I thought IMAX was supposed to fill your field of view, but maybe they don’t mean literally all the way, because I agree that would be weird/annoying. It’s the same reason I don’t like sitting in the front row of a theater and the same reason I’m not fond of VR movies—I don’t want to have to turn my head to focus on something on a part of the screen because it’s too far out from center, but more importantly I don’t want to possibly miss something in the other part of the screen because I turned my head.
Why do people think that AVP needs a killer app?
- Thread starter NorthernFrostbyte
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They probably don’t know they actually want free floating Mac app windows 😆
Although grouping them together could come in handy in certain cases too.
boss.king
Suspended
But it's still a floating window. I can already watch a floating window in avoid of blackness, I just turn off the lights in the TV room.
I'm being a bit facetious here, but still. I'm pretty sure the original Oculus Rift could have done that like a decade ago. Or maybe the reports are wrong and the full vision cinema is still possible. Too early to tell, I can only go off the info we've been given.
boss.king
Suspended
Possibly. It would be interesting to see what constraints might exist for the number of windows you have have floating around you, or on what those windows can do (I imagine there might be limits on windows running heavy tasks to preserve battery life and keep the UI running smoothly).
The iPhone’s killer app was the App Store itself. It allowed a limited use computer to become a digital Swiss Army knife, ahead in your pocket.
The reason the AVP needs one is because without it all it’s doing is replicating the devices you already own, only with worse battery life, no tactile feedback, eye strain and a higher cost.
The reason the AVP needs one is because without it all it’s doing is replicating the devices you already own, only with worse battery life, no tactile feedback, eye strain and a higher cost.
Human FOV is about 270° horizontally if you include eye movement, and over 180° even if you don’t.
I think you’ll run into other issues before you run into hard limits. It looks like you can’t have two windows snapped together like you would on full screen mode on a Mac or iPad—Apple’s examples all show a quite generous buffer between app windows, at least partially because those windows have toolbars that can expand beyond the initial boundaries of their parent window. You probably won’t be able to fit the density of app windows that you could on a traditional multi-monitor desktop setup, but it should give you more space than a MacBook or iPad.
I often have more than one video playing, and iOS/iPadOS usually doesn’t allow that. Will that be a limitation of VisionOS as well?
Night Spring
macrumors P6
This to me is the "killer app" of the AVP. Being able to keep multiple reference materials open and completely visible at the same time would be game changing for a lot of work flows. You know those scenes in crime dramas when the detective spreads out pictures and papers all over the floor or wall? It hasn't been possible to replicate that effect in a computing environment. With the AVP, you can.
I think the conversation shows how it is a solution looking for a problem.
It’s an immersive experience tool. Apple needs to create, find, or licence immersive experiences for this tool.
Abazigal
Contributor
I am not able to provide a screenshot at the moment, but I recall there was this one part in the WWDC keynote which showed a panoramic shot basically taking up your entire field of view. I assume if it can be done with photos, it too can be done with video. It's just a matter of having the right equipment and the incentive to create content specifically optimised for the vision pro.
“Need” a killer app? Probably not. But first, what is a killer app?
In 2007, Steve said “ the killer app is making calls!” Meaning that the killer app is what, at the very least, the device must do exceedingly well. You can’t really call it a phone if making calls is as difficult as it was on a BlackBerry (which I used at the time).
The VP headsets may not “need” a killer app, but it will need something simple and immediately noticeable to make it go mainstream. Maybe the “desktop”, or whatever they’re calling the home screen, should be so interactive that it captivates the imagination.
Gotta have something.
In 2007, Steve said “ the killer app is making calls!” Meaning that the killer app is what, at the very least, the device must do exceedingly well. You can’t really call it a phone if making calls is as difficult as it was on a BlackBerry (which I used at the time).
The VP headsets may not “need” a killer app, but it will need something simple and immediately noticeable to make it go mainstream. Maybe the “desktop”, or whatever they’re calling the home screen, should be so interactive that it captivates the imagination.
Gotta have something.
svnty6rs3
macrumors member
To me, the AR/VR environment itself in a crystal clear resolution is the killer app. Being able to have floating windows of the different apps i like to use such as Safari and streaming movies in an environment of my choosing is the selling point.
- Watching a movie like Avatar in a 3d iMAX environment from the comfort of my couch.
- Interacting with all these different apps / UI elements with just a look and a pinch without having to hold anything phsyical in my hands is also a great selling point.
- Watching Sporting events such as NBA or NFL games on a huge screen.
- Love it for traveling on things such as trains, planes and buses where i can block everything else out and be in my own environment without distractions.
Unami
macrumors 68000
Nah, that wasn't the revolutionary part, I had a phone (i think it was a motorola) that did all of this and more (like Video-calls, copy & paste and apps) with a bigger touchscreen than the iphone AND removable battery in 2002.
It's just that the iPhone did it better with its responsible and refined UI. Like always, apple by far not the first to enter a market, but when they do, they have already learned from those who were first. Plus, they have that huge marketing-power.
That's the hope for the AVP (Alien vs. predator?) as well - but for me, personally, it's the first time, that I don't "feel" it.
drumcat
macrumors 65816
I'm only providing what it will be judged by, and this is one of a few criteria IMO. I'll withhold judgment until it's out.
SYCAMOREGRAD
macrumors regular
The iPhone, having transpired from iPod, had a killer app: making phone calls.
AlastorKatriona
Suspended
To me a "killer app" means the product needs to have a purpose. It means that if nothing else, there is one clear specific thing you can do with it that justifies its existence as a product, regardless of anything else you can do with it.
What is iPhone's killer app? iPhone has several of them. Several things it does so well that by themselves justify the entire device.
iPad is a device where the killer app is questionable, but watching videos and looking at photos are better on this device than any other, and the fact that it can replace a laptop for tons of people who never really needed a laptop to begin with, at a much lower price, gives it a killer purpose.
Vision Pro however has none of this going for it at all. It's an iPad, for your face, that costs $3,500. There is no clear purpose for the device, beyond an overly expensive version of baby computing that you do on an iPad. 3D Movies are perhaps its only unique feature, which is not worth $3,500, so that alone doesn't justify its existence.
Whether you call it "killer app" or "purpose" every product needs to have one, and Vision Pro doesn't appear to have one.
AlastorKatriona
Suspended
Until you find out that projecting a single 4K display into space does nothing. It doesn't utilize the device's potential at all, and doesn't make working with your Mac better. It's a bare bones compatibility feature to check a box.
AlastorKatriona
Suspended
The product can't justify existing if it doesn't have a clear cut singular purpose right out of the gate.
For me, the "killer app", or more specifically three basic things to make me use a Vision, would be what I ultimately wanted out of the Hololens when it was released, and was thinking might take three or more iterations to achieve:
Social acceptability. This is something I wasn't counting on Microsoft to get right, and back then in 2016 I even speculated that it would probably take Apple ripping off Hololens, making it idiot friendly and convincing their bovine customer base on it to get there - and here we are on track, if a bit later than I thought. I think this is very likely to happen with Vision gen 3 or maybe even gen 2 if there's a massive leap forwards. This is not just about price of entry, but also obviously about the way the device appears on your head. Right now it's like any other VR headset you wouldn't be caught dead with outside.
A remote desktop. i.e. an AR dual/triple screens at arm's length of of at least WQHD perceived resolution each, along with a gesture keyboard (and I felt again back then a representation of a standard keyboard would be a complete waste of time, even though it looks familiar) and mouse. This means for one that I basically need screens at home for only the most high-resolution needs and be able to interact with any of my desktops anywhere and can even just hide most of my computers away somewhere, also work securely remotely without carrying a laptop... and more of course.
And last but obviously, actually replace the smartphone by having it pack a cell radio in there as well.
Social acceptability. This is something I wasn't counting on Microsoft to get right, and back then in 2016 I even speculated that it would probably take Apple ripping off Hololens, making it idiot friendly and convincing their bovine customer base on it to get there - and here we are on track, if a bit later than I thought. I think this is very likely to happen with Vision gen 3 or maybe even gen 2 if there's a massive leap forwards. This is not just about price of entry, but also obviously about the way the device appears on your head. Right now it's like any other VR headset you wouldn't be caught dead with outside.
A remote desktop. i.e. an AR dual/triple screens at arm's length of of at least WQHD perceived resolution each, along with a gesture keyboard (and I felt again back then a representation of a standard keyboard would be a complete waste of time, even though it looks familiar) and mouse. This means for one that I basically need screens at home for only the most high-resolution needs and be able to interact with any of my desktops anywhere and can even just hide most of my computers away somewhere, also work securely remotely without carrying a laptop... and more of course.
And last but obviously, actually replace the smartphone by having it pack a cell radio in there as well.
CrysisDeu
macrumors 65816
It’s not going to happen with today’s Apple. I don’t think they are able to revolutionize at this scale anymore. The next vision pro will be just like this, with newer chips and wifi6e.
Vision Pro died when they decided to pursuit the heavy AR headset rather than the light weight AR glasses.
I still remember the days people think of crazy concepts Apple can do, and they still come out better. Just a few years back, people were fascinating about full screen keyboards on macbooks with haptic touch. Ultra slim laptops with Apple chips. Remote charging iPhones, etc.
You don’t even see those rumors anymore, that generation is probably no longer working at apple.
Lightweight AR glasses are currently still relatively unrealistic. As I said, we're probably looking at two iterations beyond the now before it's looking anywhere near socially acceptable.
But despite everything I dislike about Apple, they are the party that once committed to something will be most likely to stick with it until it succeeds - and it's very certain that they are at the very least as aware as I am about what this device needs to be for that to happen, and for it to be ultimately The Thing Beyond The Smartphone.
Neither Google, nor Microsoft once Let Me Tell You A 🐂💩 Story Nadella took over, now have the C-level patience or vision to see anything novel in terms of hardware through these days that doesn't have a clear chance at success with a single generation of product. Exhibit A: Hololens was already dying on the vine before the Kipman (engineered?) exit, and Microsoft was the true pioneer of this.
Ultimately Google/Samsung will ape and stick with whatever Apple does once it becomes clear it's the future - and before that there will be whole host of also-ran clones from various Asian makers, who'll eventually jump on the whatever-Google-does bandwagon. And Microsoft, as with what happened to Windows Phone, will be reduced to writing apps for Vision.
Last edited:
XboxEvolved
macrumors 65816
O look another thread that might as well be titled "Mental Gymnastics"
TVreporter
macrumors 68020
I don’t know if it needs a killer app but Apple seems rather apathetic about promoting it.
No ads since WWDC… the hype seems non-existent.
No ads since WWDC… the hype seems non-existent.
boss.king
Suspended
To be fair, they can barely make any of them (relative to a. Typical Apple product launch) going by the reports. There’s no point building hype for something that most people won’t be able to buy and may already sell out at launch.