Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
At least some positive comments about AVP in here, which makes a ton of sense because this website would be the best place to find actual owners. The lack of interest in AVP articles though seems to show that a majority of Apple enthousiasts don’t care.

I think comparisons to past releases like the first iPod or Apple Watch are a bit optimistic, those results don’t guarantee that the AR/VR market will grow to such heights as well. If it’s harder to use overall, then I don’t see mass adoption. I think there need to be like six generations of progress before the product could be more appealing. I think it’s their biggest challenge ever by miles and it might fail. But I’m sure that wouldn’t “doom” Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Night Spring
The Apple watch was pretty garbage until about the third generation. It was slow, and it was way faster sometimes to just get up and look at your phone in another room than wait for it to load an app. Fantastic now, but those first couple of generations were undercooked.

I feel any glasses will be the same, running into the same issue as the OG Apple watch. How do you make something powerful enough to fit in the real estate of glasses which are already thin and light?

To compensate Apple will just market it as a fashion accessory. Like they did the OG Apple watch. This was a failure of an approach because the Apple watch is clearly a sports wearable. But a fashion angle could work for Glasses.

Although there is no way I will buy one for the first few generations. It will be underpowered and undercooked.
I'd argue that the second-gen Apple Watch was the first truly viable version, but the product truly hit its stride with the fourth-gen. The first was so ridiculously slow I still can't believe they released it.

To be honest though, I don't think a pair of Apple Glasses need to do as much as a first-gen Apple Watch.
At a bare minimum for a first release, from a functionality perspective I think they need to:

1. Show notifications (which can then be dealt with on watch or phone)
2. Show map directions
3. Show workout data (with the caveat that this feature would use more battery life)

Basically, three things. The rest of the time they don't need to display anything, which should help with battery life.

Hardware wise, maybe add a compass for map directions and a gyroscope for minimal head gestures (similar to those from AirPods Pro). Keep them light-weight and cool looking.

They don't need apps, a camera (Google Glass proved this was a bad idea), eye tracking, Siri, or even to always display the time. They also don't need a complex or colorful user interface. The focus should be on making them non-intrusive but useful.

AVP is a dead-end, uncomfortable product, that is socially isolating. Get some minimalist AR glasses out that have a feature set that works insanely well and is polished. See how people use them, then work on improving the software and hardware even more.
 
As a Vision Pro owner, here’s my thoughts:

The Main Problems:

1. It’s too cumbersome.

Apple stuck to their typical design language (metal and glass) which just isn’t a good fit for something you wear. It looks really cool on a stand but feels far too uncomfortable in use. Sure there are head strap solutions that make it more comfortable but after spending $3500 I shouldn’t have to look to 3rd parties to solve a major design flaw. Furthermore, just booting up the VP is not as smooth of an experience as you’d hope for a device this advanced. At the very least, it should give me the option to reopen the previously open apps.

2. The Main Use Case Doesn’t Match the Price.

Most VP owners use theirs as a virtual large screen for movies or as a monitor for their Mac. What it offers for this use case is fantastic but it’s just not worth the cost. Regardless of price, any new technology should give some advantage to the user (in terms of productivity) over traditional mouse and keyboard (especially if you want to add the “Pro” name). The Vision Pro desperately needs a use case that justifies its price (and it can’t be just content consumption no matter how cool immersive video is). IMO 3D modeling / sculpting would definitely be an example of a good use case that would allow users to be more productive on AVP than on Mac (just like certain graphic arts task are more efficient to do on iPad Pro).

3. The Price…

We all know it, the price is too high. Getting the VP to that $1500 mark is where they can capture more customers. For $3500 you can get a very nice OLED TV, a Quest 3, a PS5 and a few games and still have money left over for some snacks.


What Should Apple Do Next:

1. Focus on Creating a non - Pro version

Make it lighter, drop the front display and make it use a tethered iPhone, iPad or Mac for more processor intensive task. Give it an A18 for simple task like browsing the web, checking emails, viewing photos or content consumption that way it’s not completely useless without another device.

Mostly importantly, they need to get the head strap right. It needs to be comfortable to wear and preferably it needs to work with glasses. They also need to get the price down to $1999 or less. This cheaper version will still be niche and probably won’t sell as much as Quest but it will absolutely expand the market which attracts more developers and content studios.

2. Include Controllers!

Hand and Eye tracking is awesome but it doesn’t work well for games which is a big use case for devices like this. Developers are forced to use whatever the primary input method is since you can never assume a user has a controller. By including hand controllers in the box, they open up the door for developers to create experiences that just wouldn’t work well with hand and eye tracking. Not to mention it makes it much easier to port over existing VR projects which will help expand its App Library.

VR games also gives the Vision Pro a use case that is unique to its form factor. You can’t get that same experience on Mac, iPad or iPhone. It gives users another reason to turn on their Vision Pro.

3. Go big with VisionOS 3

VisionOS 2 finally feels like a more complete operating system compared to the very beta like feeling of 1.0. With version 3 Apple needs to introduce new features that truly show the potential of spatial computing. There should be day to day task that are just simply better and more efficient on VP compared to other devices. To go along with that, Apples Pro team should be developing native apps that take advantage of spatial computing.

________________________________

When it comes to true AR glasses, we have a ways to go before the tech is small enough and efficient enough. That being said, I don’t think Apple made a mistake launching the Vision Pro. This gives them a way to form the spatial computing model and market before we reach the point of making glasses. By the time Spatial computing becomes mainstream, the VP will have laid the groundwork. The key thing to remember about Vision Pro is that Apple is playing the long game.

AR glasses are bound to do well. The question is what can Apple do to keep consumer interest in Vision in the meantime?
 
The problem is that for the tech to have widespread adoption, there would need to be a substantial leap, including: better processing, higher refresh rate and under sub 225 grams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iLLUMI and klasma
All AR glasses seem to have to choose between two or more of the following problems: big and heavy, terrible battery life, require wired tether, have extremely limited AR functionality, and/or cost a crazy amount. And I don’t see all of these problems being overcome in one product in the near future (I would bet not in the next 8 years minimum).

Besides the obvious hurdle of size/weight/performance/battery/thermals/latency(all connected), there’s apparently another very basic hurdle of AR devices not talked about for some reason, and that is simply a clear view of the real world. So far it seems all AR devices (whether glasses or headsets) only give you a significantly degraded view of the world—some combination of darkened, low res, blurry, some weird polarization, or badly superimposed with reflections. To me, the whole idea of augmented reality, what makes it uniquely useful from virtual reality, is that it’s supposed to only add to your real world, not take away. Taking away (and replacing) is VR’s job. A mechanic using AR to help him build an engine will be impeded in his work if his view of the engine is darkened. Also if AR glasses are to be worn by everyone all the time, of course they need to be crystal clear! You don’t want even the smallest visual impairment all through your day. To have true AR, I would far rather add only crude AR functionality and see my world clearly, and let small improvements in AR functions come over time, than have a lot of AR functionality now at the expense of seeing my world clearly. At that point, I’m heading down a path toward the basic function of VR.

So that’s another crucial hurdle that needs to be worked out, but one that I think has slightly more hope. In the case of Vision Pro, it might be solvable very near future just by using really amazing cameras for pass through, which I’m sure has its cost and technical challenges, but it seems doable. For glasses, I have no idea what technology is needed, and I suppose that’s why I’m naively optimistic about it.

If Apple eventually does come out with AR glasses (meant to be worn all day every day), I‘m pretty sure they will adequately solve the clarity problem, and it won’t be overly big and heavy. If they release it in the near future, they will have had to make compromises in other areas though. The virtual elements probably won’t be opaque. It will be expensive of course. It will almost surely be more limited AR than VP—I don’t think you’ll have unlimited apps/windows, probably two or three max, and they’ll probably disappear if you look away from them too long. But they’ll be resizable like in the VP. But I think they’ll only be usable while stationary because Apple wouldn’t want people walking around with big windows blocking their vision. Apple may make a small window available on the move, maybe iPad Mini size or smaller. Maybe it won’t have occlusion and you’ll have to navigate some indirect way. It will probably require a wired tether at least partially. Maybe it will be a thing where you will have the option to run wireless AR on battery at moments throughout the day in short bursts, and if you want to do more than that then you can attach a Magsafe cable from the glasses to your iPhone, which will supply power as well as remove any latency. I have a Viture with a magnetically attached cable and I actually really don’t mind the wire. It’s kind of like back in the day having wired ear buds coming out of your pocket up to your ears—it wasn’t a big deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: klasma and Le0M
We saw similar doubters against the Apple Watch that took a few generations to start taking off, and now you can't turn your head in a city without seeing Apple Watches on every wrist.

Vision Pro was launched from the high end first, an early adopters funding the consumer product to come strategy. While this may be a different approach than what we're used to from modern Apple, this is the strategy Steve Jobs took with the Macintosh. The original Mac was just too expensive for the average user, and over time it was refined until the iMac became the computer for everybody.
There are some differences though.

Apple Watch one wasn’t very good, Vision Pro is amazing.

Apple Watch evolved to become a really “useful“ fitness tracker with gps etc. IT solves problems people have. It’s genuinely useful.

Vision Pro does stuff but it doesn’t solve any real problems, as as this article describes. There’s no evolutionary step that will make it better than it is, nothing really missing from its toolbox. It is what it is. An expensive, one person only, monitor.
 
Apple shoes and Apple smart clothing line would come first.

Bet you all don't know Samsung has a clothing line. Korea only.
 
AR glasses are the future but not until they can look and feel pretty much no different than more conventional glasses. Being able to walk around and have the glasses remind me who a person is, give directions, identify places and things I see and show me answers to pretty much any question I may have will be great. It will take some years to reach that point but when they do the nature of any phone they pair with will change along with them.
Sounds horrible. you are saying you need a computer to remind you of who the people you know are? If you don’t know them that well, then stop pretending that you do. It’s fake. If you can’t remember the names of your closest contacts, then you have different problems. And relying on an algorithm what is interesting or not to look at while out and about is equally silly. Look at life yourself. Don’t have some company dictate what you might like.
we need laws to forbid the use of algorithms in social media, not allow it to even further dictate our lives.
(rant over)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve Job's Cousin
Many fans may disagree, but I can summarise Apple's current product simply using two pictures:

6fc66a904dabb64c1bb66cc04a156e9e.png


a9cac735802263e6053e973d218d17ad.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
Vision Pro is just insanely expensive for casual users who might buy one for consuming movies and TV. AU$6,000 is far, far beyond consumers in the current economic climate where just paying rent and groceries is a struggle.
It is for developers, including Apple. If you don't gain experience now as a company, you'll never get to the endgame: persistent AR with minimal hardware. I think that is a decade away (at minimum) but I hope to be pleasantly surprised😊
 
“….it is mind blowing to watch a butterfly flit by so closely it feels like you can reach out and touch it….”

Er, go to the park.


“….or to see the rough skin of an elephant as it walks right by you….”

One word, three letters, starts with ‘z’.
The blue thumbs are beating the red thumbs and the heart is confirming the victory.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: arkitect
It is said that many people reach a point in their lives where they no longer see new technology as progressive, but even as a hindrance.

I'm 40 years old and I think all this AR stuff is the point for me. I love technology more than anything, but I can't identify with this technology because I think it will have a significant negative impact on fundamental things in social interaction and relationships.
 
I find it astonishing when people make statements like: “I don’t get why Apple made the Vision Pro, smart glasses are the future”.

That’s like going back to the mid 70s and saying: “don’t make this clunky overpriced mobile phone that’s the size of a suitcase, make a smart phone that fits in my pocket”.

Or going further back to the 1930s and saying: “don’t make that huge, expensive tv with a tiny black and white screen, make a 60” OLED flat screen”.

The AVP is the simply a starting point, you only get to the smart glasses by starting somewhere. Blows my mind that people can’t grasp the fact most mainstream tech starts off clunky and expensive.
 
I think Apple is playing the long game with AVP. They burned a ton of R&D cash to get it to launch and they continue to burn profits supporting a product that is now in production but almost certainly not generating a net contribution to the company bottom line, even with it's hefty price tag. They don't make mistakes like this. They wouldn't be in business. They're consciously doing it so even if it isn't obvious, there are benefits to Apple. Think of all the R&D wins: what works, what doesn't. Think of the manufacturing wins: what we can build reliably, what we cannot. And all of the feedback on usage: motion sickness, comfort, use cases etc. All of this will at some point make it into a next generation device. It will be more compact, practical and mass-market. Glasses? Perhaps a smaller version of AVP. I think they realise that isolating nature of AVP is not a good look, so something different is coming. Perhaps glasses. I think there would be a lot of interest in something like a miniaturised version of the Meta glasses, but with Apple privacy focus.
 
I guess I should have clarified "in your home!"
No worries - you did a great recap, Juli!

On a side note, it would be great if in the Top Rated Comments section the commented article (which opens the forum thread) could be truncated at some point. To be honest, I would disable the ability to quote the original post altogether—I'm not sure why some people quote the entire thing when it's abundantly clear which article they are commenting on. Cheers!
 
If these were a $999 and were a bit lighter would people still be moaning?
No.
So the idea it’s a dead end product is a bit silly. It’s like when they said 4k lcd tv wasn’t worth 10 grand because there was no content for it and plasma was better etc

Even the solo problem is silly as when this is cheap enough two or more people will just wear headsets together and share the experience.

Right now, just like any new product it is ridiculously expensive and has design issues. Name me a brand new product that didn’t have this? Do people remember how big mobile phones were in the 80s and 90s??

The big question is should Apple be getting into product categories this early? Some say that Apple only develops product categories that can be mass market and have a lot of usage issues ironed out already. Maybe that’s why people are annoyed because of their view of Apple.

If this product wasn’t Apple branded I don’t think people would be this upset. If Sony or some startup did it people would be a lot more forgiving.

I think Apple at some point have to drive the future. What else can they do with all the billions they have? And it means doing more vision pro’s, or investing in self driving cars etc even if it fails. This is the point of being a big company. You lead.

Do we really want Apple to be another xerox where there’s all this great stuff in the lab that never sees the light of day because everything has to be a smash hit?
Nah, that’s not it at all.
 
bought an AVP 3 months ago. The shine has worn off it now, and while I won’t take it to work, I still use it at least every other day. I can wear it for hours, and it’s great for watching content. But it can do things that my two screens can’t. Working on a project in Freeform and blowing it up to the size of a wall is amazing. Screen sharing my MBP when I’m working on enormous spreadsheets is great too. I can’t wait for the higher def screen sharing that’s coming. So, for me, after a few months, it’s not sitting in its case ignored. I’m really excited to see where this is going because at the moment, it seems to be moving there quite fast.

Also, is it just me, or is the release of a short film on Apple TV not that big of a deal? It’s not that folk aren’t excited about the technology, it’s just a short film.
 
Watching movies on the Vision Pro is not a better experience than using the 65-inch TV in front of my couch.

I laughed out loud and stopped reading right there. If that’s your take, more power to you, but I couldn’t disagree more nor find that further from my own experience with it.

Everyone’s experiences with devices are different and I have no reason to believe that the author is being disingenuous but IMO there is simply no equating the two for video content let alone immersive or 3D content so to make that kind of statement couldn’t be further from my own experience and makes the rest of the article, whatever good points there might be, a waste of time if we disagree on something so fundamental.

With that being said if that’s your experience with the device why you’d not immediately take it back is given its price is completely and totally beyond me and IMO hurts the authors credibility. That part makes no sense whatsoever to me.,
 
I use my AVP to enhance my productivity more than to consume content. I seldom use my MacBook Pro without it. I find the ability to use AVP apps while using MBP apps to be quite useful. I find I can wear it for four or more hours at a time since I added some $30 clips and another Apple headband to help support the device.
 
I laughed out loud and stopped reading right there. If that’s your take, more power to you, but I couldn’t disagree more nor find that further from my own experience with it.

Everyone’s experiences with devices are different and I have no reason to believe that the author is being disingenuous but IMO there is simply no equating the two for video content let alone immersive or 3D content so to make that kind of statement couldn’t be further from my own experience and makes the rest of the article, whatever good points there might be, a waste of time if we disagree on something so fundamental.

With that being said if that’s your experience with the device why you’d not immediately take it back is given its price is completely and totally beyond me and IMO hurts the authors credibility. That part makes no sense whatsoever to me.,
The reason is simple. Experience is not just about ‘What do I see and what do I hear’, but much more about how I feel while using it.

And if something globular is pressed into your face, then I probably feel better served with a ‘ridiculous’ 65 LG OLED.
 
  • Like
Reactions: klasma
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.