LOL.
I do a LOT of cooking. And I use timers (often multiple timers). Yet somehow I manage to do this without an expensive and heavy headset strapped to my face.
Must be magic!
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.
The reviews are here!
- Thread starter tomtad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I do a LOT of cooking. And I use timers (often multiple timers). Yet somehow I manage to do this without an expensive and heavy headset strapped to my face.
Must be magic!
You're 100% correct.
But that's the nub of this dilemma isn't it?
Why wear an AVP when doing something like a Facetime call…
Do I want my family/friends to see my real self, as I am in that moment, or some ghostly spectral week or month old version of me that might as well be an AI avatar.
Beyond a certain oh, that's cool/funny/weird/interesting at first, what does it bring to the conversation?
We humans (and even animals) have evolved to be heavily reliant on those micro gestures our faces make.
I mean that's why we all make fun of Meta Zuckerberg and his robotic expressionless face.
These personas smooth away all of those tiny things.
Watching the reviews the personas' eyes seem to wobble and jump about… just enough for the viewer to register it as wrong.
And as any competent artist will tell you if you get the eyes wrong there is no way of getting a decent likeness.
Do you want to be represented like that?
I don't.
Absolutely this! Everything about the AVP is insanely pointless.
Maybe MAYBE if everything in the AVP can be turned into basically regular glasses (complete with regular/prescription lenses and a way of integrating/projecting all of the AVP stuff into/onto/through them), then sure. But that's got to be 10 years away at least. But all kinds of smart glasses have come and gone because they're terrible (at the moment... maybe AVP is the first step towards a proper implementation?).
I don’t think the intention is for it to completely replace using FaceTime with your phone/iPad/Mac.
However, I think it’s more out of convenience in the case where you’re doing work inside the Vision Pro and want to keep that context while you take the call.
I don’t see many people, if at all, putting on their Vision Pro specifically to make a FaceTime call, outside of the initial honeymoon period or for fun.
Of course it’s pointless right now. There’s a reason why the thing is packed with sensors and priced so high and has Pro in the name. It’s not geared towards the everyday person, even though the marketing materials try to show everyday people using it. I don’t think Apple is expecting everyone to run out and buy one - just look at their production estimates.
I can use the timers on my iphone or aw. I dont need separate timers. Im also not shading those who use their headset for this purpose.
If youve got it, rely on it. 🤷🏾♂️
That's what makes it a compromise. Since you cant capture an actual feed of yourself, it makes up the "persona" as a compromise. My point was, wouldn't you rather see the actual person you are talking to? If I didn't want to see the person, I can make a regular old fashioned phone call. Maybe one day it will make sense down the road, but right now it doesn't.
To me, it’s a compromise if it’s actually possible but they settled on Personas for some other technical or cost-saving reason. In this case, I think they did all they could to make up for it.
The whole AR/VR Business seems to be a compromise.
Lets take a look at the Apple Vision Pro Features:
Work: i bet you are more productive on a Mac using a real keyboard, using a mouse and multiple displays (which wont work on Applie Vision Pro)
Gaming: Not even a UseCase apple has shown once
Communicating: Facetime is a compromise, using creepy looking personas
Theatre/TV: Yes, good if you want to watch something solo. But having some friends over? Familiy? Not usable.
Replacing a Mac: No, not with only one screen, worse input types and not a standalone function for reals Mac Apps.
So vor what is it actually good and better then prior solutions?
On the other hand you have negative stuff adding up:
Only alone usable
Isolation
Ineffcient
And these are not typical to the Vision pro, these are basic problems of AR/VR, that even Apple can not fix.
Lets take a look at the Apple Vision Pro Features:
Work: i bet you are more productive on a Mac using a real keyboard, using a mouse and multiple displays (which wont work on Applie Vision Pro)
Gaming: Not even a UseCase apple has shown once
Communicating: Facetime is a compromise, using creepy looking personas
Theatre/TV: Yes, good if you want to watch something solo. But having some friends over? Familiy? Not usable.
Replacing a Mac: No, not with only one screen, worse input types and not a standalone function for reals Mac Apps.
So vor what is it actually good and better then prior solutions?
On the other hand you have negative stuff adding up:
Only alone usable
Isolation
Ineffcient
And these are not typical to the Vision pro, these are basic problems of AR/VR, that even Apple can not fix.
This review by NBC I think is one of the best reviews. It restored my faith in AVP.
For me, I love the personas - it does a better job hiding my facial imperfections!
I'd rather have a digital impersonation of my face when I use FaceTime.
Just look at how these 3 YT influencers look on Personas.
Clearly a lot of Joanna Stern's review was tongue-in-cheek and it was a unique way to do it in amongst what we'll see from others.
I thought the cooking timers from that app was a neat idea - but no way I'd use it just now! If you're looking way into the future of the product, where we're effectively wearing a set of normal sized glasses, that would absolutely be something I could see myself using.
I thought the cooking timers from that app was a neat idea - but no way I'd use it just now! If you're looking way into the future of the product, where we're effectively wearing a set of normal sized glasses, that would absolutely be something I could see myself using.
The Marques review feels right in line with how I see the Vision Pro (though I haven't even used it yet). He seems genuinely excited by the tech, while recognizing some of the imperfect aspects of it. But he doesn't list any of the not-there-yet things as doom and gloom. I find this a more realistic view than trying to say "because Personas aren't perfect the AVP is going to FAIL!"
Marques is still doing one more even longer in-depth review to come.
Marques is still doing one more even longer in-depth review to come.
I hate videocalling. I’m all for this. Don’t have to worry at all how ya look in any given moment. It’s usually work calling anyways
Cooking was actually a major use case for me. I currently use my iPad for recipes but it’s not ideal cus i have to keep touching it with food covered or wet hands. Having a large floating screen i can move around would be ideal
A friend of mine and I have been going back and forth about this for a few days. He's very enthusiastic about it and wants to be one of the first adopters of the technology. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that, watching the Verge's review turned me off even more about VisionPro.
I get what Apple is trying to do. This is the start of something truly monumental in terms of how we interact with computers and how we use them in our everyday lives. What they've done is plant the seeds of what AR/VR/MR can be instead of just adding onto what it is today. It's far from perfect as this is essentially a v1 release so there are bound to be many, many, MANY, issues that various people will have with it. Just like the original iPod, iPhone, Mac, iPad etc...
My problem with this is the price tag. This feels like a fancy toy for the rich. At $3500 a pop, your everyday person (in theory) can't afford that when rent and food prices go through the roof so this is a very niche product right now. I have no doubt that as they continue to refine and streamline newer versions, that price tag will hopefully drop.
The other problem I see with VisionPro is the fact that it's creating a solution to a problem that didn't really exist. Is there a loud and large percentage of the populace screaming for a computer stuck to their face? Not really because they already have their phones for that. Is there a large segment of people screaming for a TV with a 2 hour battery life? No because 4K TV's are dirt cheap and dont require batteries. Is there an industry clamoring for the ability to collaborate in real time with creepy avatars instead of ACTUAL people? I dont think so.
Like I've said before, this is a very niche product. It's audience, for right now, is going to be a select group of people who are fine with having a computer on their face that tries to overlay digital elements onto the real world at the expense of a stiff neck, horrible battery life and a marketplace that so far, hasn't gained the attention of the big players (except for D+ and the NBA). I can't picture myself ever throwing down the kind of cash that Apple wants for this experience. If they refine it and make it cheaper and they can expand the app marketplace for it...maybe but again, I will need A LOT of convincing.
I get what Apple is trying to do. This is the start of something truly monumental in terms of how we interact with computers and how we use them in our everyday lives. What they've done is plant the seeds of what AR/VR/MR can be instead of just adding onto what it is today. It's far from perfect as this is essentially a v1 release so there are bound to be many, many, MANY, issues that various people will have with it. Just like the original iPod, iPhone, Mac, iPad etc...
My problem with this is the price tag. This feels like a fancy toy for the rich. At $3500 a pop, your everyday person (in theory) can't afford that when rent and food prices go through the roof so this is a very niche product right now. I have no doubt that as they continue to refine and streamline newer versions, that price tag will hopefully drop.
The other problem I see with VisionPro is the fact that it's creating a solution to a problem that didn't really exist. Is there a loud and large percentage of the populace screaming for a computer stuck to their face? Not really because they already have their phones for that. Is there a large segment of people screaming for a TV with a 2 hour battery life? No because 4K TV's are dirt cheap and dont require batteries. Is there an industry clamoring for the ability to collaborate in real time with creepy avatars instead of ACTUAL people? I dont think so.
Like I've said before, this is a very niche product. It's audience, for right now, is going to be a select group of people who are fine with having a computer on their face that tries to overlay digital elements onto the real world at the expense of a stiff neck, horrible battery life and a marketplace that so far, hasn't gained the attention of the big players (except for D+ and the NBA). I can't picture myself ever throwing down the kind of cash that Apple wants for this experience. If they refine it and make it cheaper and they can expand the app marketplace for it...maybe but again, I will need A LOT of convincing.
Woah woah woah, slow down there there sailor, buy me a drink first.
I think almost everything in life is one compromise or another (except for my wife. Hi, babe ❤️). People like to use cars as an analogy. Some of my friends say that their 4x4 truck can go out four-wheeling and do a lot of the same things we can do in a Jeep, but doing it in a Jeep is just way more fun! If you're not a Jeep person, I won't try to explain it here. Same goes for a someone driving a BMW or a Honda Civic. Those are two vehicles that both do the same thing; get you from one place to another, and both comprising something the other might have, such as gas milage or lower price of ownership. But there's the experience of HOW you're doing it. That's always been something that Apple seems to "get" more than any other tech company overall. And, as much as all of these forum discussions are enjoyable to read, I am taking the VP for a test drive to see for myself. I'm more concerned with how tech like this will affect society in the future. But that's likely because I'm 60 years old now. We tend to worry about the next generation, but they seem to always figure it out
.
Last edited:
You can have a dozen displays but just one that's from another Mac. How do people feel that is such a constraint? Who is complaining that they can stream zero screens from other Macs on their M2 Macbook? Use that one connected screen for your MacOS workflow and arrange normal other AVP screens around it. Besides, even if that's not enough for you, there's already an app that lifts that 1 mirrored screen limit.
I feel like that didn't add anything that I did not already know. I really feel like it is something you have to experience for yourself and no review is going to really be able to pin point or show you the experience of wearing the headset.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Now apply the same to "the precious" iPhone at launch...
Lets take a look at the Apple Vision Pro iPhone Features:
- Work: i bet you are more productive on a Mac using a real keyboard, using a mouse and multiple displays (which wont work on iPhone)
- Gaming: Not even a UseCase apple has shown once. Web apps only. Not even Flash games like FarmVille.
- Communicating: Facetime is great but limited only to other Apple people. And some use stupid-looking Memoji. Many won't show themselves at all, so it's audio only. Besides, in general FaceTime works better on a Mac.
- Theatre/TV: No this would be terrible. Screen is way too small. You pretty much have to watch something solo because no one is going to gather around a micro-screen with you. Having some friends over? Familiy? Not usable.
- Replacing a Mac: No, not with only one screen, worse input types and not a standalone function for real Mac Apps. It barely multitasks.
By selectively isolating a list of points and then undermining each in favor of some other piece of tech, I just ridiculed "the precious" owned and adored by hundreds of millions of people. This same trick could be done for everything if we wanted to take a stance against it. Put a VOIP app on a Mac and it can even be a phone. Real cameras take better pictures. Real credit cards work in more places. Texting is easier on a Mac using a real keyboard. Etc.
I get how much fun(?) it is to come out against a brand new product BEFORE any of us own one and any of us have actually even tried it with our own eyes. I've seen the same with EVERY other product that Apple sells: desktop, laptop, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Watch. But the lesson to be learned from history is that this same wave of pessimism is in play for all technological changes: "if God wanted man to fly..."
It's no different this time.
Maybe there's nothing here for everyone? Maybe there's something here for some? Until FEB 2 when real demos can be had, convicting the plaintiff without even giving it a trial is judging a case on speculation alone. If someone is pessimistic, they highlight anything & everything they can imagine that is WRONG with it. If someone is optimistic, they do the opposite. Vpro will fall somewhere between the extremes. Where? TBD after people can try it out with their own eyes and pass an objective judgement on the actual product instead of vapor.
Apple fans ridiculed iPod even on launch day after the Lord Jobs himself demoed it for the world. Many of the gripes are generally the SAME as the gripes against Vpro. That turned out a bit differently than the pessimists forecast. Glad Apple didn't quit on iPod at launch because fans called it "iPoop", "an expensive toy", "another MP3 player", etc. and worse (see that thread).
Last edited: