosaur was amazing looking by all counts and didn't glitch. Was this because the dinosaur was just so larger than life and amazing looking that no one thought to interact with it? Or was it just a pre-rendered CG element that walked through portal, sniffed near a person and whipped its tail around regardless of what/where the user was doing?

You can't "pre-render" VR content, because the user can freely move their viewpoint*. You can bake in the animation, but many people who experienced the AVP demo have said that the dinosaur reacted to their movements.
A butterfly will be harder to animate well because it is in direct contact with your finger rather than just having to react to your head position.

*If they did find a way to pre-render the dinosaur, that would be even more impressive than rendering it live.

 

[Surf Monkey]

That specifically no. But isolation has nothing to do with it. This is more inline as a successor to laptops not phones.

This won’t replace laptops or phones. You just won’t ever find a majority of people who want to wear a computer on their FACES. That in and of itself will be a deal breaker for most people. Never mind that it distances you outwardly by making you look weird, it isolates you inwardly too since you’re not really interacting directly with the world around you.

Believe it or not, lots of people don’t want to go INSIDE their laptops and iPhones.

 

[Sinocelt]

You’ve failed to rebut anything.

The only thing I "rebutted" is your idea that what you don't like, nobody will.

This has zero chance of becoming ubiquitous like iPhone.

Uh. Who said it would?

And we have no idea yet whether a virtual monitor can actually replace a real one

I said we'd have to wait to know if virtual monitors could replace physical ones. You denied even the possibility.

I get the enthusiasm but some of you are applying far more hopefulness than rationality around it.

Here's what I said: "To this day, no VR headset has been good enough to replace actual monitors, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. (It may have happened already, with the Vision Pro. We'll know better next year.)"

I think my hope is very cautious, and I fail to detect in my words the blind enthusiasm you mentioned.

But essentially if an iPad can’t replace your computer needs then this won’t either. And it’s the wrong way to think of this product. Like iPad it’s a compliment device.

Here's what I said: "Right now, Apple expects most people who buy an iPad Pro to also have a MacBook (or a Mac mini, or a Mac Studio). If, likewise, they expect most people who buy the Vision Pro to also have a MacBook, then the Vision Pro is no longer the potential bargain I was mentioning [...]."

That's it. If the Vision Pro can only be a complementary device, if it cannot replace a Mac, then for most people it'll be too costly to justify the expense -- even in the richest country of all, since 43% of the U.S. population earns less than $25k/year.

For many people, the Vision Pro will be a potential purchase only if it proves to be a better work tool, overall and in most situations, than a laptop.

 

[Jensend]

This won’t replace laptops or phones. You just won’t ever find a majority of people who want to wear a computer on their FACES. That in and of itself will be a deal breaker for most people. Never mind that it distances you outwardly by making you look weird, it isolates you inwardly too since you’re not really interacting directly with the world around you.

Believe it or not, lots of people don’t want to go INSIDE their laptops and iPhones.

I don't think it will fully replace laptops or phones for all people. Laptops, smartphones, tablets, and desktops all exist and have overlapping functionality. Many people can get by with just one of those devices (usually a smartphone). Most people probably have two or three from that list. Some have all four. I don't think the headset will do to any of those categories what the iPhone has done to the iPod. I think it will just become a category among those other four. With the size of the AVP and its cost, it will be in a distant 5th place among those categories, and will take the least amount of people from the smartphone category. Even if it can get to a bulky sunglasses form factor for 1/3 of the price of the AVP, I don't see it replacing smartphones for anyone. That could replace my work desktop PC, though, and even enhance my workflow. A laptop has enough power for what I do, but not enough screen space.

In some ways, it could make me more aware of the world around me. Instead of being stuck at my desk, I could sit on my patio on a nice day. Instead of four monitors all the time, I could adjust the number of screens I need based on the task I am doing. But I'd need a desktop class OS, not a mobile OS.

 

[X38]

[bunch of links to repetitive opinion pieces]

And so forth.

I read a few of the links you posted, but they quickly got tediously repetitive, so I didn’t read all of them.

They all have the same problem though - none of them are actual product reviews. Unless I missed something, none of them were written by anyone who has experienced the product.

All of them were just self-centered opinion spews from people who have a predisposed opposition to any kind of VR product regardless its potential value to anyone else. None of them raised any issue with Vision Pro that is unique to Vision Pro. And none of them expressed any awareness of potential value for use cases beyond what they could envision for themselves. Some of them even tried to draw analogy to the social awkwardness reactions to Google Glass, but that is obviously irrelevant to Vision Pro. The social issue with Google Glass was that it had an implied socially surreptitious use in the sense that its presence was presumably supposed to go unnoticed by people who could be impacted by its use by the wearer. There will be nothing non-obvious about anyone using Vision Pro (or any other non Google Glass device currently existent), so that is just not a factor.

I’ve yet to own a VR product, though I’ve had opportunity to try a few over the years. From my personal experiences, I’ve seen potential for uses that could be quite compelling to me and have long been looking forward to when a VR product that is useful to me would be available. From what has been described, and from what has been reported by people who have actually tried Vision Pro, it looks to me like this may finally be the VR product I have been hoping for. Or maybe not. I won’t know until I get to try it.
I am intrigued. I will try it. Then I’ll know if it’s something for me or not.

As for the socially isolating concern, if it can isolate me from the sort of people who write the sort of uninformed, unimaginative opinion screeds that you linked, I might consider that an added beneficial aspect…

 

[Sinocelt]

Some bad news from Brian Tong:

• The battery isn't hot-swappable.
• The Vision Pro gets uncomfortable, despite its (seldom shown) overhead strap, because it's so front heavy.
  

 

[X38]

I’ve been intrigued by the VR concept since I first heard of it long ago, have been interested by VR products I have seen, and have been avidly following the rumors of Apple’s VR developments for years. So far, I get the impression Vision Pro does a reasonably decent job of living up to expectations.
With the exception of cost. I do have to say the cost is substantially more than I was hoping for and is definitely enough to give me great pause and hesitancy about buying it.
I suspect for most people (myself included), it is not truly unaffordable in the sense of being a literally impossible purchase though. Clearly many typical Apple customers can and do spend such sums of money on many things in life - for instance, $3500 would be considered a fantastical bargain for things such as housing, transportation, education, health care coverage, etc. by most of us. But it is definitely a very daunting amount for a discretionary expense. If I bought one, and found I didn’t really use it or like it, that $3500 would be a very painful mistake and would probably mean regrettable sacrifices elsewhere for most people. However, if it ended up being even a fraction as beneficial to my life as say, my vehicle (which costs far more to purchase and operate), I’d be thrilled with the price.

So to ground my perception a bit, I’ve gone back and considered the introductory (base models only) prices of some of the significantly innovative Apple (and non-Apple) products over the years. I used this web site to adjust for inflation and normalize everything to 2024 dollars for comparison:

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value From 1913-2025

Easily calculate how the buying power of the U.S. dollar has changed from 1913 to 2025. Get inflation rates and U.S. inflation news.

www.usinflationcalculator.com

Apple 1 (one of the first consumer market home computers, and obviously the start of Apple): $666.66 in 1976 = $3,563.26 in 2024.

Apple II (one of the first generation mass consumer market computers and Apple’s first major product): $1298 in 1977 = $6,514.14 in 2024.

Apple /// (Apple‘s first ’business’ class product): $4340 in 1980 = $16,018.34 in 2024.

Apple Profile (Apple’s first hard drive, with 5 MB of storage): $3499 in 1981 = $11,706.71 in 2024.

Apple Lisa (first commercially available GUI computer): $9995 in 1983 = $30,519.57 in 2024.

Macintosh (the computer for the rest of us…): $2495 in 1984 = $7,303.15 in 2024.

Mac II (first ’business’ class Mac): $5498 in 1987 = $14,719.10 in 2024.

Macintosh Portable (first Mac laptop): $7300 in 1989 = $17,904.25 in 2024.

Mac IIFX (first real graphics power house Mac): $8969 in 1990 = $20,870.05 in 2024.

Power Mac 6100/60 (first RISC based Mac, cheapest version): $1820 in 1994 = $3,734.89 in 2024.

iMac (Apple’s return to ‘consumer’ priced products when Jobs came back): $1299 in 1998 = $2,423.69 in 2024.

Newton Message Pad 100 (first PDA): $900 in 1993 = $1,894.22 in 2024.

iPod (Apple’s first music player, held 1000 songs, put Apple in the mainstream): $399 in 2001 = $685.57 in 2024.

iPhone (put the internet everywhere, put Apple on top, defined smartphones): $499 in 2007 = $731.93 in 2024.


and some key non Apple products:

Other first generation hobbyist, home, and business personal computers:
Altair 8800: $621 in 1975 = $3,510.46 in 2024.
Radio Shack TRS-80: $599.95 in 1977 = $3,010.91 in 2024.
Commodore PET: $795 in 1977 = $3,989.78 in 2024.
Atari 400: $550 in 1979 = $2,303.99 in 2024.
Texas Instruments 99/4: $1150 in 1979 = $4,817.44 in 2024.
IBM PC: $1565 in 1981 = $5,236.07 in 2024.

Other early generation ‘personal’ digital electronics:
HP 9100A (desktop programmable calculator - first ‘personal computer’): $5000 in 1968 = $43,696.41 in 2024.
HP 35 (first pocket scientific calculator): $395 in 1972 = $2,873.93 in 2024.
Texas Instruments 59 (programmable pocket calculator): $300 in 1977 = $2,873.93 in 2024.
Hamilton Pulsar P1 (first electronic digital watch): $2100 in 1972 = $15,279.11 in 2024

and finally, some other premium VR products:
Microsoft HoloLens: $3000 in 2016 = $3,801.48 in 2024.
Microsoft HoloLens 2 (probably best regarded prior to Vision Pro): $3500 in 2019 = $4,163.56 in 2024.
VPL Research (the company that coined the term ‘virtual reality’): $250,000 in 1989 = $613,159.27 in 2024. - I was fortunate enough to get to try a demo of one of these as a student in 1992. It took two Silicon Graphics workstations to render then images and a top of the line Mac to run the virtual environment. It was absolutely amazing in its day and I was convinced would be the future for graphics oriented computer work someday, but the price was obviously beyond comprehension. Been waiting for this day ever since - $3500 is a whole different discussion than $600k…

So, what does all that mean for the price of Vision Pro? Obviously, it’s still very expensive as a personal electronics item. Affordable I suppose depends on relative to what.
But considering that it can do absolutely everything that all of the above listed items could do (with the exception of fitting in your pocket or on your wrist), can do it much better in most cases, and can do things far beyond what any of those other items can do, yet at a normalized price that is far less in most cases, it seems likely that it is priced to sell at least as well as almost all of the above.

So, given the ground breaking nature of the above listed products and the ground breaking nature of Vision Pro, I have to admit $3500 is probably a price point at which it can be quite successful.

Still wish it was cheaper… :-(

 

[Surf Monkey]

I read a few of the links you posted, but they quickly got tediously repetitive, so I didn’t read all of them.

They all have the same problem though - none of them are actual product reviews. Unless I missed something, none of them were written by anyone who has experienced the product.

All of them were just self-centered opinion spews from people who have a predisposed opposition to any kind of VR product regardless its potential value to anyone else. None of them raised any issue with Vision Pro that is unique to Vision Pro. And none of them expressed any awareness of potential value for use cases beyond what they could envision for themselves. Some of them even tried to draw analogy to the social awkwardness reactions to Google Glass, but that is obviously irrelevant to Vision Pro. The social issue with Google Glass was that it had an implied socially surreptitious use in the sense that its presence was presumably supposed to go unnoticed by people who could be impacted by its use by the wearer. There will be nothing non-obvious about anyone using Vision Pro (or any other non Google Glass device currently existent), so that is just not a factor.

I’ve yet to own a VR product, though I’ve had opportunity to try a few over the years. From my personal experiences, I’ve seen potential for uses that could be quite compelling to me and have long been looking forward to when a VR product that is useful to me would be available. From what has been described, and from what has been reported by people who have actually tried Vision Pro, it looks to me like this may finally be the VR product I have been hoping for. Or maybe not. I won’t know until I get to try it.
I am intrigued. I will try it. Then I’ll know if it’s something for me or not.

As for the socially isolating concern, if it can isolate me from the sort of people who write the sort of uninformed, unimaginative opinion screeds that you linked, I might consider that an added beneficial aspect…

Like I said. There’s a pretty clear consensus around it. You can rationalize it alway if you want but my point stands and I’ve documented it.

 

[X38]

Like I said. There’s a pretty clear consensus around it. You can rationalize it alway if you want but my point stands and I’ve documented it.

All that you managed to document is that there are some people who agree with you (though none of them provide evidence of being well informed on the subject at hand). There are also plenty of people with opposing views.

Remember, lots of smart people thought nobody would ever need a computer in their home, nobody would ever watch television, nobody would ever pay to fly in airplanes, there was no reason to sail west to get to the east, etc., etc.

 

[Surf Monkey]

The only thing I "rebutted" is your idea that what you don't like, nobody will.

Nope. Not my position.

Uh. Who said it would?

Tim Cook.

I said we'd have to wait to know if virtual monitors could replace physical ones. You denied even the possibility.

No, what I said was that no matter how good the screens, looking at a virtual monitor on one will never be the same thing as looking at an actual monitor with your eyes in the real world. What I question is the viability of virtual screens for things like content creation and editing. I used the example of prepress. Just one of many professional endeavors that is highly unlikely to be viable inside a virtual space.

 

[Surf Monkey]

All that you managed to document is that there are some people who agree with you (though none of them provide evidence of being well informed on the subject at hand). There are also plenty of people with opposing views.

Remember, lots of smart people thought nobody would ever need a computer in their home, nobody would ever watch television, nobody would ever pay to fly in airplanes, there was no reason to sail west to get to the east, etc., etc.

Again, I documented my comments with credible, reliable and respected sources. You’ve done no such thing.

 

[SexExpert]

I’ve been an independent contract graphic designer for a couple decades. Remote work is nothing new to me. My comments stand. The issue here is whether AVP can replace iPhone as Apple’s primary business. Whether or not YOU happen to live an isolated life and don’t mind the idea of living behind a screen instead of in the real world is a completely irrelevant anecdote.

The fact you keep trying to paint people who are pro-Apple Vision as people who 'live an isolated life' is cute, but it's not distracting anyone from how weak your arguments are.

 

[SexExpert]

No, what I said was that no matter how good the screens, looking at a virtual monitor on one will never be the same thing as looking at an actual monitor with your eyes in the real world.

No, it won't be the same, it will be better. Firstly, a virtual screen has logically higher resolution - if I lean into my monitor, i just see bigger pixels. If I lean into a virtual monitor, I see more detail (at least where it exists) and can move in closer without worrying about being able to focus on something so close to my eyes. Virtual screens also have more control over the environment around them, so they can offer more consistent/better colour reproduction and contrast.

Matching the dynamic range of light in real life is a ways off, but in terms of resolution, the moment your eyes can't resolve the individual pixels on the AR display (which is already possible) there will be no advantage in looking at a real screen over a virtual one, other than not having to wear a headset.

What I question is the viability of virtual screens for things like content creation and editing. I used the example of prepress. Just one of many professional endeavors that is highly unlikely to be viable inside a virtual space.

Prepress is a fairly niche industry that is getting more and more niche every day. The vision pro is 'good enough' for the vast, vast majority of people who use computers to do their work, even for digital content creation.

 

[Sinocelt]

the moment your eyes can't resolve the individual pixels on the AR display (which is already possible) there will be no advantage in looking at a real screen over a virtual one, other than not having to wear a headset.

A tester said that you can see the individual pixels on (in?) the Vision Pro if you look for them, but that you don't otherwise notice them.

No, it won't be the same, it will be better.

Yup. It's an extreme case, of course, but imagine going from this:

To this:

 

[Surf Monkey]

No, it won't be the same, it will be better. Firstly, a virtual screen has logically higher resolution - if I lean into my monitor, i just see bigger pixels. If I lean into a virtual monitor, I see more detail (at least where it exists) and can move in closer without worrying about being able to focus on something so close to my eyes. Virtual screens also have more control over the environment around them, so they can offer more consistent/better colour reproduction and contrast.

Matching the dynamic range of light in real life is a ways off, but in terms of resolution, the moment your eyes can't resolve the individual pixels on the AR display (which is already possible) there will be no advantage in looking at a real screen over a virtual one, other than not having to wear a headset.

Prepress is a fairly niche industry that is getting more and more niche every day. The vision pro is 'good enough' for the vast, vast majority of people who use computers to do their work, even for digital content creation.

You don’t know any of that to be true.

 

[Surf Monkey]

The fact you keep trying to paint people who are pro-Apple Vision as people who 'live an isolated life' is cute, but it's not distracting anyone from how weak your arguments are.

False. They described their own lives that way. And sorry, but my argument is not weak. A fact clearly demonstrated by your inappropriately hostile reaction to it.

 

[bobob]

I’ve read pretty much everything that’s been written about it and the overall consensus is that the product is isolating and extremely unlikely to ever be universally popular.

Everyone sees what they want to see.

I documented my commentary. It isn’t a matter of seeing what I want to see.

Why do you assume I was talking about you?

I was actually referring to the many optimistic reviewers who expect the Vision Pro's popularity to quickly grow as the platform evolves in the latter half of the 2020's.

 

[SexExpert]

You don’t know any of that to be true.

It's basic physics/optics, and some of those points are specifically spoken about in Apple's own WWDC developer videos. But feel free to point out anything I've said that's demonstrably false.

False. They described their own lives that way.

You're deliberately misrepresenting 'when I work alone then I'm isolated with or without a headset' with 'living an isolated life' (your words, btw). It's pathetic, and no-one is falling for it.

A fact clearly demonstrated by your inappropriately hostile reaction to it.

I'm sorry if me disagreeing with you hurt your feelings, but I wasn't hostile. This argument also doesn't make any sense.

 

[sjsharksfan12]

Some bad news from Brian Tong:

• The battery isn't hot-swappable.
• The Vision Pro gets uncomfortable, despite its (seldom shown) overhead strap, because it's so front heavy.

One of the things the show was talking about was the headstrap doesn't come with the actual set and you need to buy it separately? How can you wear the headset without the strap? How does it stay on? You pay 3500 for the set itself and the strap is extra? You might end up paying 5000 for this whole thing when all is said and done.

 

[canhaz]

I think there’s a lot of confusion there. I see it as an iPad on your face. VisionOS can run iPad apps (and probably only if devs allow it). It cannot run macOS.

It can put up screens for which your existing Macs can basically airplay to like atv. I don’t do that much and don’t know how great that may be lag wise.

But essentially if an iPad can’t replace your computer needs then this won’t either. And it’s the wrong way to think of this product. Like iPad it’s a compliment device.

For me the question is can it be the ultimate iPad that i actually use and doesn’t collect dust. Can it actually be the best at certain things as the iPad claims to be (but never really was).

I don’t mind the premium over an iPad Pro to purchase it. But it would have to replace what I use to read books, docs, PDFs, comics, etc. It would have to be able to be used with Macs seamlessly. And then there’s the comfort factor.

But I’ll have to buy and use it and come to that conclusion on my own.

Interesting and balanced take. Indeed iPad OS is pretty limiting compared to macOS

 

[canhaz]

Nope. Not my position.



Tim Cook.



No, what I said was that no matter how good the screens, looking at a virtual monitor on one will never be the same thing as looking at an actual monitor with your eyes in the real world. What I question is the viability of virtual screens for things like content creation and editing. I used the example of prepress. Just one of many professional endeavors that is highly unlikely to be viable inside a virtual space.

Hmm surf monkey you may have a point. But your use of the word "never" is kinda unjustified and comes across as dogmatic. And honestly there's a decent chance that view will to be proven wrong in time. Maybe not with v1 of AVP but with future iterations.

Honestly it's like saying "ok sure, but AI will *never* do x" And then in a year or two it, guess what? it does x. And then the same people just keep quiet or shift the goal posts.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Hmm surf monkey you may have a point. But your use of the word "never" is kinda unjustified and comes across as dogmatic. And honestly there's a decent chance that view will to be proven wrong in time. Maybe not with v1 of AVP but with future iterations.

Honestly it's like saying "ok sure, but AI will *never* do x" And then in a year or two it, guess what? it does x. And then the same people just keep quiet or shift the goal posts.

A screen can’t replicate reality 100%. Sorry. Dream all you like, but it can’t.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Why do you assume I was talking about you?

I was actually referring to the many optimistic reviewers who expect the Vision Pro's popularity to quickly grow as the platform evolves in the latter half of the 2020's.

Sorry if I crossed you up with someone else.

 

[Surf Monkey]

It's basic physics/optics, and some of those points are specifically spoken about in Apple's own WWDC developer videos. But feel free to point out anything I've said that's demonstrably false.

No need. It’s clearly and obviously rank speculation on your part.

You're deliberately misrepresenting 'when I work alone then I'm isolated with or without a headset' with 'living an isolated life' (your words, btw). It's pathetic, and no-one is falling for it.

I'm sorry if me disagreeing with you hurt your feelings, but I wasn't hostile. This argument also doesn't make any sense.

My feelings aren’t hurt and I continue to stand by my comments. If you feel comfortable living an isolated life, good for you. But the vast majority of human beings, as social animals, actually shun isolation and seek out direct interaction with others.

 

[subjonas]

Depends on “factors”?

Vague.

Your eyes did not evolve to focus on a screen that’s millimeters in front of them. No matter how good the screen, that’s still not the same as looking at the real world.

I didn’t list the factors because I didn’t want to be redundant, because I had already just listed them in the immediately prior post (#30). It was a reply to you as well, but not sure if you saw it.
But at the risk of being a little redundant, I’ll say that having a screen millimeters in front of your eyes isn’t inherently bad, it depends on aforementioned factors. But you‘re right in that focusing on a screen mm in front of your eyes is not good (and I think impossible). But that’s not what’s going on with these headsets—with these you’re focusing past the screens.
Whether light has to travel 10 million miles or 10 feet or 10 nm to reach your eyes doesn’t ultimately matter—the functional difference comes from the intensity of the light when it reaches your eyes (namely the amount of photons and their electromagnetic frequency), so if the headset mimmicks exactly what you would see in the real world, there is no functional difference (assuming the other factors I mentioned are also accounted for).

And I’d add, very few have mentioned it but we all know the ultimate end game of every tech like this: advertising. So not only will you be using an isolating mechanism that’s socially distancing due to the supremely uncool look of the device to view a screen mitigated version of reality, it’s also likely to be saturated with ads. Not to mention various subscriptions and the entry cost of the hardware.

The mountain this product has to climb is arguably higher and less scalable than what the Macintosh faced. Seeing a path to ubiquity for it is virtually impossible. I stand by my assessment. It’s likely to end up as Tim Cook’s Newton. I doubt Steve Jobs would have touched this thing.

Apple does some advertising, but that hasn’t historically been their main business model. And I don’t think they want the VP to be an advertising tool, because they made eye-tracking impossible for apps, which would have been a huge money-maker.
Apple does do services, so I’m sure they will offer some subscription services. So far I don’t think Apple has made any service mandatory in order to use hardware, so I don’t expect the VP to be different.
Yes, the VP could “isolate” someone simply because it looks odd/different, but so could a weird looking hat—that’s a different kind of isolation than sensory isolation. But also fortunately I don’t believe it’s meant to be worn around outside.

As for the future success of the Vision line, I’d definitely say it’s a big question mark, but I reserve judgement for now. The VP as it is has value for certain applications, but won’t be ubiquitous for obvious reasons.