I think we should not confuse a prediction about where perhaps technology will go with a value judgment that I have not made. Moreover, even the latter is greatly influenced by our habits and experiences. Isn't a family at the dinner table in which all members look at a smartphone/iPad already "dystopian"? Just imagine what our grandparents would have thought about our behaviors that are perfectly normal for our children or grandchildren instead.
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.
Vision Pro is the definition of function over form
- Thread starter CrysisDeu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The two go together to a certain extent though. If you say the AVP will kill the laptop and the tablet, you are saying that in all situations where people would previously use those devices they will now use an AVP and be sitting around with that headset on their face.
Think of it: coffeeshops, offices, trains, all with people wearing headsets. I personally don’t think that will happen, I think the AVP will cause a temporary enthusiasm, but it will ultimately be used infrequently and will really only gain traction in a few professional environments.
It’s too bulky and inconvenient, can you imagine going into a coffee shop and getting out the AVP travel case and getting out an AVP with battery and charger to get some work done? Putting it on and signing in? Arranging a Bluetooth keyboard? It’s too high-friction.
The point of the prediction is the idea that by that point it'll just be glasses. The theoretical family of four is basically the same as the family of four today, except that instead of "a TV" they have a shared virtual screen that serves the same purpose (except hey, now you don't need a 30-pound piece of hardware on the wall to have a shared movie night, and you can hang out in the backyard with your "screen" if the weather's nice, or take it on the train, or...), instead of phones they each have their own private floating screens, and so on. If anything, it's more social than the current state of affairs with everyone absorbed in their phones, since it removes the single tiny screens to focus on and as a scenario allows for near-effortless sharing of content and communications in pseudo-physical ways.
Is that feasible within a 10-year timeframe specifically? Well, I don't think I'm that optimistic. But it seems to me that it's obviously the direction that Apple wants to go with this stuff (the eyes, however goofy-looking, are a clear indicator of that), and the tech will get there sooner or later.
Last edited:
You do realize the saying goes “form over function”, right??
It is usually bad if something looks good but is entirely useless.
The other way around, not so much: the first laptops were large and heavy with paltry battery life but they _were_ useful. The state of technology just did not allow for making them lighter, more ergonomic. Just like with VP.
But thank goodness someone made the things, it showed the potential of what could one day be and without these early devices, there would not have been nice M3 MBA’s or iPads for that matter.
It’s easy to deride Apple for what the VP is but which other manufacturer do you know that is even trying to make a device like this that is actually useful for more than be games or niche applications in 3D modeling? The fact alone the screens have a dot pitch which allows the thing to be used as an actual productivity monitor is unmatched.
It is usually bad if something looks good but is entirely useless.
The other way around, not so much: the first laptops were large and heavy with paltry battery life but they _were_ useful. The state of technology just did not allow for making them lighter, more ergonomic. Just like with VP.
But thank goodness someone made the things, it showed the potential of what could one day be and without these early devices, there would not have been nice M3 MBA’s or iPads for that matter.
It’s easy to deride Apple for what the VP is but which other manufacturer do you know that is even trying to make a device like this that is actually useful for more than be games or niche applications in 3D modeling? The fact alone the screens have a dot pitch which allows the thing to be used as an actual productivity monitor is unmatched.
Now we are talking again about "predicting" where perhaps the technology will go, we can discuss about that. For example imagining that in the near future visors will be less and less bulky and therefore more practical and socially acceptable. By the way, what is not acceptable today may become so very soon as it always has.
I was, however, responding to the value judgment about the "dystopian" future (just like the present for our older relatives) in the previous post.
It doesn't seem any different from today where the TV is just serving as background noise, while everyone is sitting on the sofa but each browsing their own smartphone or tablet. What are the odds that there is a show on TV that appeals equally to everybody these days?
Kinda like how we lament people being absorbed in smartphones in public transport, but commuters in the past would be reading a book or newspaper also.
Different medium, same story.
I think right now AVP is trying to be both VR and AR to pave the way for the AR glasses. The people wearing AVP in public are really just stress-testing the idea of AR in public, not the AVP itself. I see no reason for the AVP to solve the anti-social aspect since it isn't the social version of the product; that's the glasses.
Tim is far more interested in AR/Glasses; there was some internal memo leaked long ago that indicated that Apple wants/expects the glasses to be as popular as the iPhone and become a staple product. Hopefully that means they will not cripple the glasses to avoid stepping on AVP's toes. Once the glasses are available, it'll cannibalize the AVP for the majority of casual use cases. Maybe that's why Apple decided to aim high with AVP, by making it stand-alone with laptop-level power, it's not remotely the same product as the eventual glasses but can/is sparking imaginations.
Tim is far more interested in AR/Glasses; there was some internal memo leaked long ago that indicated that Apple wants/expects the glasses to be as popular as the iPhone and become a staple product. Hopefully that means they will not cripple the glasses to avoid stepping on AVP's toes. Once the glasses are available, it'll cannibalize the AVP for the majority of casual use cases. Maybe that's why Apple decided to aim high with AVP, by making it stand-alone with laptop-level power, it's not remotely the same product as the eventual glasses but can/is sparking imaginations.
I’m curious why Apple released this now. Is it because they felt they had to get this spatial computing platform out there, get people developing for it and using it (and providing use cases) or was it more a case of we haven’t had a new product category since 2014 and investors are getting restless, or Tim Cook wants to retire soon but wanted this to launch on his watch?
Couldn't it be all of the above? Any of the three reasons you list may not have been enough on its own for Apple to decide to release this now. But the three together combined to push this product over the "ship now" line.
The important thing is to take the first step, and AVP has taken the first one.
I think it should have stayed internal for longer and perhaps done a dev kit release frankly
Scott Galloway had an interesting take on the most recent Pivot podcast. He believes that Tim Cook can't stand Mark Zuckerberg and has been watching what Zuck has been doing with the Quest. In Galloway's eyes, Vision Pro is a hedge, a "call opinion" as he put it (for the poker players out there), against Meta. A few billion dollars of R&D over many years is nothing for Apple. Should the public become interested in headsets, Apple will have positioned themselves, once again, as the premium tier product. Cook doesn't want Zuck to control the "next big thing" in computing, although, at this point, there's no indication that headsets are the next big thing.
Focusing on the mechanism that makes people feel you aren't locked away in your AVP headset.
www.macworld.com
The EyeSight display just has too many problems. The rendering of your eyes is low-res and blurry, thanks in part to the front display quality and in part to the lenticular lens effect. The actual rendering is distorted so it looks “correct” through the lenticular film.
The display itself is a relatively narrow strip, not even half the size of the full front of the headset. It’s not terribly bright even before the coverings and coatings cut brightness down further. Then there’s the headset itself, which is so fantastically glossy that you see bright highlights all over in nearly all lighting. If you want to actually see someone’s eyes clearly, the room needs to be fairly dimly lit, at which point the passthrough video becomes a grainy mess.
The EyeSight concept is sound, but it will take more than a few software updates to make it work well. It’s going to need new hardware.
Given that this first product is called Apple Vision Pro, it’s reasonable to expect that future models will come in both “Pro” and “non-Pro” variants. I would bet that Apple will double down on EyeSight for the Pro version and eliminate it on the non-Pro model to save cost.
========
That last thought might be exactly the direction of Apple when lowering the cost is desired.
EyeSight could have been Vision Pro's killer feature–if only it worked
EyeSight is well-indended, but it just doesn't do what it's meant to, and it'll take more than a software fix to make it good.
www.macworld.com
The EyeSight display just has too many problems. The rendering of your eyes is low-res and blurry, thanks in part to the front display quality and in part to the lenticular lens effect. The actual rendering is distorted so it looks “correct” through the lenticular film.
The display itself is a relatively narrow strip, not even half the size of the full front of the headset. It’s not terribly bright even before the coverings and coatings cut brightness down further. Then there’s the headset itself, which is so fantastically glossy that you see bright highlights all over in nearly all lighting. If you want to actually see someone’s eyes clearly, the room needs to be fairly dimly lit, at which point the passthrough video becomes a grainy mess.
The EyeSight concept is sound, but it will take more than a few software updates to make it work well. It’s going to need new hardware.
Given that this first product is called Apple Vision Pro, it’s reasonable to expect that future models will come in both “Pro” and “non-Pro” variants. I would bet that Apple will double down on EyeSight for the Pro version and eliminate it on the non-Pro model to save cost.
========
That last thought might be exactly the direction of Apple when lowering the cost is desired.
I think you're underestimating the amount of processing power needed to make Apple's take on AR actually work. Any "weaker" device would still need a bunch of cameras and the R1 chip and everything else that goes along with that just to make the UX work. At that point the only actual difference between a "weak" and "powerful" device is how good the other chip that actually runs apps is, and it has to be pretty decent anyway because of the multitasking functionality.
In other words, I don't think the distinction you're making exists. The only route to having "Apple Glasses" that work in a way that Apple wants is just to keep refining the AVP and its derivatives, with all the complications that come with that, until they've figured out how to miniaturize the required hardware enough to fit into something that doesn't look like "a headset" at all.
And that's probably 20+ years away. For the foreseeable future, AVP and its descendants will be a headset while "Apple Glasses" remain a pipe dream.
I don't even know why anyone would think current Apple would be uniquely positioned to solve any of the serious technical hurdles and breakthroughs required here.
What have they really shown lately to indicate they'll be able to do things nobody else can, particularly with miniaturization of tech.
Their best work of late is ASi, and that has definitely been hitting limits as they work to scale it up and have it do more and get better.
M1 was one thing .. and it kind of keeps getting less impressive.
All the while, they've continued to lose talent
If we want to look at their efforts to make things smaller, while maintaining or increasing processing power, we should look at the Watch and iPhones and they've sort of hit walls with both of them right now.
I sincerely do not understand this hostility and rhetoric of some people. No one can predict whether or not a new technology (especially one that is so different) will be successful but that does not mean that nevertheless one should not appreciate the R & D behind it and the step forward in technology. I remain of the opinion that it will be the “next big thing“ but those who disagree may not buy it today (I understand that for many the price is a big obstacle that increases their skepticism) but still better one more choice than less (it is not like Apple has taken any of its other products off the market). As always, consumers will decide. I merely observe that the first Mac was very expensive and full of limitations, the same the first iPhone (critiqued by so many as the followers of Nokia, BlackBerry, Palm etc) etc. We will see more of this.
Well, there's, you know, the AVP itself, which is basically a double-chipped Macbook on your face, cooling systems and all, plus three iPhone Pro camera sets, plus a lidar scanner, with display PPD about matching the best specialized PCVR headsets (like the Pimax Crystal), in a 600-gram package. (And we all know Apple is stupid about "premium" materials and could have made that even lighter by swapping out some of the metal for plastic.)
In my opinion to focus on this aspect is to look at the finger instead of the moon.Focusing on the mechanism that makes people feel you aren't locked away in your AVP headset.
EyeSight could have been Vision Pro's killer feature–if only it worked
EyeSight is well-indended, but it just doesn't do what it's meant to, and it'll take more than a software fix to make it good.
The EyeSight display just has too many problems. The rendering of your eyes is low-res and blurry, thanks in part to the front display quality and in part to the lenticular lens effect. The actual rendering is distorted so it looks “correct” through the lenticular film.
The display itself is a relatively narrow strip, not even half the size of the full front of the headset. It’s not terribly bright even before the coverings and coatings cut brightness down further. Then there’s the headset itself, which is so fantastically glossy that you see bright highlights all over in nearly all lighting. If you want to actually see someone’s eyes clearly, the room needs to be fairly dimly lit, at which point the passthrough video becomes a grainy mess.
There is nothing special about AVP from the technical perspective. Yes it has better displays, but those are made by Sony. It has decent processor but Qualcomm's recent chips are even faster (in MC benchmarks). It's better than other headsets in some regards but not because nobody can make similar device. It's because others went for different tradeoffs in terms of price and weight.
100% agree. To be fair, it's not just Apple either. Look at Samsung or any of the other phone makers. Not much has changed in years. Sure, we get an incrementally better camera every year or whatever, but there haven't been any major leaps. A huge obstacle is battery tech. The Watch has been around for almost ten years and battery life hasn't improved much at all.
ASi was impressive, but the industry is littered with custom processor corpses. Where are SPARC, PA-RISC, MIPS, etc. today? Every architecture seems to hit bottlenecks/walls at some point.
I also see nothing to suggest that Apple is capable of overcoming the obvious technical hurdles to making "Apple Glasses" a reality. Vision Pro is a bulky, heavy "me too" headset that is decades away from the AR glasses pipe dream.
Pretty easy to understand. Social media has made us far more tribal and aggressive. It has fanned the flames of ego and narcissism. That said, there's nothing hostile about Galloway's take and I think he's pretty right on the money. Vision Pro is a product nobody asked for and, so far, Apple has utterly failed to demonstrate any sort of compelling use case beyond watching movies. It's literally an iPad strapped to your face with a mostly 2D/flat interface. Where's the AR? Where's the 3D? Where's the immersion? Even Apple couldn't come up with a compelling demo for the technology. One would have thought they'd reimagine some of their apps with an immersive 3D UI. Instead we get giant iPad windows.
No argument there, but Vision Pro really isn't anything special in that regard. It's just a much higher end - and more expensive - version of what already exists.
I don't see it as the "next big thing" at all. Not even close. If you look at previous markets that Apple "disrupted", they were already huge and Apple was able to step in and deliver a better mousetrap, so to speak. Companies have been trying to make VR happen for well over a decade and consumers have repeatedly shown a total lack of interest.
For sure. Let the market decide. So far the market seems decidedly uninterested in VR and Vision Pro doesn't appear to have changed that. Time will tell.
To me this point is the biggest indictment on the entire product being released
What is this actually for?
What’s the absolute home run, holy cow, gotta have this thing….”thing”?
Just movies?
(And watching by yourself too…)
Absolutely tiny market for a device like that, at any price.
What do consumers demand? A faster iPhone that takes better photos? I believe the future of technology is a complete integration of it with ourselves without the hiatus present today (I take my phone or computer I use it and put it back). Whether AVP is the answer I do not know but nevertheless I very much appreciate this attempt which I believe will be successful in its various near or far future declinations.