Why Doesn’t Apple call the Vision Pro what it is, a “hobby”?

[Flowstates]

There seems to be extreme confusion about the differences between AR / VR / XR and the multiple expectations on those markets.

The vision is an AR/XR device first, with VR capabilities.

 

[mattspace]

Thanks for informing me on what I have direct experience in, but it’s all good.
You seem to be expecting triple A gaming with nvidia 4090 level graphics. You are not the customer then. Quite simple really.

I have direct experience in VR, I’ve used it to do actual work that couldn’t be done with 2D screen-based tools, and so I am speaking from experience.

Im not expecting gaming, but game engines are where immersive apps are hosted, and gaming performance is most analogous to immersive performance.

but that’s the thing, for pretty much any task except stereoscopically separated, proprioceptively valid 3D, this will be a less convenient way to work - unless you’re currently working on an iPad and constrained by it only having a single screen.

 

[mattspace]

There seems to be extreme confusion about the differences between AR / VR / XR and the multiple expectations on those markets.

The vision is an AR/XR device first, with VR capabilities.

the Vision is an iPad you strap on your face.

Commercial AR / XR devices, like those from Varjo are not self-contained. They plug in to huge offboard graphical processing for a reason. AR & XR are subsets of VR for any pass-through system. AR is a feature, not a product.

everything about the Vision is based around better iPad computing, a problem already solved on the Mac by adding extra displays, with the benefit of not having to wear a headset to use it - to convince people to wear a headset, you have to make it do something that absolutely cannot be done with alternative paradigms. Like in advertising art departments, computers only took over from drafting tables, hot wax layout and bromide cameras, when they had WYSIWYG editability - that was the paradigm shift. For a headset, that one thing is stereoscopic 3D (content, not flats in space). The joke being, that’s the thing at which Vision Pro will be weakest.

 

[Flowstates]

the Vision is an iPad you strap on your face.

Commercial AR / XR devices, like those from Varjo are not self-contained. They plug in to huge offboard graphical processing for a reason. AR & XR are subsets of VR for any pass-through system. AR is a feature, not a product.

everything about the Vision is based around better iPad computing, a problem already solved on the Mac by adding extra displays, with the benefit of not having to wear a headset to use it - to convince people to wear a headset, you have to make it do something that absolutely cannot be done with alternative paradigms. Like in advertising art departments, computers only took over from drafting tables, hot wax layout and bromide cameras, when they had WYSIWYG editability - that was the paradigm shift. For a headset, that one thing is stereoscopic 3D (content, not flats in space). The joke being, that’s the thing at which Vision Pro will be weakest.

And iPads are now standard issue in many educational institutions, but I digress.

It's a bit too early to write it off, but I'm personally quite optimistic about the content Consumption potential of the device.

The push for their Spatial Capture format with iPhones is extremely deliberate.

In my opinion, the argument about the standalone/limited graphics processing is moot. You can stream high quality content from an external device (see AirLink) for meta devices with graphical fidelity.

Factor in the hardware encoders and decodes present on apple silicon, one can then speculate on the paradigm of upgrade-able graphical prowess from a device like the mac studio.

The updates to the headset themselves being only warranted by better sensing (let's say to the outward camera array) or better screen color accuracy/efficiency.

The Vision Pro is a Pro Display XDR for spatial computing, any apple silicon device will be its real brain.

 

[mattspace]

And iPads are now standard issue in many educational institutions, but I digress.

And are being phased out sector-wide in favour of Chromebooks, which are a better paradigm for the task.

Also, no technology has ever shown an ability to increase educational outcomes, when compared to simply reducing the number of pupils per teacher.

It's a bit too early to write it off, but I'm personally quite optimistic about the content Consumption potential of the device.

Yes, its for peope who like movies... but not enough to own a similarly priced large TV, or projector, or care about picture quality, or want to watch with other people in the same room.

Also, this is what the new Aliens 4K release looks like - left Bluray (showing the actual film grain), right Apple content store. So it's also for people who like movies to look like Apple's photometric 3D geometry in Maps.

Obviously the largest content format for stereoscopic headsets, by a large margin, is POV pornography, but that's unlikely to happen in any Apple appstore, so it'll be limited to what mobile safari can do.

The push for their Spatial Capture format with iPhones is extremely deliberate.

People see Grand Strategy in everything Apple does, but that's always in hindsight. There was no strategy to make an iPhone, it was a happenstance repurposing of a tech made for the iPad. Apple builds strategies on the products and capabilities they have - they have devices that can do LIDAR, and so they figure out a way to make products around it. The iPod - a supplier mentioned they had made a tiny hard drive for which they hadn't found a use, or customer.

They have a processor architecture with mediocre PCI lane bandwidth, so they fixate on "unified graphics" despite that paradigm not requiring on-processor GPUs or soldered memory, and build their products on that.

In my opinion, the argument about the standalone/limited graphics processing is moot. You can stream high quality content from an external device (see AirLink) for meta devices with graphical fidelity.

Air streaming is always a compromise - resolution and frame rate have to be sacrificed to do it. So far all we've seen for Apple's Mac connectivity for their headset is literally just a single-monitor VNC client. I don't expect that to change.

Factor in the hardware encoders and decodes present on apple silicon, one can then speculate on the paradigm of upgrade-able graphical prowess from a device like the mac studio.

The only upgrade is to replace a AUD$12k M2 Ultra, with a (theoretical) AUD$13k M3 Ultra. The RTX4090, which is significantly better at high resolution, high framerate 3D graphics is ~AUD$3k

The updates to the headset themselves being only warranted by better sensing (let's say to the outward camera array) or better screen color accuracy/efficiency.

I would say when you look at professional headsets, ask why they all offer the option of Steam / Lighthouse tracking - even the best inside-out tracking solutions are still subpar compared to lighthouse tracking, and setting up a tracked workspace is perfectly reasonable for a "Pro" headset.

The Vision Pro is a Pro Display XDR for spatial computing, any apple silicon device will be its real brain.

If you mean "Low end consumer technology, dressed up in an expensive and input-limiting form factor", that's a pretty apt analogy. Given how bad the Pro Display XDR is, compared to an actual professional display, the "dirty screen effect" the inconsistent lighting, the blooming from the use of a FALD backlight, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Again, there's no evidence Apple is planning on making the Vision Pro a display peripheral for other devices (or that the device is even capable of it), beyond single display remote desktop. The evidence is far more weighed in favour that it will be a standalone thing, with iCloud syncing the data between it and other devices.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

And are being phased out sector-wide in favour of Chromebooks, which are a better paradigm for the task.

It’s the opposite way round in the UK as Chromebooks are being replaced by the iPad, especially in our Primary school learning. A lot of education apps have been developed over the past 5 years for touch interaction and I know in my children’s school the Chromebook has now been completely phased out.

 

[Jensend]

2: It's a totally solo experience, even more so than a phone or tablet. Every member of your household would meed to own one to share anything with you.

Well, I used my phone today on my own, but I also watched a movie in a VR theater with some friends, and then we played a multiplayer VR game.

I do wonder if Meta has the right idea. Start with a low end model, and gradually build up your audience/user-base over the years, then you can gradually create better models at higher prices, bringing the customers with you.
In the same way it happened with smartphones.

It's going to be very interesting to see how Apple fills the gap between this 1st model, and a future model they wish to sell in bulk.

Meta didn't really have much of a choice.
With traditional 2D computing these days, you can buy a computer for things like office apps and internet browsing for cheaper than a PC made for gaming.
But with VR headsets, that's flipped. You need very high resolutions and optical clarity for text to work well, while games can get by with lower resolution and less optical clarity. 8 years ago when the first modern consumer VR kits started hitting the market, you couldn't have built a VR headset good enough for web browsing, even at a very high cost.

There seems to be extreme confusion about the differences between AR / VR / XR and the multiple expectations on those markets.

The vision is an AR/XR device first, with VR capabilities.

AR vs VR is largely irrelevant at this point, at least in the consumer market. The only real relevance is in comfort... You can do the same task you would do in a normal VR headset, but you don't lose awareness of your surroundings. But even that will be a moot point because headsets from companies like Meta have already been improving their passthrough capabilities with each generation.

Air streaming is always a compromise - resolution and frame rate have to be sacrificed to do it. So far all we've seen for Apple's Mac connectivity for their headset is literally just a single-monitor VNC client. I don't expect that to change.

You can use foveated transport to get quite a bit better quality than you would with a monitor of equivalent resolution.

 

[mattspace]

You can use foveated transport to get quite a bit better quality than you would with a monitor of equivalent resolution.

Sure, but again, I don't believe Apple is ever going to make the Vision Pro a display-out for a Mac, tethered or wireless. I think VNC is going to be the best you get, and Apple's argument will be "just run apps locally on the headset".

I put the Vision Pro being a (wireless) display for a Mac in the same realm as a touchscreen Mac.

 

[Jensend]

Sure, but again, I don't believe Apple is ever going to make the Vision Pro a display-out for a Mac, tethered or wireless. I think VNC is going to be the best you get, and Apple's argument will be "just run apps locally on the headset".

I put the Vision Pro being a (wireless) display for a Mac in the same realm as a touchscreen Mac.

If the "multiple floating apps" use case really takes off, I think Apple will eventually need to either let users have Mac-like flexibility natively on a VR headset, or a way to stream multiple app windows—or a full environment—from a Mac.
Apple can get away with iPads without a desktop OS and MacBooks without touch screens because both devices have a similar form factor... you can just get both and cover both use cases, and if you really need stylus/touch input with Mac flexibility in the same setup, you can plug a tablet into a Mac.

Does it have to happen with the first version of the first headset? No. But if VR becomes a substantial part of their business, it will become necessary.

And for professionals who need something more advanced than floating 2D app windows, the GPU in the headset will be a decade behind high-end dedicated GPUs in raw performance.

 

[Flowstates]

And are being phased out sector-wide in favour of Chromebooks, which are a better paradigm for the task.

Also, no technology has ever shown an ability to increase educational outcomes, when compared to simply reducing the number of pupils per teacher.

Touché

Anyways, you seem to be much more knowledgeable about the subject than me ... Thank you for sharing !

But with VR headsets, that's flipped. You need very high resolutions and optical clarity for text to work well, while games can get by with lower resolution and less optical clarity. 8 years ago when the first modern consumer VR kits started hitting the market, you couldn't have built a VR headset good enough for web browsing, even at a very high cost.

That is what is getting me excited about the device, the quest 3 starts to get into the territory where reading pdfs becomes bearable. The announced resolution and ensuing "retina" moment will be a landmark in usability, at the very least for text consumption.

AR vs VR is largely irrelevant at this point, at least in the consumer market. The only real relevance is in comfort... You can do the same task you would do in a normal VR headset, but you don't lose awareness of your surroundings. But even that will be a moot point because headsets from companies like Meta have already been improving their passthrough capabilities with each generation.

Indeed, and I'm very interested to see what kind of approach they have taken to pass-through rendering, given the relative abundance of external facing cameras and most importantly depth sensors when comparing with the competition.

Sure, but again, I don't believe Apple is ever going to make the Vision Pro a display-out for a Mac, tethered or wireless. I think VNC is going to be the best you get, and Apple's argument will be "just run apps locally on the headset.

A man can dream =)

 

[Cape Dave]

Meh, it's like a brand new version of the Newton. Or maybe the cube. Or the "can" Mac Pro. Here today, melted into the ethos next year.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Yes, its for peope who like movies... but not enough to own a similarly priced large TV, or projector, or care about picture quality, or want to watch with other people in the same room.

while I understand a lot of the criticism of this product, this is one that I still don’t get.
This thing isn’t trying to replace a massive television, just like how the AirPods Max aren’t replacing multi thousand dollars 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos home theater and/or music listening set ups.
You could listen to spatial audio on the AirPods and it sounds pretty good. Amazing in fact, and being able to have that pretty much anywhere is awesome.
But speakers still exist.
Likewise, being able to have 3-D movies, 4K per eye, at pretty much any screen size you want from anywhere? Incredible.
But televisions aren’t going anywhere, they’re still going to be around.
Not everything is designed to be a complete and total replacement of everything.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

while I understand a lot of the criticism of this product, this is one that I still don’t get.
This thing isn’t trying to replace a massive television, just like how the AirPods Max aren’t replacing multi thousand dollars 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos home theater and/or music listening set ups.
You could listen to spatial audio on the AirPods and it sounds pretty good. Amazing in fact, and being able to have that pretty much anywhere is awesome.
But speakers still exist.
Likewise, being able to have 3-D movies, 4K per eye, at pretty much any screen size you want from anywhere? Incredible.
But televisions aren’t going anywhere, they’re still going to be around.
Not everything is designed to be a complete and total replacement of everything.

Indeed and the Vision Pro or any head worn device like this will likely have a strong niche market for those wanting this sort of technology. The mainstream consumer/household will be less interested based on price and functionality.

The AirPods Max as you mentioned were similar in that they were never going to set the headphone market alight, but the niche that wanted them made them have a limited success. Everything has its own measurement for success.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Indeed and the Vision Pro or any head worn device like this will likely have a strong niche market for those wanting this sort of technology. The mainstream consumer/household will be less interested based on price and functionality.

I definitely agree at first.
I feel like it could eventually catch on with the general public, but I certainly don’t think it’s going to be the “phone replacement” Everyone thinks it’s going to be.
Or the television replacement.

People need to stop thinking in terms of the old iPod/iPhone dynamic. The iPod was mostly a single use device, while the iPhone, iPad, Mac and Apple Vision are all multipurpose devices that can be used in different contexts.

 

[ke-iron]

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. The AppleTV was famously called a hobby by Jobs originally because, much like with the Vision Pro, they had no clear vision of what it was meant for or what to do with it exactly initially.

This clearly isn't a hobby. I wonder if you have seen and paid attention to the press release, Apple own website and introductory videos they released on this product. This device is obviously designed to be the one Apple device to use when you’re at home and need to multitask with more than one Apple products or consume digital content.