But the question is whether Apple can enter those markets.
Its funny because they didn’t intend to make it a device like this (medical etc). They wanted to position it as a lifestyle everyday product because that is Apples main target group. (Outside screen, weird looking eyes, people in the keynote wearing it like a Apple Watch etc.). They are not like MS. MS costumer base is mostly enterprises. Apples costumers are individuals who want premium/luxury devices. And Apple knows this. I knew the moment they announced it its not going to be successful as a lifestyle product. Should have been a Mac accessory from day one.
Me! it’s my favorite thing I got from Apple in a long time
Is that all? I remember seeing so many articles back then that the AVP was definitely a consumer-targeted device. It was going to be supply-constrained, have a waiting list a mile long, and be sold out for eons.
I have to note visionOS’s Share Play and social features like Personas are excellent. I’ve watched movies with others remotely. But of course I get what you mean. It’s a speakers vs headphones like problem of ambient output.
Augmented Reality Glasses or “smart” glasses or HUD glasses or Display glasses are fundamentally each a different product category. Most of these are not spatial computers which is what visionOS and Vision Pro are.
Apple isn't in the business of selling Ferarries. Apple's primary target audience is ordinary consumers like students, creative people, and they sell mass market status symbols/luxury goods. Almost all students use the iPad and pencil to take notes in class or draw as artists, Macs are used for writing essays, coding, or for creative purposes, iPhones are essential tools these days and probably the biggest status symbol Apple sells, watches are marketed to ordinary people as fitness, and health devices, and all of these products have one thing in common. They are affordable for a mass market and positioned as lifestyle products.
VP is not approved as a class 2 or 3 medical device. It’s not being used in ‘medical’ lol
Exactly. It was positioned as the next iPhone/Watch. Look at the keynote, where the woman was constantly wearing it around the house. If it was a medical device for the medical field, it wouldn't have a gimmicky screen with creepy eyes and would be designed more specifically for particular use cases and tailor made for each field. E.g. if surgeons use VR in the future it will definitely not be VP a mass market product.
No and yes. The end game was glasses but Apple wanted to milk this VR headset (yes its VR no matter the bad marketing) until 2028 and then release glasses. Stretching out and drip feeding features for years. But they didn't saw Meta coming and how quickly they caught up. Meta basically solved the glasses problem. Apple either has glasses ready but didn’t want to release it (to milk VP first) or they laid back and pushed development into the future.
I agree in that the marketing for Vision Pro has been a bit wide where as HoloLens 2 was squarely marketed for business and enterprise. I think Apple’s marketing especially initial had to both introduce Vision Pro (a Pro tool), new platform and OS (visionOS which in the future will span Pros and consumers) AND spatial computing as a whole which is still a new paradigm for most people. Apple has done a lot of marketing since release promoting enterprise uses of Vision Pro.