Technology

I think vr is cool but it would definitely be a novelty thing that would be played with for a while then put away and rarely touched again.

I wonder how many occulus rifts are collecting dust right now

Same problem any other consumer VR headset has. They’re solutions without a problem. Just build it and the apps will magically appear. Maybe some more will appear for Apple because they can throw some resources at it, but VR as a tool is clunky with things like wrist-mounted toolsets vs the speed of keyboard hotkeys or shortcuts for activating or switching between common functions. For consuming media and games they can be great, but it’s trapped in the limbo of not enough people have HMD to spend development money on apps and games, and there aren’t enough apps and games to attract enough people.

I will be waiting for the full dive version of VR because I don't want to look like an idiot in real life😂

No desire honestly. It’s cool I guess…🤷

A really, really cool solution for problem nobody has.

I have yet to try it myself, but in principle I think it's a bit of a solution in search of a problem.

The tech is impressive, but I can't shake the feeling that they focussed too hard on the wrong things. It's not as good for VR gaming as other headsets, and imo an AR/MR device needs to be extremely lightweight, so you can wear it comfortably for at least a few hours. That leaves maybe movies I guess, but even for those some cheaper headsets are usually more than good enough.

So what exactly is the selling point for this thing? Who and what is it for?! Seems to me like it's more of a research device than anything else, to get the ball rolling for more in the future.

The immersive media experience is the killer feature right now. The whole browsing websites and pinning work stuff up in space is a novelty that will wear off. Predict everyone will go back to using their physical multi-monitor setups.

3D videos, apps, and games that take advantage of immersion will push the envelope.

I tried it and it had a hard time giving me the right focus with the inserts they had at the store, so wasn't quite as clear as my PSVR2 with good inserts. But the resolution and tracking are great. It's a very good proof of concept for AR, but that's about it.

For me, VR gaming is my main use case, and PSVR2 is the most cost effective way to get a high end experience there for me.

IMO AVP isn't cost effective for anything unless you really need to have 10 iPad screens open at once, and even then it's only marginally cheaper than buying 10 iPads.

I’d really love to have one, but that $3500 is going to have a bigger impact on my life if it stays in my bank account. I might eventually get a quest 3 to live the fantasy a little, though, if they borrow some of Apple’s tricks in a future OS update.

Ngl, I want one. But I don't think I'll pay for one right now haha.

I just think it's cool. But I heard it requires you to have an iPhone. So.. That rules me out.

I was interested in VR for a very long time. Recently, I got to actually try it out.

I primarily view Apple Vision Pro as a proof of concept type of device. Sales being limited both in quantity and territorially indicate that. It has brought 3 major improvements to the table, compared to other headsets:

1. Quality of passthrough
2. User interface
3. Display quality

When you think about it, however, it's not that much to make it an obvious choice over other devices.

Passthough is needed for navigating through space. It does not help with productivity as your vision would be focused on the interface and not the environment. Remember warping on Quest 3? Much less noticeable than on videos for the exact same reason.

There is no buts with the user interface and display. They are simply great, best that there is.

Now, for the part that makes Vision Pro from a great productivity device on paper into a "dev kit available to masses" (I like that description, it does feel that way a lot, ty Ghostalmedia)

Eye strain is a major issue. It is very difficult to use the device for more than a couple of hours without getting tired. This goes for all of the VR headsets out there. I guess you can get used to it over time, though.

Limited usability. Quest 2/3, Pico 4, Valve Index, they all do things you wish Vision Pro could. Primarily usage of physical controllers. Imagine sculpturing without controllers because I can't. Hand tracking is just not up to par.

Battery solution is another issue. Not being able to swap what is otherwise a Power Bank without disabling the device and being unable to use any other battery than Apple's own is at the very least annoying. Not exactly an issue if you're too tired by the time it runs out.

Finally, the VR space itself is unfortunately not mature enough. There's a lot of work still to be done. Even when talking games, despite some amazing titles like Half-life Alyx, the vast majority where controls wouldn't make you dizzy are all pretty much like arcade mini-games, where you either teleport from point to point or not move at all. Developers simply have yet to figure out an organic way of user navigating through virtual space. (Doesn't mean they aren't fun, though)

Overall, I believe Vision Pro isn't really a mass consumer product, but it did do a lot by bringing more attention to VR as a whole, as well as pointing out additional user-cases for the technology. Because of Vision Pro, Meta started paying more attention to details, which ultimately will benefit the consumer (in fact, it already has yeilded results).

I would get it if it was FOSS - in fact I'm working on a FOSS AR web based OS myself. But I wouldn't voluntarily touch any Apple products with a 3m stick.

Let me amend the question: Why do people think of Apple's headset?

I'll buy one if the Formula 1 demo with the 3D track in addition to the TV feed becomes reality. And live VR onboards maybe.

It's the first expensive iteration of something that could become viable if costs come down as production scales up.

In fairness to Apple, it's a powerful device and is the sort of device VR manufacturers are trying to converging towards. Their's is an all in one unit, with powerful on board processing so it gives high quality VR without tethering. It also has a lot of sensors built in, both negating the need for external sensors and hand control devices.

Compare that to other high end VR, and the competition remains high end tethered devices such as the Valve Index which is an expensive headset, limited to a room with sensors, tethered to a decent gaming PC, and requiring hand controllers to interact with the world. At the other end you have cheaper all-in-one devices like the Quest 2 which try to do what the Vision Pro does to an extent but are too limited techwise due to the price point they're targetting.

A valve index is about £1k, and a decent gaming PC is about £1-2k depending on how high end you go. The Vision Pro is £2.7k ($3.5k, but pre-tax); more expensive and perhaps offering less than the PC would beyond VR but still not crazy far away numbers wise. And it is offering a paradigm shift towards how VR is likely to be in the future.

All the stuff about it being a "new" device type ("spatial computing") is marketing nonsense - this is an AR/VR headset but it is one that's ahead of it's time as an expensive gamble by Apple to take a stake in the future. Expect a Vision Pro 2 in the next year or two with similar power but a lower price, but also I'd expect other manufacturers such as Meta and Valve to be converging on the same type of device from the other direction. But I'd honestly expect it to be more like 5+ years before such devices with similar specs to the Vision Pro are mass market and "affordable". Like, £3k for a headset would be a no to me; but £1.5k for something that did that... that'd be expensive but getting into an affordable luxury for me. And is they were convincing around some of the "spatial computing" type productivity apps missing from game centred VR being a UIP, then it's more like considering a new lap top and a £1.5-2k devices starts becoming a real consideration.

And as an expensive gamble it seems to be paying off. Supposedly 200,000 sold so far at $3.5k a pop - thats $700m in revenue. Even if it's not massively profitable per device, thats a good user base for such an expensive product and hints this could be something that does well as the price comes down. This is well away from mass market appeal, but I can see a trajectory where this becomes affordable as a luxury computing device first before eventually becoming mass market.

Rich with little space for an office prob worries for you other than that...

Meh.

It's not designed for or good for VR gaming. As an AR device, I find it a bit silly since I can just look at a real screen. It would be a novelty at $100, but at the price Apple wants I kind of think of it like a joke.

I’d love to have one - after a few more years’s worth of releases and refinements.

They identify people in public that should probably be robbed. So they're useful for that I suppose.

I'm very interested in the "floating giant 4K screens" part, especially paired with a tiny MacBook Air, and some other uses seem fun. Real uses of AR passthru can be amazing, tagging everything around you with information. At $3500, it's half the price of a single XDR display.

But I'm waiting for gen 2 or later, there's no way the current weight & battery life are usable for my needs. It's a dev kit right now, and while I'm an iOS dev sometimes, it's too small a market to be profitable for me.

They’re a $4000 dev kit that the public can also buy.

I don't think about them at all to be honest. Total disinterest.

I think they are ridiculous... They may bring $500 worth of enhancement or productivity for people under special circumstances...

Very definitely not worth the ridiculous price tag

Wouldn't wear those publicly without having skis on, but with all that latency that ain't safe.