Vision Pro Creator Mike Rockwell Has Considered Leaving Apple

[Yourbigpalal83]

But will there be mass adoption? Meta's headsets are considerably cheaper and they don't sell well. Every person I know who has a Vision Pro or Quest says they don't use it much, if at all. I don't think the problem is price. The problem is that 98% of the public isn't interested in this computing form factor and I don't see anything changing that anytime soon.


Meta's sales numbers aren't great. They've sold over 20 million Quests since it first launched years ago. Meanwhile, Apple sells that many iPhones in a month. The estimated number of active daily Quest users is less than 7 million. That's hardly a thriving product. It's a niche at best.

There's a small and very vocal group of VR boosters out there who are convinced that AR/VR is the "next big thing" but so far there's zero indication that is true. Consumers aren't interested in headsets, cheap or expensive, light or heavy, doesn't matter. They don't want to wear them. I don't see anything changing this.

Oh i totally agree. The Tech in the Meta Quest 3 is impressive and i do use it, but in no way shape or form is it my daily driver. Its very much a "Toy" that i use ocasionally to play a game on. The problem is 2 fold. Meta isnt the most trusted company when it comes to user privacy. I deleted my facebook last year, and one of the reasons i diden't delete it sooner was because the headset (and smart glasses which i have 2 pairs of) needed at the time a facebook account to use.

The moment that changed where i could still use the hardware without a facebook account, i deleted it. So Meta has a bad rep when it comes to that, which undoubtly hurts sales to an extent.

2nd reason and this is a major factor...NO KILLER APP. As a gaming system, (which is how i use it) it doesn't have a tripple A must play title like Halo for the Xbox, God of War for the Playstation, or Super Mario for Nintendo. Theres some great games out in VR, but i cant say any one of them are system sellers from a gaming perspective. The closest game that comes to that is Assassians Creed Nexus, which is shockingly good in VR and very fun, but thats by no means a system seller, more of a "Assassins Creeds greatest hits in VR"

Apple would be able to push more units no doubt, due to brand loyality alone. Apple has this thing where tech isn't really official until apple does it, and apple IS doing it but at 3500 dollars a unit, you wont have mass addoption, thus no killer app either. Its a chicken and the egg situation. Your never going to have a VR/AR killer app, without mass adoption and without mass adoption, your not going to have developers developing those killer apps.

THAT SAID...I think in time the tech will become far more affordable and then youll have more mass adoption.

Right now gaming console prices are going up, basic tech like laptops are going up in cost, so niche products like VR are low on that totem poll. The Meta Quest 3 price just went up and that system is a few years old now at this point.

But i do think, once the tech is affordable, it will be revised. The moment you have Iron Man like HUDS in every day display smart glasses, you watch...their will be mass adoption. Problem is, realistically we are a decade out from that being practical and affordable.

but make no mistake, Spacial Computing will be part of our daily lives. Im not saying everyone is going to ditch laptops and just wear VR googgles as replacements. But i do see smart glasses taking off and personal media devices to some level.

 

[Brother Cavil]

Oh i totally agree. The Tech in the Meta Quest 3 is impressive and i do use it, but in no way shape or form is it my daily driver. Its very much a "Toy" that i use ocasionally to play a game on. The problem is 2 fold. Meta isnt the most trusted company when it comes to user privacy. I deleted my facebook last year, and one of the reasons i diden't delete it sooner was because the headset (and smart glasses which i have 2 pairs of) needed at the time a facebook account to use.

The moment that changed where i could still use the hardware without a facebook account, i deleted it. So Meta has a bad rep when it comes to that, which undoubtly hurts sales to an extent.

I don't think this matters to most people. Billions of people around the world use Meta services every day. Most people don't care about privacy. Privacy is not the reason the Quest isn't selling well.

2nd reason and this is a major factor...NO KILLER APP. As a gaming system, (which is how i use it) it doesn't have a tripple A must play title like Halo for the Xbox, God of War for the Playstation, or Super Mario for Nintendo. Theres some great games out in VR, but i cant say any one of them are system sellers from a gaming perspective. The closest game that comes to that is Assassians Creed Nexus, which is shockingly good in VR and very fun, but thats by no means a system seller, more of a "Assassins Creeds greatest hits in VR"

I agree that there's no killer app and I suspect there never will be one. I think VR fans are, frankly, so enamored of the silly/unrealistic VR interfaces they've seen in movies and TV shows for years that they've never stopped to question the FUNCTIONALITY of such UIs. Sure, they look good on the big screen, but would anyone actually want to work in a Minority Report-style user interface? No.

Apple would be able to push more units no doubt, due to brand loyality alone. Apple has this thing where tech isn't really official until apple does it, and apple IS doing it but at 3500 dollars a unit, you wont have mass addoption, thus no killer app either. Its a chicken and the egg situation. Your never going to have a VR/AR killer app, without mass adoption and without mass adoption, your not going to have developers developing those killer apps.

I'm not sure brand loyalty would make much of a difference even if Vision Pro cost half as much as it does today. The reality is, plenty of people, especially Apple fans, have the ability to spend $3500 on Vision Pro but they don't see the value in it. I agree that it's a chicken and egg problem and, frankly, I think Apple blew it at launch by not having a really impressive "killer app" contender to captivate people's attention. Basically they said: wear this heavy headset so that you can look at 2D iPad windows.

THAT SAID...I think in time the tech will become far more affordable and then youll have more mass adoption.

I disagree. Meta has already made the tech more affordable and people don't want it. People don't want to wear a headset. It's really that simple.

Right now gaming console prices are going up, basic tech like laptops are going up in cost, so niche products like VR are low on that totem poll. The Meta Quest 3 price just went up and that system is a few years old now at this point.

But i do think, once the tech is affordable, it will be revised. The moment you have Iron Man like HUDS in every day display smart glasses, you watch...their will be mass adoption. Problem is, realistically we are a decade out from that being practical and affordable.

I'm doubtful about that. I don't think people will want to wear glasses when they don't have to. There aren't many meaningful advantages to wearing glasses versus pulling out one's phone. There's also the issue of the UI. With nothing to touch, are we all going to be walking around waving our arms and talking to ourselves? Seems ridiculous.

I can definitely imagine specific use cases where glasses with a HUD would be a huge advantage, but I don't see such a device taking the place of phones or laptops in everyday use.

but make no mistake, Spacial Computing will be part of our daily lives. Im not saying everyone is going to ditch laptops and just wear VR googgles as replacements. But i do see smart glasses taking off and personal media devices to some level.

I don't see spatial computing taking off beyond the rather obvious niche applications. It will never be a replacement for the laptop/phone because it's simply not an improvement over what we have today.

 

[egdiroh]

In terms of why does this go unused for the ones in wild, the things that keep me from being in mine more are battery life, in-person meetings and having to read off other people's screens. (plus being a prescription glasses wearer so going back and forth is a bit more of a ordeal. The biggest of these is probably battery life.

 

[throAU]

The problem with AVP is that it was supposed to kickstart a new platform with an unaffordable and bulky offering

It has kick started apple AR development.

If you think that means selling millions of units, you are mistaken. Apple never expected to sell many of these, because the manufacturing capacity for the components they get from Sony is limited.

If they dropped the price to $10 and tried to sell more of them at a massive loss they still couldn't scale much because the components do not exist in volume.

As mentioned, it's a tech demonstrator for what is coming. Aimed at developers and bleeding edge endusers.

In its current form, it is not and never will be a mass market product.

That will happen when you get most of the tech in a set of glasses.

 

[throAU]

The Vision Pro can be mass produced. The reason we're not seeing mass production of it is because of lack of demand.

Why would Apple place orders to have more Vision Pros be made than they can sell?

I was referring to not having the technology yet to do this in the form factor required for mass market: i.e., a set of glasses.

 

[throAU]

That's an interesting take.

Kind of like how the iPhone Air could be considered a proof of concept in terms of manufacturing a slimmer profile for the iPhone fold.

A more extreme version of what happened with the original MacBook Air.

the original MacBook Air was crap. It was impressive in terms of form factor, etc. but as a computer, it was crap.

But it paved the way for the later versions in 2010 and later that were actually good.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

It has kick started apple AR development.

If you think that means selling millions of units, you are mistaken. Apple never expected to sell many of these, because the manufacturing capacity for the components they get from Sony is limited.

If they dropped the price to $10 and tried to sell more of them at a massive loss they still couldn't scale much because the components do not exist in volume.

As mentioned, it's a tech demonstrator for what is coming. Aimed at developers and bleeding edge endusers.

In its current form, it is not and never will be a mass market product.

That will happen when you get most of the tech in a set of glasses.

Oh I absolutely agree a platform doesn’t need to have mass market appeal to be successful (although it helps)

My barometer is that there doesn’t seem to be genuine interest from developers aside from mild curiosity

Compare to the kind of explosion in software that the Mac brought or hell - the iPhone was SO good as a platform that developers couldn’t even wait for Apple to officially let them make apps for it, they reverse engineered an SDK and started making apps for it well before iPhoneOS 2.0 and the App Store were announced!

I just don’t see the same kind of “buzz”. Sure it’s might be entirely subjective but it feels like the kind of interactions that are enabled by visionOS do not attract the same kind of creativity the mouse and the multi-point touch screen did back in 1984 and 2007

 

[Unami]

Its not a bad product, just one that was made without considering the rather obvious small market for it.

nah, it's a bad product. It's heavier than competing VR-Glasses (with weight being one of the most important traits of a head-mounted device), FOV is not great, so is battery life, it's really expensive and there is hardly any software for it (which is half of the equation), because Apple didn't incentivize developers enough (and they were not interested by themselves) and did not develop a lot of first party software. Sure, it's a nice tech-demo and proof of concept in parts but it falls apart as a complete, finished product. The Macbook-Air comparison doesn't fit, because while the Macbook was also pretty overpriced and underpowered, it did something new on the hardware front AND had the other half, the software, already taken care of.

 

[throAU]

Oh I absolutely agree a platform doesn’t need to have mass market appeal to be successful (although it helps)

My barometer is that there doesn’t seem to be genuine interest from developers aside from mild curiosity

There are a lot of shortsighted people and the device is expensive.

Apple themselves need a dev platform, may as well release it to the public.

 

[stocklen]

nah, it's a bad product. It's heavier than competing VR-Glasses (with weight being one of the most important traits of a head-mounted device), FOV is not great, so is battery life, it's really expensive and there is hardly any software for it (which is half of the equation), because Apple didn't incentivize developers enough (and they were not interested by themselves) and did not develop a lot of first party software. Sure, it's a nice tech-demo and proof of concept in parts but it falls apart as a complete, finished product. The Macbook-Air comparison doesn't fit, because while the Macbook was also pretty overpriced and underpowered, it did something new on the hardware front AND had the other half, the software, already taken care of.

I think its going to be interesting to see where this one goes.

On the one hand I think its quite possible that the Vision Pro is going to be quietly discontinued and written off as an expensive failure.
On the other, it could ultimately morph into a lower priced pared down iteration.

I suspect that the $3,500 version didnt sell well and will never sell.

The software is a big issue and theres not many apps available for the reasons you've stated.

The trouble for Apple is that when you have the Meta Quest at sub $500 and frankly like it not it does pretty much everything the Vision Pro does to varying degrees of quality and add a ton of games and software to the mix - I dont think that even if Apple made a $1,500 version of it that it would sell well either.

The key is the device's USP and there just isnt one. Most 'honest' reviews ive seen are littered with buyer's remorse and that the headsets are mostly just gathering dust. Not the best thing for a $3,500 device.
As far as I can tell the regular 'serious' users determine to get their value for money mostly seem to use it as an external monitor and yet they all admit that its cumbersome and frankly who wants their monitor strapped to their head?!

I heard that John Ternus wasn't a fan of the VP so under his leadership perhaps its more likely to be quietly discontinued.

 

[maflynn]

The trouble for Apple is that when you have the Meta Quest at sub $500 and frankly like it not it does pretty much everything the Vision Pro does to varying degrees of quality and add a ton of games and software to the mix - I dont think that even if Apple made a $1,500 version of it that it would sell well either.

But are people even buying Meta Quests? I mean in general, it feels like the entire VR market has largely evaporated.

 

[stocklen]

But are people even buying Meta Quests? I mean in general, it feels like the entire VR market has largely evaporated.

I have one and I like it.

Whether its still selling I can only assume so - at the very least in far greater numbers that the Vision Pro.

The VR market needs apps that guarantee return usage and those that are unique to the VR experience. Web browsers etc are not and will ultimately be used on other devices in preference.

Although the Meta Quest has a perfectly serviceable virtual monitor function its still not something I would use given that you are basically sat at a desk probably in front of another monitor away so having something strapped to your head for little gain is always going to get tiresome and slip into non usage.

The big plus for the Meta Quest however is gaming - theres lots. Its too reductive to call the headset a 'gaming machine' but it certainly can be seen as such and its those which keep users coming back.

Sadly for Apple they have nothing like that pull, and with a lack of developers for the VP they are unlikely to ever be able to get that audience.

 

[Brother Cavil]

My barometer is that there doesn’t seem to be genuine interest from developers aside from mild curiosity

Developers aren't interested because no one is buying. It's that simple. There's no interest from consumers, hence no interest from developers. That's why the "Vision Pro is a developer release" cope posts are so laughable. It's not a developer release. It's a flop.

Compare to the kind of explosion in software that the Mac brought or hell - the iPhone was SO good as a platform that developers couldn’t even wait for Apple to officially let them make apps for it, they reverse engineered an SDK and started making apps for it well before iPhoneOS 2.0 and the App Store were announced!

It's a different world today. The iPhone might very well be the last consumer electronics device that truly inspired wonder. Today technology is so baked into our lives that we no longer appreciate it. Those early iPhone developers reverse engineered an SDK and built apps because they were passionate. Today's developers are far more practical.

I just don’t see the same kind of “buzz”. Sure it’s might be entirely subjective but it feels like the kind of interactions that are enabled by visionOS do not attract the same kind of creativity the mouse and the multi-point touch screen did back in 1984 and 2007

I think it's less about attracting the same kind of creativity and more about technology being so ubiquitous today. When I was a kid watching Star Trek, a technology like the universal translator seemed so futuristic, magical. Today all of our cell phones are universal translators and people's attitude is "cool feature". I think we're largely done being amazed and inspired by tech.

 

[throAU]

But are people even buying Meta Quests? I mean in general, it feels like the entire VR market has largely evaporated.

The quest is a “what can we build cheap enough today” device. One that is also highly subsidised with your privacy.

Vision Pro is a “what can we build cheap in the future in a better form factor” device.

One is to buy and use today with the more limited feature set. One is to develop apps that will be possible on a cheaper smaller device later.

 

[omniatlas]

I wasn’t interested in the Apple Vision Pro until X-plane support and CloudXR was announced. Now streaming from PCVR is possible. Valve has also added offical Steam Link Support. I was able to get a second hand AVP at a bargain; this thing rocks and I am selling the Quest 3 and have no intention to get a Valve Frame.

It is very immersive, especially with flight simming - here I am in an Airbus cockpit interface with physical flight deck hardware. Software is KRVR until X-plane releases their native software. Mix reality will also be setup for greater immersion.