Apple Vision Pro: Apple’s first spatial computer

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/introducing-apple-vision-pro/

by samwillis • 3 years ago

2608 2829 3 years ago

apple.com

illuminati19114• 3 years ago

3499. Could this finally be the turning point and beginning of collapse of Apple?

bsaul2• 3 years ago

for purely professional usage, it's still fine. But it'll remain quite niche.

throwaway4good2• 3 years ago

We didn’t get the car but we got the price tag.

smoldesu2• 3 years ago

No. But it's an outrageous price for a redundant product that most people will not purchase. I don't see any meaningful market leverage for Apple here relative to Meta - if the selling point for this is "experiences, plus iPhone apps" then everyone with an iPhone will get a Quest or similar and save a few thousand bucks.

just-ok• 3 years ago

I suppose if you think of it as a high-end MacBook Pro + display, it’s an easier pill to swallow.

ChildOfChaos6• 3 years ago

It might be, but you still need the MacBook Pro if you want to use this as a Mac. So this is just the display, that can access some iPad apps.

Although I still think it's pretty awesome, need to give it a few years and see the price come down and a few versions later, this tech will be very interesting in the 5-10 year time space, what a crazy time that is going to be with AI and all this stuff.

bunga-bunga2• 3 years ago

I'll believe it when I see Xcode running on the thing. Plus I would not want to be seen around wearing that thing.

illuminati19114• 3 years ago

Of course if we lie to ourselves. It's just an iOS app browser inside Oculus Quest like product + Disney content.

threeseed7• 3 years ago

Apple won't have the supply chain to make this a consumer product for years.

So it makes no sense to price it at $399.

replygirl• 3 years ago

It's just disappointing when we know they can easily afford to go Fairchild and hit $2k to help commoditize it a little

stephc_int132• 3 years ago

I don't think this is a revolution but it might be a good enough improvement over existing/previous XR devices.

It certainly seems better than Microsoft Hololens. Basically the same idea but with higher end hardware and more refined.

This does not look like to be a turning point either way, it is priced out of mass market adoption, but it will be an interesting toy for many.

fsloth2• 3 years ago

A high end VR/XR display like Varjo does feel like a new ux paradigm if the device has low latency and high resolution and good software. Given how long Apple has been at this I would bet they’ve come up with something that is of expected quality.

Some of the stuff on display felt gimmicky, but I would imagine as bare minimum there are lot of people who are happy to have a private huge 4k screen they can move anywhere.

whartung• 3 years ago

Into an ecosystem where people buy a $1000 watch, $1000 phone, $200 earphones, and a $2000 computer.

There is absolutely a market for this, the demo experiences are extraordinary.

I have no idea what the Meta experience is like, but even in ignorance, it's not like what this thing is doing.

They were correct in saying this is something only Apple can do.

There are a lot of isolated technophiles with money to burn to put into something like this. The idea of lifting your mac into space with nothing but a keyboard and mouse in front of you alone is enough for many to pop for this. Talk about bringing your office into the local Starbucks, this moves it to the next level.

brucethemoose2• 3 years ago

Starts at $3499

Thar she bloooows!

comment_ran13• 3 years ago

what a year to be alive!

arek_nawo2• 3 years ago

$3499 is a high price, but if Apple can deliver, this might just be the next iPhone-like product.

KMnO4• 3 years ago

It’s effectively a nonstarter. $3499 USD prices this way beyond the grasp of everyone but a small minority of enthusiasts and professionals.

And considering Apple isn’t really known for dropping product prices as the years go by, all this really does is tell us that the tech just isn’t ready for mass production yet.

I’m considering this, like Google Glass, to be a neat proof-of-concept.

petercooper• 3 years ago

$3499 USD prices this way beyond the grasp of everyone but a small minority of enthusiasts and professionals.

In a world of $1000 cellphones, $2000 computers and $40k cars, I wouldn't be so sure. I suspect if the prices do stay this high, it'll get priced on a monthly like how many people pay for their phones or cars.

germinalphrase• 3 years ago

Presumably, they would go the SE route where the Pro model retains highest performance and price while the SE model inherits the tech from past generations.

bowsamic• 3 years ago

$3499 USD prices this way beyond the grasp of everyone but a small minority of enthusiasts and professionals.

That's a really bizarre thing to say. People will literally spend that on a fancy watch. They will spend 30 times that on a car.

synaesthesisx2• 3 years ago

I’ll go out on a limb and say it will be far more popular than people think. I’m ready to preorder one (although perhaps I fall into the enthusiast & early adopter category).

This can’t be compared to other headsets out there, and is rather in an entirely different product category.

arek_nawo2• 3 years ago

Compared to what you are (potentially) getting for the price it's not that high - especially when viewed as a work tool or business expense. You can easily pay more for tech it could replace, like monitors, headphones, speakers, lower-end laptops and desktops even.

The only drawback I can see is the 2h battery and potential fatigue from wearing something on your head, near the eyes for longer periods of time. Maybe that'll be a non-issue? Will have to wait and see.

mackid• 3 years ago

1977 Apple ][ Introductory price US$1,298 (equivalent to $6,270 in 2022)

I think folks are missing the point that this is the first Pro version. Likely targeted at developers and early adopters. I’m sure there will be an Air/Lite/etc version that cost reduces overtime.

jw12245• 3 years ago

I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be as revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even more so.

---

EDIT: To clarify this statement...

- For personal/entertainment use it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.

- For business use, the days of multiple displays and screen management seem set to be a relic of the past. I look forward to coding in an IDE which isn't constrained to a physical device sat on my desk, or replying to emails "on the beach" versus under fluorescent lighting. My work environment will soon become consistent, without relying on the realities of my real-world physical environment. Think about people working from home with little-to-no desk space: this solves that problem.

- In response to the obvious criticisms (high price, battery life, form factor, weird eyeball thing)... this is Gen 1. Look how quickly the iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between generations 1 to 3, and look how the price changed as production capabilities and economies of scale evolved.

- Personally, I've been using Apple devices for 20 years. This is the first novel Apple device I've felt genuinely excited about since first joining the ecosystem. Will I use it for everything? No. Will the first version be perfect? No. Does it offer a whole new paradigm to any one of the physical devices I already own...? Yes! If Apple's reputation for growth and improvement in other product categories historically is anything to go by, I look forward to seeing how ubiquitous this becomes in 5 or 10 years from now.

newaccount742• 3 years ago

I think more iPad level. A successful product, but not something everyone will have.

jonwinstanley7• 3 years ago

Not for a while, but this is v1. When they’re cheaper, smaller and lighter who knows

bunga-bunga2• 3 years ago

At 3500 this will be niche at best. They'll sell half the units of Watch Ultra if they're lucky.

braymundo• 3 years ago

I can’t wait to see the second generation. And with Apple giving some good attention to game developers, the possibilities are incredibly interesting!

vertigolimbo4• 3 years ago

It won't. Sadly. Can't justify spending 3K on... family calls, tiresome multiscreen development environment, finally - games? Won't happen unfortunately.

sebzim45008• 3 years ago

The original iPhone was also a bit of a waste of money so that doesn't really disprove their point.

LapsangGuzzler2• 3 years ago

tiresome multiscreen development environment

...that fits in your bag. This is huge for folks like me that want to travel without lugging around a large display. If the visual integrity is there, it's gonna be worth it for me.

rtkwe3• 3 years ago

This first version sure but if they're able to bring the costs down and maintain the relative power it's a pretty neat implementation of the idea.

sekai3• 3 years ago

It won't. Sadly. Can't justify spending 3K on... family calls, tiresome multiscreen development environment, finally - games? Won't happen unfortunately.

You missed one, porn.

jsheard3• 3 years ago

The scope for games on this is pretty narrow without the dual independently tracked controllers you get with the Quest/PSVR/etc.

They'd have to work with hand tracking (low accuracy, no buttons or sticks, no haptics) or a conventional console controller (limited immersion).

Nearly all existing VR games are built around dual controllers and would need significant reworking/compromises to be playable on the Vision Pro.

kllrnohj7• 3 years ago

What's different about it compared to Occulus or Samsung Gear or any other existing attempts at this?

Virtual movie theaters and virtual monitors haven't really been compelling use cases for putting an ugly sweat box on your face so far. What about slapping an Apple logo on it and pricing it even further out of reach changes that in your mind?

newZWhoDis• 3 years ago

Less space than a nomad, too

sgt2• 3 years ago

Usually Apple comes along and builds it so well that people will actually start using it. Oculus and the others are still a pretty niche thing.

SparkyMcUnicorn• 3 years ago

... bring the powerful capabilities of their Mac into Vision Pro wirelessly, creating an enormous, private, and portable 4K display with incredibly crisp text.

If this "incredibly crisp text" is true, then I want it. Nobody has done this yet.

afavour2• 3 years ago

People are going to reply to you and say "what made the iPod different from the Nomad"... inarguably the iPod was hugely successful where the Nomad wasn't.

I don't think it's a great comparison. The MP3 players in the pre-iPod era were all made by tiny players no-one had heard of. The Oculus in particular has absolutely massive backing and still hasn't amounted to a lot.

I suspect the differentiator will be software, not hardware. In particular the willingness of third parties to create software. Apple has a good record there at least.

zamadatix8• 3 years ago

The sweat box is actively cooled this time. I'm concerned about the price as well though, even if it is fantastic beyond all expectations of what was presented that's a really hard price for most to justify for the feature set shown. Showing things like true and proper Disney+ integration day 1 gives hope for big name support vs just special one off demos for headsets of the past though. At the same time, they are going to need a lot more properly integrated apps for it to reach success status.

seanalltogether• 3 years ago

Most VR so far has been designed to isolate you from your surrounding environment, and is the opposite. Also the ability to use it without controllers makes the whole thing feel less intrusive/burdensome to use.

beezlebroxxxxxx• 3 years ago

I think the:

- existing apple ecosystem;

- the fact that this looks far more AR focused than the VR focused stuff I've currently seen;

- the public's perception of the Apple brand and its build quality (questionable if real, but an undeniable public perception nonetheless) could get around the "ugly sweat box" vibe you've described;

- the willingness for app-makers to build for the ecosystem;

- the 4k and (apparent) visual quality;

...could make this successful, or at least iPad-like in terms of dominating a market.

Hard to know for sure though until we get some actual reviews and footage of people wearing it.

steveoscaro3• 3 years ago

I have an Oculus2 and a PSVR2, and the Apple headset seems like an entirely different thing. It's meant to replace your mac computer and your tv.

Yes with the headsets I have, you can surf the web and technically try to write code, but it's not a good experience. And those displays basically still suck. You can see the pixels, and the lenses create weird effects. If Apple has solved this, and the presence of the screen and lenses is just "forgotten", it's going to be a huge step forward. It'll be a device to actually be productive on, let alone watch movies and play games, IMO.

jansan4• 3 years ago

The difference is the AR, which will eventually make it wearable in everyday life. When setting the perimeter, the Oculus already shows the surrounding using it's integrated cameras. This will be the future. I don't think the first version of Apple's AR mask will be a huge success, because it still looks too dorky. But in a few years you will see many people wearing sunglasses that double as phone screens all the time.

kjreact9• 3 years ago

My take would be that it would be Apples track record of making software work well with the hardware, more seamlessly than either Samsung or Meta.

Just look at the virtual avatar they demoed compared with Meta’s. Apple went with a more professional looking avatar instead of a cartoony one.

Another app that was shown was a Birds Eye view of a basketball game. I’d love to be able to watch a sporting event live from that perspective (if I could stomach the entry fee for the experience).

I was on the fence about this product, thinking that there wouldn’t be many good use cases, but their presentation gave some activities that I’d want to try on the hardware. Whereas Meta’s presentation didn’t show anything I was interested in.

Apple is giving developers 6+ months to make even more interesting apps. I think there’s a good chance that this could be a successful product. But I should hold my judgement until I’ve seen the caveats of this device (ie comfort, battery life, display quality, etc). I’m sure we’ll see more in-depth looks in the coming months. We can judge it more fairly when these reviews come out.

tkanarsky3• 3 years ago

I've said this before, but Apple's attention to detail might finally bridge the uncanny valley to actually good AR. I can elaborate a bit more when I get on my computer.

jolux• 3 years ago

No controllers, no waving your arms about. Eye tracking and hand gestures for navigation. Screen on the front that shows your face to make it feel less isolating. I don't know that it'll be a success but it's a lot more than just putting an Apple logo on it.

SirMaster2• 3 years ago

Probably the fact that this uses microOLED at a much higher resolution than anything before.

And that it's very light weight and more comfortable fitting and probably wont be a sweatbox.

ilaksh• 3 years ago

Thr fact that the battery is separate should be a huge improvement for comfort because one of the biggest problems with most existing devices is their weight. Another thing to check is how much heat the device transfers to the user. Or in general the comfort. Also the fact that you can easily see you surroundings should help.

EnragedParrot2• 3 years ago

What compelling use cases did the average consumer see for carrying around a computer in their pocket before Apple released the iPhone? There were a bunch of devices on the market all kinda doing what iPhone did, but Apple made it make sense for the average consumer.

balaji1• 3 years ago

Gaming could be much be better on a VR/AR device, and a reason to put on a "ugly sweat box" initially. Apple did not go deep into that, only a brief segment about the Unity collab. Maybe gaming is not their forte right now.

Apple Vision v3 will not be a sweat box. And even right now, Occulus interface has to evolve to match this. Controller has to be optional. It has to be AR.

JumpCrisscross7• 3 years ago

What's different about it compared to Occulus or Samsung Gear or any other existing attempts at this?

It's sexy. Also, it's Apple, which means–given the price tag–it's unlikely to be shit, and if it is, I'll have some semblance of support.

caconym_15• 3 years ago

What about slapping an Apple logo on it and pricing it even further out of reach changes that in your mind?

Probably the fact that Apple has an excellent track record of entering nascent consumer electronics markets late (e.g. iPod, iPhone, Apple Watch) at high price points, nailing the execution, and eventually dominating said markets with arguably superior products.

It's the same story again and again. If you've already decided Apple is charging $3000 for "slapping an Apple logo on it" and nothing else, you may as well have been one of the people back in ~2001 who swore up and down that the iPod was just an overpriced late entry in a market full of mature, attractive offerings like the Archos Jukebox line. In retrospect, to be clear, you would have looked quite silly.

I'm not saying this thing is absolutely going to be a success, but the problem with previous attempts at virtual displays has been that the execution is always shit, and Apple's greatest strength is nailing the execution. I don't think betting against them here is a good bet.

confoundcofound3• 3 years ago

Do you think people will enjoy living with a headset strapped to their face? The shots of that dad playing with his daughters while wearing the device seemed like a stretch that I'm surprised Apple took. This is the company that takes its "Human Interface Guidelines" seriously.

bsaul2• 3 years ago

Yes, that part also shocked me. It looks like they've completely lost their mind, and don't realize they're shooting a remake of black mirror..

peyton5• 3 years ago

I dunno, beats pulling out a phone and fumbling with the record button.

oezi7• 3 years ago

I think the remote worker in a hotel was a more likely take.

A lot will depend on the quality of the virtual avatar generated for you while in a video call.

micromacrofoot2• 3 years ago

I didn't think people would enjoy looking at a 6 inch screen while hunched over for every second of their waking lives, but here we are.

outworlder2• 3 years ago

Do you think people will enjoy living with a headset strapped to their face?

Yes, while they are working on something. I've often wanted to 'take my screen with me' as I moved to a different location.

meling• 3 years ago

I agree. This was more amazing than I had expected upfront. I can envision myself using this for developing code as well, but I think I will have a hard time convincing my boss…

alexb_3• 3 years ago

I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be as revolutionary as the Apple TV. Perhaps even less so (if such a thing is possible).

fsloth2• 3 years ago

Apple TV is excellent? Is there a better device? (If you don’t want to use the apps bundled with tv).

mryingster• 3 years ago

Unironically, the Apple TV is my favorite Apple device. It does exactly what it says it does, is inexpensive, and has a good interface. It just works.

Exuma• 3 years ago

You are high as a kite. AppleTV is one of the greatest things in my househould. The UI is world's beyond whatever ad-filled garbage "smartOS" my TV uses.

civilitty• 3 years ago

Using a product I already paid for without getting served any ads is pretty revolutionary /s

basisword3• 3 years ago

Apple TV is easily my favourite Apple product. Of all the Apple products it's the one that works flawlessly and gets out of my way. I could give up my Mac and switch to Windows before I would switch to an Apple TV competitor.

mensetmanusman2• 3 years ago

Are you including the remote which, for free, comes with no mute button?

seanmcdirmid7• 3 years ago

No wireless. Less pixels than an 8K TV. Lame.

jonwinstanley7• 3 years ago

Apple TV is great, I’ve bought a few over the years

Philip-J-Fry• 3 years ago

I used to think Apple TV was unimpressive. I had an Android TV which turned to shit after like 3 years. Apple TV though? Runs like a dream, still gets updates, has nice integrations with my iPhone. It's one of the best "plug and play" Apple devices there is. It "just works".

I went from finding it unimpressive to it being my first recommendation for anyone getting a TV. Screw regular smart TV software, just get the TV with the best panel and use Apple TV. So long as the TV doesn't break, you won't need to upgrade for a long long time.

jejeyyy772• 3 years ago

lol, except the Apple TV is awesome...?

m3kw98• 3 years ago

Seriously? You still stuck in the 2d world!

mithr4• 3 years ago

I wouldn't really make a statement like the above, and I can't say I necessarily agree with it... that being said, other folks on this thread are kinda missing the point OP made: it's not that Apple TV isn't good. It's that it isn't, and never really was, revolutionary.

It's an arguably best-in-class app-based TV watching experience. But its market share is pretty small years after launch, it hasn't caused much change/adaptation in the market as a whole as a result of existing, and it's not really at the center of any kind of cultural conversation.

I am really curious to learn more details about Vision Pro (like... how much does it weigh?), and would be even more curious to learn about the market fit research Apple must have done to believe there's a place for this device, especially at this price point. The biggest omission for me was the placement of the headset as device on which to view movies, and see pictures of your kids, while at the same time completely sidestepping the question of how you'd do that together with your family, which is how these activities are typically performed in a household with children.

stocknoob2• 3 years ago

Once people get an AppleTV, do they go back to a chromcast/roku/firestick/media pc?

It has a higher MSRP than the others, but once you get one…

doctoboggan5• 3 years ago

Agreed, I think this is going to be big, but it does very much have the feel of a first apple product. Especially wearing it to record 3d videos, I am sure now that there will be a 3d camera on the next iPhone pro.

justinator6• 3 years ago

Oh wow an anonymous hn user makes an optimist statement about new technology - lots riding on that!

jw12245• 3 years ago

You can invest in my opinions, from just $3999™!

znagengast• 3 years ago

Compared to how much progress the iPhone made from initial launch to now, the potential for this product line is very exciting.

SanderNL3• 3 years ago

And I will go on record saying this is nice and all, but fundamentally just some incremental progress. Absolutely not an iPhone moment.

The idea of having a fully immersive 3D environment around you is cool, but I haven’t had any VR experience that didn’t turn out to be eventually a headache let alone actually productive. Even with gaming I can only name a few titles that actually benefit, but for the ones that do the effect is quite something, I’ll admit that.

comment_ran13• 3 years ago

That's definitely a big concern about the physical pen. If it's too heavy or if it's too hot, it will overperform or perform some CPU intense work. Also the fitting using your eye with such a close contact with the digital device is another issue.

jonwinstanley7• 3 years ago

Not sure how you can say it’s incremental. I’d say it’s quite a jump from the other mixed reality products we’ve seen so far

whynaut2• 3 years ago

but it's AR?

isp2• 3 years ago

The idea of hybrid AR/VR - adjusted by a dial (crown) - is very clever. As is a high-resolution display.

But the form factor is a problem.

If it had all of the capabilities announced but combined with the Google Glass form factor of ultra thin & light - then it would be a device more revolutionary than the iPhone.

But the form factor makes it much more niche.

And the tech just doesn't exist in the year 2023 to make a device with that sweet-spot combination of high capability and tiny form factor.

(My two cents, which I am hoping ages better than the infamous HN Dropbox comment.)

billti2• 3 years ago

You do recall that when the iPhone came out we already had Blackberry, HTC, Windows Mobile, Nokia already making smart phones with touch screens and apps right?

Sure the experience was terrible, but that's the same play here. Apple generally takes a technology space which is a little early and poorly done by others, and ships a great experience across hardware, software, and ecosystem to capture a market.

bluescrn2• 3 years ago

Was there really an 'iPhone moment', though?

The success of the iPhone has been all about the 'incremental progress'.

zjaffee• 3 years ago

Strongly disagree that this will be as revolutionary as the iphone. The iphone, and smart phones as a platform were revolutionary largely because of how portable they are.

This is much more comparable to a laptop than a phone, and it doesn't introduce new communications technology like the iphone did with there now being near universal real time access to people's cameras and gps location.

This feels like what the apple watch was to the iphone but instead to the MacBook pro.

comment_ran13• 3 years ago

Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with this comment as well. It is because how portable this device is, you have to think about the... Imagine you have an infinite amount of screen just in your pocket. What you say causes what you do, and that's a huge thing.

jonplackett• 3 years ago

I will happily go on record as saying I do not have $3,499 to spend on this, but I wish i did.

rafark3• 3 years ago

Loved it. It’s exactly how I imagined it. People didn’t have high expectations because they thought this was going to be a gaming device. I posted quite a few comments in the past months telling people vr glasses like this had so much potential for broader applications. I’m glad Apple is making this a reality. It’s going to be a wild success.

ChicagoBoy112• 3 years ago

I completely agree.

I'm one of the weird people who tried out the Google Glass. It was finnicky, 0 actual interaction with the modern world, lasted a good 45 minutes, melted your face, and had terrible audio.

But the thing is, if you could peak THROUGH the shortcomings, it was abundantly clear how an eyesight driven, glass form factor is the destination for computing. Smartphones were even less advanced at the time, but even then, we I tried for a few weeks making more extensive use of it, I would catch many glimpses of how "neat" this technology would be... even doing simple things like effortlessly capturing a picture on the spot, or videoconferencing with my gf (now wife!) showing her stuff in the grocery store and asking her what to get.

The AR capabilities, mixed with the essentially VR potential for movies/games, will totally be a thing and it'll totally live on our face as glasses. There can be details as to when exactly, price points ,etc., but the ubiquity of this sort of computing device will eclipse the iPhone when it comes time, and until then, slowly but surely change the nature of "working on a screen."

jbverschoor3• 3 years ago

Yes, Google Glass was fun, and geeky, but was SO bad.

This seems to be an actual well thought out product. The resolution is a lot higher than the meta quest 3, and delays will be super small.

They're marketing this for productivity, which for me is the main selling point for VR at this point. I want a more spatial desktop, and I want multiple screens on the go.

mantenpanther• 3 years ago

Only if it‘s comfortable to wear and not sickening. It must be a huge improvement over current devices like PS VR2, which I can physically not tolerate for long.

epolanski5• 3 years ago

For personal/entertainment use it completely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.

You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing. Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.

For business use, the days of multiple displays and screen management seem set to be a relic of the past. I look forward to coding in an IDE which isn't constrained to a physical device sat on my desk, or replying to emails "on the beach" versus under fluorescent lighting.

The IDE is an interesting perspective I too as a developer am thinking about. But there's a reason you can be as productive in 2023 as in 1983 using emacs or vim. Because it's insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboard.

In response to the obvious criticisms (high price, battery life, form factor)... this is Gen 1. Look how quickly the iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between generations 1 to 3, and look how the price changed as production capabilities and economies of scale evolved.

Smart watches have been anything but a groundbreaking technological revolution.

kjreact9• 3 years ago

You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.

Well Apple showed someone using the headset while lying down in bed. I’d say that Apple is making a bold statement about the comfort of their product. We’ll need to wait for hands on reviews to determine if it indeed is as comfortable as Apple implies it is.

pdabbadabba6• 3 years ago

a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.

Will it, though? Of course you could build a home theater with better sound, but I'd bet that the spatial audio built into AirPods delivers better sound that most peoples' home theater setups (which is generally just a TV with built in sound or a mediocre soundbar).

neuronic• 3 years ago

By Gen3 in 5 years, people will begin to buy these like iPhones and then multiple people will be able to watch via SharePlay.

3D images are probably coming to iPhone 15 or iPhone 16 so the posts about "who's gonna wear this to take pictures" are already moot.

This is a developer/enthusiast focused niche release providing perfect beta testing grounds while technology will shrink this device to a smaller and more practical form factor.

In 3-4 years, the current Vision Pro will be the standard Apple Vision product with a smaller form factor while a new Pro product will have more advanced features and lose its external battery.

I also think that Apple Vision will be successful but Gen1 is not where its at for the vast majority of users.

scyzoryk_xyz3• 3 years ago

You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.

Hey - the world's biggest computer company just went up on stage along with the director of the world's biggest entertainment conglomerate and made that 'bold assumption'. They're probably pretty careful about these sorts of things.

wslh6• 3 years ago

... Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people ...

I will point to this article: "Why Americans are lonelier and its effects on our health" [1] that claims that "some surveys reveal that around 60 percent of people in the U.S. right now report feeling lonely on a pretty regular basis. And that's pretty devastating from a public health perspective".

I don't know the real number but it connect with the market potential. Also, Apple is really great on hitting the mark. Playing with words, I don't think Mark is as good as Apple.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-americans-are-lonelier....

sho_hn6• 3 years ago

Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.

I was extremely surprised that shared reality was completely absent from the presentation. Apparently the sensors on these devices don't enable creating a coordinate system that multiple devices can collaborate on/in. You can't look at the same objects in space together.

This is hard stuff, but I'm stunned they're shipping it before solving that problem.

hinkley• 3 years ago

Smart watches have been anything but a groundbreaking technological revolution.

I think Apple has made a tactical error here. The days of the shrinking iPhone are long gone, but not forgotten. It was the iPhone 3G that was a turning point for people who hadn't bought an iPhone yet. It was smaller with better battery life.

If the Apple Watch 3 had followed a similar pattern, they would have had to skip adding the next additional sensor to the device, but I think in the long term that would have just delayed us one design cycle but still given us a thinner and lighter watch, which we would have needed for a deeper impact.

hparadiz5• 3 years ago

You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.

I've seen people pass out in VRChat with their headsets on. Some people on VRC are on there for 12+ hours a day. It's a fascinating sub culture I was totally shocked to learn about. People drink and do drugs while listening to music at a virtual rave. Multiple rooms full every Friday, Saturday 80-120 people in the room hanging out. I found myself up till 6 am lost in the music.

pivo• 3 years ago

it's insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboard

Totally agree. I just want to use this to replace my big bulky monitor that I can't take with me wherever I go and that makes my small place look a little more junky.

doctoboggan5• 3 years ago

For me it could go either way. I am willing to put up with wearing a headset if it unlocks some new use cases. But we really need to know the specs. I haven't seen anyone mention a field of view, refresh rate, pixel per degree, etc. And even with these specs I would need to actually try it to get a holistic feel for the product and its software.

rco8786• 3 years ago

You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.

Raises hand. I'm in for that. I'm a VR fan but my soapbox has always been that AR is the true future.

Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.

In the same way that when the iPhone came out there were individual devices that could do each feature better than the iPhone could, yes :)

If you look at video consumption, "individual" devices (phones, tablets, laptops) make up about 50% of viewing time. TV the rest. I don't think the multiple people angle is going to kill this considering how much content is consumed individually already.

A home cinema also has to be researched, purchased separately, takes up space, etc. Any pair of $200 Bose headphones sounds better than the old iPhone ear pods...and yet...

it's insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboard.

We're talking about replacing monitors, not text buffers or keyboards!

mgh22• 3 years ago

$3k: replaces a laptop, TV and computer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khMcq66_HeU

derefr11• 3 years ago

Because it's insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboard.

And why would you think this would seek to replace that, rather than complementing it? Fill up your entire vision with forty text buffers. Use a keyboard on a twelve-inch-deep shelf on one side of your bedroom with no monitor taking up space behind it.

samwillis2• 3 years ago

The accessibility of this product is going to be transformative in industry. There have been similar AR headsets for woking in some industrial sectors, but this makes it possible for all companies to develop apps specific to their work place. Every factory, every distribution centre, every construction site, every industrial site, every hospital, can have this integrated to guide their workforce in complex tasks.

Imagine this for surgeries, or complex construction tasks, even just finding items in a warehouse.

This is going to be massive in the workspace, thats where I think people probably underestimate it.

We may all end up with one of these - or the none "pro" version - at home, just as we have iPads laying around. But many of us are going to end ups waring these for many hours a day during work.

Taking of a headset when we go home will end up being a joy.

alexb_3• 3 years ago

What about $3500 says "accessibility" to you? You're just re-vomiting out all of the same promises VR companies have been making for the past half decade. No company is going to spend $3500 on a tool that easily breaks for low stakes jobs and is untested/unreliable for high stakes jobs.

atonse2• 3 years ago

For me 100% of the excitement is about the bajillion business ideas I've had hoping that VR would become more popular, when it just simply didn't get there.

Industry is where I'm a lot more excited.

kllrnohj7• 3 years ago

Google Glass tried to pivot towards industrial use (eg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IK-zU51MU4 ) - it didn't seem to go very well.

arcatech• 3 years ago

I REALLY don't want a doctor performing surgery on me with this thing on their face.

vsareto• 3 years ago

This is going to be massive in the workspace, thats where I think people probably underestimate it.

I don't think companies are going to spring this much for a headset and laptop until there's very obvious benefits, but maybe I've just been short-changed with shitty equipment my whole career.

Companies trying to get people to go back to the office, then ordering them VR headsets will be the height of tech irony.

JoeJonathan2• 3 years ago

Speaking as a total non-expert here: assuming workspaces _look_ good, I think this will entirely depend on software. What will it be like to use this with a keyboard? Will the OS be as siloed as iOS?

This morning, my mac wouldn't boot. I tried to write on my iPad instead. It was a nightmare: too cumbersome to move between apps, Zotero nearly unworkable, hard to navigate different file versions. If the OS works more like iOS than macOS, I can't imagine it being as useful as computers save for very specific applications.

Demmme11• 3 years ago

The price is to high for companies.

Laptop budget is 1-3k.

And people steal expensive shit. Alone the stealing is a deal breaker alone.

And we have working cheap AR glasses.

anonymouse0083• 3 years ago

You're speaking mips and bits...

This is not what got Apple to where it was. It was recognizing what we wanted to do to go further, individually and together, and amplified that with technology.

This literally amplifies your ass to the couch. I'm shocked. Stunned. And sad.

jw12245• 3 years ago

This literally amplifies your ass to the couch. I'm shocked. Stunned. And sad.

Were you “shocked/stunned/sad” about Apple TV? A product which physically relies on your ass being sat on the couch?

Think a little bigger here! This goes well beyond entertainment value. Imagine the general business uses in industry, manufacturing, medicine, conferencing, telecommunications, let alone any form of interpersonal interaction over long distances…

These are all things we take for granted with FaceTime, Google, GPT… All these are new but ubiquitous technologies, which allow us to enhance our human abilities and connect with each other in new and novel ways.

fnord772• 3 years ago

A TV is often a social device. this thing is not

lowbloodsugar3• 3 years ago

Not this version probably, just like the first version of the iPhone wasn't stellar. But as a new product line, this is the first VR/AR device I've seen that demonstrates a vision for the future that might work. For a one-day ubiquitous product, $3k is the entry level price. None of the existing devices support this vision - they are just VR hardware. Their lower price doesn't matter because that's not what's going to go mainstream.

gigel82• 3 years ago

I will go on record as saying this will be one of the biggest flops in Apple's modern hardware history.

They've shown no innovative scenarios that Hololens / Quest / Google Glass (and similar devices) hasn't shown before. Those things flopped because they didn't have the scenarios and nothing changed now.

hajile2• 3 years ago

For me, the big difference is apps. I have a Quest and there's not much usable stuff for it. I can see a lot of those ipad/iphone/mac apps as useful on an AR device.

Quality also matters. I don't really like looking through the Quest for very long. Fresnel lenses and meh screen combined with a terrible processor means the visual experience isn't very good. I'd bet a lot that their custom lenses and screens combined with a decent SoC offer a HUGE jump in visual fidelity.

geerlingguy• 3 years ago

Is this the new reverse-Dropbox reverse-iPhone HN groupthink meta? The question is, will we link back to this in 10 years as a gotcha as AR/VR is still 10 years away from mainstream then?

moralestapia• 3 years ago

this will be as revolutionary as the iPhone

I'm not so sure about that but I'm 100% sure that if anyone manages to pull that off it's going to be Apple.

Corollary: if this doesn't make AR/VR finally go mainstream then forget about it, it's 3D TV again.

wongarsu2• 3 years ago

Having multiple private large-scale screens anywhere, even on the train or plane, is huge. Many VR headsets tried delivering that, but so far the resolution just wasn't there. The article is a bit light on actual details, but at least the price point gives an indication that Apple might make it possible.

shadowgovt2• 3 years ago

I think it's a good risk, and the kind of risk Apple is well-positioned (as a combined owner of hardware, software, and third-party software ecosystem) to take.

Major we'll-see risk factors I identify:

1) $3,500 is expensive, any way you slice it. That makes it price-competitive with a workstation.

2) The stand-up-and-work environment they demo'd doesn't work for a lot of people. But if you sit down, you lose a lot of the benefit of that panoramic space.

3) Their gesture interface has to be rock-solid (meaning no false negatives but also no false positives) for it to be part of a daily work environment.

4) We've been experimenting with headsets for long enough to know that for the average user, the amount of time you can comfortably use one is lower than the amount of time seated at a mouse-keyboard-monitor UI.

5) The battery life is 2 hours, which is like nothing. You can use it plugged in, but then you're plugged in (meaning not only that you're tethered to somewhere, but that you've got the constant pressure of the tether disrupting your head motions, which adds up over time in irritation).

All of that having been said, if anyone has a prayer of overcoming these obstacles it's Apple. They've got the software / hardware / UI / UX integration in-house to take a solid run at the challenge.

comment_ran13• 3 years ago

I completely agree with your point about risk. When we're talking about risk, the opposite of risk is a great benefit, just like a starship. Captain Kirk said great risk we have, the more potential gain we probably gain. Stand-up work environment is also huge for me. I don't like sitting all the time in front of a desk. But I'm not sure if I sit down, all the benefits gonna last. Maybe it's just a choice. Maybe I can sit down doing some different kind of things. Or maybe I can lay on my bed, just do something else. The gesture interface has to be rock solid. I agree. Especially you're already doing something more fine-tune level things.For example, you want to manipulate a 3D object, but I think we can, or the engineering can finally overcome those difficulties by using those optical algorithms to track, to kind of think about a new way to interact with computer. Actually, if you think about the way we communicate with computer, all we're talking about is the keyboard, but does the keyboard is the only solution to all the problem we have? I don't think that is the only problem. The battery lapsed two hours, I'm not sure what exactly they mean. If it's just two hours, maybe it's a replaceable charge or something like that, maybe we can bring a bigger external battery. I'm not sure, but if it's just only working for two hours, that's going to be some potential issues here.

jandrese• 3 years ago

IMHO the biggest risk factor is that without a mass market version (running iPhone apps in a window doesn't count) the developers won't reach the critical mass you need to support a novel piece of hardware like this. $3500 is a shit ton to spend on a toy that lets you have a virtual Mickey Mouse standing next to a screen playing a Disney movie.

If nobody is buying the product then developers have no incentive to buy one either. The only software for it will be demos from Apple and extremely expensive bespoke professional applications for businesses, and that market is far too small for Apple to ever recoup their R&D costs, much less ongoing expenses.

The only way I see this working is if Apple themselves invent a killer application for the headset. Even then its going to struggle to find buyers at that price point. It doesn't matter how cool your hardware is if nobody can afford it. It's hard to see how they would even cut down the existing hardware to make a version for real people.

outworlder2• 3 years ago

I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be as revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even more so.

It seems to have the potential. The UX seems incredible. Little details like using eyes as a pointer make it for a far better experience (no, moving your head to point is not the same). Looking at your Macbook to pull apps from it is the sort of thing that can make it intuitive for the average user. A proper review of what this could do would take an article.

I think the main things we need to know are:

* What sort of apps can we use? Is this IOS-like, or can I run XCode on it? Having to own the headset plus a macbook is not going to make or break it, but it changes the value of the device at its current price point.

* Can we comfortably use it for 8+ hours a day?

* Is text really crisp enough for productivity usage?

I don't think this version is quite there yet, but give it a few iterations and we may be able to ditch physical monitors altogether. I've been waiting for that for a while.

At $3499 it's quite a gamble. At $999 it would have been a no-brainer, as that's the price of a phone. It does have way too much hardware for a lower price point, so it's understandable. But the more devices that exist, the greater the network effects.

wintogreen74• 3 years ago

> Can we comfortably use it for 8+ hours a day?

With 2 hours of battery life this is not a problem.

Miraste4• 3 years ago

I'm not sold on eyes as a pointer just yet. The Quest Pro can do this and it does not feel great. Based on experience with a lot of other headsets:

Can we comfortably use it for 8+ hours a day?

No. Even if the ergonomics are perfect, the screens aren't good enough for this.

Is text really crisp enough for productivity usage?

If they match the leaked resolution, no.

KallDrexx• 3 years ago

- In response to the obvious criticisms (high price, battery life, form factor, weird eyeball thing)... this is Gen 1. Look how quickly the iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between generations 1 to 3, and look how the price changed as production capabilities and economies of scale evolved.

The original iPhone released for $599, which is ~$876 2023 dollars based on CPI. So, while most of your bullet points about iPhone improving is true, the iPhone is the wrong thing to point to for economies of scale making Apple products cheaper over time.

prmoustache2• 3 years ago

So most people prefer holding their phone in the hand to using airpods to send voice messages or having calls.

What makes you think people will prefer strapping a much heavier and uncomfortable headset to watching a screen?

mellosouls3• 3 years ago

This sounds like a take from somebody who doesn't realise that's already there in headsets like the Quest that this presumably won't match in numbers.

What is brilliant here, are the specs giving some serious boost to the use cases already established by Meta/Oculus, NReal etc and services like Immersed, BigScreen etc.

But please, less of that breathless "Apple have invented this new thing" tone, it's annoying when they haven't.

Either do some basic research first, or if you have, then at least frame what you reckon is revolutionary in terms of the existing market.

I am sure from the specs, if not the price, that this is going to kick up some dust, but its not obviously inventing anything that isn't there already.

drdaeman5• 3 years ago

Not only they don't realize it already exists, they don't realize how bad it is.

There's never enough resolution (even with 8K headsets), eye strain from trying to focus on virtual objects is real, and camera passthrough always look fake (and may even cause mild nausea). Not to mention that most folks don't really train their neck muscles to support significant extra weight on their heads on front-back axis (we typically tilt our heads much less than lean forward or backward, so headphones are not comparable).

I don't believe Apple have made some giant leap and included an autorefractor in there and made external cameras moveable and able to match you pupillary distance (and convergence!), then added some fancy magnetostrictive micro-mirror system to dynamically boost resolution at the areas you're focusing at. Not in this form factor, and if they would somehow magically make it they'd be boasting about it non-stop.

If they showcase it in Apple Stores I would definitely take a peek, and I would like to be wrong - but I'm pretty sure it's a pricey gimmick that won't be anywhere comfortable for any prolonged use.

ohgodplsno• 3 years ago

I will happily go on record to say that you're critically wrong and that the only reason this will ever have any usage is the Apple Reality Distortion Field.

I speak having used most available VR devices available these past few years, and currently owning a Valve Index:

Watching movies: wearing something over your eyes and on your head like that for so long _fucking sucks_. It's heavy/hot enough when you're doing something that takes your attention. Watching a movie is fun for the first time, then you realize that being able to walk around, look at other things etc is infinitely better. Not to mention the fact that if you ever want to watch with someone else, well they better have 3.5k available. that makes it a non starter for literally anyone hoping to, you know, have people over.

- For work: it fucking sucks. You know what's worse than having two screens taking up your entire sight? Having to physically turn your head to see more screens. It is physically sickening to have your entire attention taken up like that.

- Form factor: my dude the last thing I want in public is to look like I'm wearing swimming goggles. Also, two hours is absolutely pathetic.

- Price: the first iPhone cost $600. The cheapest new iPhone 14 is $1000, the most expensive is like 2000. It got worse, not better.

It's going to be a fun, overpriced toy and it'll be just like every VR device people currently own: hanging on your wall and used once every two weeks, at best.

1024core• 3 years ago

For personal/entertainment use it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.

TV viewing is often a social experience: friends gathering in front of a TV to watch a sporting event (say, a World Cup soccer match, or your favorite team's football game, or an NBA finals game). This takes away that aspect. I'm not sure if this is a change we really need.

zimpenfish5• 3 years ago

TV viewing is often a social experience:

Sure but "for personal use" kinda excludes "social experience" here.

it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema

In my previous flat, living along, a big TV just didn't fit anywhere. A sound system would also have annoyed the neighbours. Something like this would have been perfect for getting that 4K HDR viewing experience.

hdjjhhvvhga• 3 years ago

- For personal/entertainment use it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.

I don't know about others in this thread, but for me the satisfaction of watching a movie alone is extremely low - to the point I don't do it at all.

verdverm4• 3 years ago

Small, comfortable smart glasses enabling Hololens 2 like UX, I agree.

Bulky, expensive passthrough? No, there are better, cheaper, more open options than this on the market. If it was going to change things, we'd be seeing people using this capability already.

The main hold up here is technology advancement, not quite where it needs to be yet, but the field is showing the progress needed to reach it.

elorant• 3 years ago

iPhone price went up with subsequent generations. So I wouldn't count on Apple to drop the price at the near future.

LUmBULtERA• 3 years ago

Apple likely started with the "Pro" moniker fully intending for non-pro versions to come out at lower price points.

Ylmaz• 3 years ago

Every team in my company got the new meta headset for free. I used it for like 30 seconds and i've never seen anyone else using it.

skilled• 3 years ago

Nobody will remember/care about this as soon as the news sites stop talking about it (in a few days), enjoy your iPhone moment prediction.

bequanna• 3 years ago

Man, I for one sure hope this isn’t the future.

But maybe it is. Just another step away from one another, further into isolation.

SkyPuncher9• 3 years ago

I have an NReal Air. It offers similar capabilities to everything you mentioned (though much worse resolution).

If I have the preference, I still choose a screen. Screens are easy, screens a casual, screens exist in the real world. I can share them, I can walk away from them, I can position them where _they will never, ever move_. Screens have (and will always have) higher resolution. Screens don't require me to mess with some cord and pull a headset off to find my snack or walk to the bathroom.

I prefer my Nreals in two situations:

* When I'm traveling/on-the-go and want more screen real estate.

* When my wife is using the main TV and I don't feel like hauling the Playstation downstairs.

zmmmmm15• 3 years ago

Sounds like the Vision Pro addresses your main issues - it's fully wireless, albeit with the somewhat ridiculous cord hanging off and battery pack in your pocket. And you can walk around your house with (presumably) near perfect pass through view of the real world. And then the resolution - I think you could be wrong about that. It's surprisingly hard to compare, but the Vision Pro is going to get you pretty close to high enough resolution that it doesn't matter any more.

It's interesting though you seem to view the fact that it's close to impossible to move your monitors as a plus - that part sounds very weird to me.

deanc• 3 years ago

We've had all these things since the very first VR headsets. I remember sitting in a movie theatre setting trying to play a 1080P movie and it looking like a potato.

Forgetting the AR/VR debate for a minute, the thing holding these back from wide adoption has been resolution and comfort. I have yet to use an XR device where I can simply play a video without it being jarringly blurry and pixelated. I've yet to use an XR device that isn't a chore to wear and sweaty (although I do trust Apple to address this one).

Let's see. The proof will be in the pudding when I try one of these in an Apple store next year.

air7• 3 years ago

I'm willing to take the opposite "bet", and say that I think this will receive very little traction.

The single reason being that it's uncomfortable to use. That's it. It's an "Emperor's New Clothes" type saying: It doesn't matter how impressive the capabilities are, if it's uncomfortable, people will, after the initial allure fades, just not use it.

IMO The only viable future for VR/AR is when the form factor will come down to normal looking/weighting glasses that I might look around for while having them on.

ChuckMcM• 3 years ago

I was wondering what was dragging HN down :-). That said, if it translates signs in the "real world" on the fly to your native language, that would be win for business users. The "infinite screen/screens" thing has always show promise but has always been hard to execute against. The lack of them pushing any kind of gaming experience[1] was a bit telling for me. I'm guessing they haven't fixed the vomit problem. Still think it would be awkward to be in the same physical space with people who have visors and people who don't.

[1] To be fair I didn't see the keynote, just followed the website sales pitch.

niho2• 3 years ago

The thing that amazed me the most with the presentation was that they never showed typing on a virtual keyboard. It seems like you need an actual physical keyboard to do any typing.

The keyboard was famously considered a make it or break it feature internally at Apple when developing the original iPhone. It is very telling that they haven’t managed to solve this basic HCI problem for the Vision. Steve Jobs would never have released this. I’m sad to say it, but this is not a “Pro” device. It’s a Prototype device.

Apple Vision Prototype

(And I’m sorry, but the eyes are creepy —- uncanny valley)

mrguyorama9• 3 years ago

The dual-touchpad style VR keyboard like the original Vive has is probably the only usable virtual keyboard. Everything else is one by one, find and peck typing.

If you want to experience it, get a steam controller or a steam deck and use the trackpads on that keyboard. You get used to it very fast and you can get really usable typing speed.

It won't work for programming though because anything that needs more niche than basic punctuation would require chording or multiple inputs, which sucks.

greedo• 3 years ago

They did show a virtual keyboard during the presentation.

6nf• 3 years ago

The idea is that you'll use voice recognition instead of typing

andrewstuart• 3 years ago

> this will be as revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even more so.

Not even close.

99% of the people I know would never put a computer on their face.

gigatexal• 3 years ago

Yeah from what I can tell and being a solitary person if I had 3.5k I'd be all over this. And I am a die-hard Linux guy though I have an iPhone and an Apple Watch. Very cool stuff, albeit, if it lives up to the hype in the presentation. Very cool stuff.

subsubzero• 3 years ago

So.. Fun fact, Osterhaut group(ODG) has something just like this and it was working as Apple demos showed and it was out 7 years ago. I tried it on and for me it was the biggest game changer I felt since the 2007 iphone. Microsoft bought the patents from odg and the company ran out of money trying its own strategy. Sad story for them but I hope apple really does this right as it will be an absolute game changer.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/03/odg-unveils-its-first-cons...

Hippocrates3• 3 years ago

I agree.

I spent a ton of money configuring my home office. Many displays, giant motorized desk, articulating arms, cable management, etc. Easily over $3500, and I still don't feel like it's ergonomically great. It certainly can't be brought anywhere. It occupies a whole room.

Now I am thinking I might not need that bulky stuff at all, and if I don't need the displays and big desk then maybe I don't need the office. If I don't need the home office then maybe I should be shopping a home that's around 75-100k cheaper with one less room.

I've often wanted to work outside from my deck but then I don't have my screen real estate and I get tons of glare. This could solve that.

We've long complained about the degradation of the in-office experience. These days it's all open-floor plans with a fixed monitor set and no privacy. If I could put these on and have a huge display with a beach in the background, I wouldn't as much mind sitting 2 feet away from coworkers.

The benefits of something like this on flights and in airports seems obvious. Its not really weird, considering savvy travelers swaddle themselves in AirPods Max and bizarre neck-sling-pillow apparatuses already.

nabakin• 3 years ago

I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be as revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even more so.
Look how quickly the iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between generations 1 to 3

I would not compare the iPhone to the Apple Watch. They were on completely different orders of magnitude of evolution.

I could see the Apple Vision Pro being half as popular as the Apple Watch (primarily due to the price tag) and I think there's a good chance it finds its market, but I think comparing it to the iPhone is way off base.

c7DJTLrn• 3 years ago

How can you say that before trying? Have you ever tried VR? You can see the pixels, it's not at all immersive. I find it hard to believe that Apple have somehow invented revolutionary display technology before Meta/Oculus who have had about decade to do R&D. Not to mention that "inside-out" tracking is nowhere as good as shown as show at the WWDC keynote.

hammyhavoc4• 3 years ago

If it's so good for WFH, why has Apple insisted everybody return to the office?

It's got a 2h battery life, so your dreams of using it on the beach are pretty funny versus just using a laptop.

stephc_int132• 3 years ago

You should probably try it before making this kind of statement.

The perfect version of this tech -could- be what you describe. But so far there are quite a few unknowns about the real experience.

pier254• 3 years ago

For personal/entertainment use it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.

It remains to be seen if the experience is better than a large OLED TV.

In terms of sound I seriously doubt it. Maybe if it had large planar drivers but I doubt you can use large headphones with it. If it's meant to be used with crappy Airpods the sound is going to be nowhere comparable to a home theater.

wendyshu• 3 years ago

So you're buying AAPL?

ulfw• 3 years ago

For people who are loners, live alone and don't share anything with others. I guess if you enjoy sitting on your couch watching TV all by yourself all day this is it, yes.

mouzogu• 3 years ago

controlling the UI with your eyes and fingers is cool.

but the issue I always had with VR is at that point when I realise i can't actually touch or feel any of it.

jarek832• 3 years ago

Name with "Pro" in it already, might suggest lower-tier versions coming in some future?

Device looks promising, and I wonder if they plan to allow 2 devices to show the same content simultaneously to say watch 3D movies with someone else in the same room.

Some say $3499 is a high price, but being able to carry huge design studio with you is heck of a value to me.

stephanerangaya• 3 years ago

There's SharePlay for that

Delphiki• 3 years ago

Sounds like a great use for SharePlay! (:

justinator6• 3 years ago

might suggest lower-tier versions coming in some future?

First it has to not bomb.

EnragedParrot2• 3 years ago

I get the impression this model is intended to introduce the product line to the market and give developers something to build on while Apple fine-tunes the hardware. The thing is way overpriced for the average consumer but the tech inside it is wild. I expect we'll see more consumer-friendly models in 2024-2025.

lozenge• 3 years ago

It's shipping in 2024, surely they won't release a new model in the same year.

justicz• 3 years ago

This is exactly what I think is going on as well.

dvwobuq• 3 years ago

Some say $3499 is a high price

As a golfer I can assure you plenty of people will happily spend that amount and more on their hobby.

epolanski5• 3 years ago

Yeah, Apple doesn't make products for niche hobbyists though.

This isn't remarkable or xReal.

bwv8485• 3 years ago

'Pro' as in 'Prototype' I guess.

namtab00• 3 years ago

use a vision Pro to type!

russdill• 3 years ago

23M pixels across the field of vision of two eyes doesn't meet the requirements of a design studio. A retina display is minimum 60 pixels per degree. This will be around 30.

fumar2• 3 years ago

What about of distance and and field of view? I haven’t seen any metrics to complete the picture.

agnokapathetic• 3 years ago

Foveated rendering + active optics can make the fovea 2x the peripheral.

nomel3• 3 years ago

No FOV was included in the announcement. These numbers are fabricated.

two_handfuls3• 3 years ago

Agreed - we don't know what the actual PPD will be, but it will surely fall short of 60 given that the VR display covers more of your field of view than a 4K monitor in front of you.

That said, it'll still be higher than the current VR headsets and I expect many people will find it sufficient for their work.

ryandrake• 3 years ago

I've never spent even $1500 on a single tech product before, let alone $3500. They might as well have made it $9999. Its pricing puts it in the business buyer / wealthy Apple enthusiast league with Mac Pro, not consumer hardware. This is not priced for the market of middle class consumers worried about a recession.

The Quest 3 is $499. This headset looks GREAT but is it really 7X greater than the Quest 3?

seanmcdirmid7• 3 years ago

I'm totally getting a quest for fitness. This thing doesn't look like it is designed for fitness at all, although I might get one in the future if (a) I have disposable income for it and (b) the experiences are compelling? $3500 isn't that much these days (unfortunately).

petesergeant• 3 years ago

let alone $3500. They might as well have made it $9999

I’ll buy it at $3,500, but not at $9,999

crazygringo15• 3 years ago

Tech is so cheap now. When the Macintosh II came out in 1987 [1]:

When introduced, a basic system with monitor and 20 MB hard drive cost US$5,498 (equivalent to $14,160 in 2022). With a 13-inch color monitor and 8-bit display card the price was around US$7,145 (equivalent to $18,400 in 2022).

Even the Commodore 64 was expensive [2]:

Volume production started in early 1982, marketing in August for US$595 (equivalent to $1,800 in 2022).

If the experience is worth it and there's no cheaper competitor, people have the money for these things.

And honestly, as a big user of the Quest 2 -- the Quest 3 isn't anywhere close to the same ballpark as this. Apple Vision Pro looks absolutely more than 7x better, the only question is whether it's worth it for you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_II

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64

VanTheBrand• 3 years ago

You don’t own a car?

1letterunixname3• 3 years ago

That's already making an assumption that this is a valid category that isn't doomed to failure like every other attempt since 1985.

Enter the story of the Nintendo Power Glove.

solarmist5• 3 years ago

Did you ever use the power glove? I had one and it was the worst piece of tech I’ve ever had from a major company.

zmmmmm15• 3 years ago

It was quite odd that they branded it Pro but then demonstrated 90% consumer applications for it. Very mixed messaging about who the target market is.

golergka3• 3 years ago

Getting it as soon as I can. 3500 is steep, but 4k display for my Macbook anywhere I go is invaluable for a remote working nomad.

nehal3m6• 3 years ago

Looks like an awesome device, but with that price I don't think it's aimed at consumers. Also, would the Pro moniker imply a non-Pro version at a lower price in the future?

dr_• 3 years ago

Expensive but with such an immersive experience can right off the bat replace a television and surround sound system. But potentially offers a lot more than this. Not bad for a 1st generation product.

tech_ken• 3 years ago

My (and I suspect many others') main use case for a TV+surround sound system is social consumption of media. A TV I can't watch with my partner is useless, a speaker I can't use to keep a party going is useless. To me the relevant comparison here is a PC, and by that measure this is a very expensive PC with an improved screen experience. Whether that screen improvement is worth the $1K-1.5K more than a Macbook will depend on how thoroughly they've actually delivered on the AR experience.

DonHopkins• 3 years ago

Apple Vision by Bob Bishop has come a long way since 1979!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiWE-aO-cyU

RGBCube• 3 years ago

It starts at $3499 BEFORE tax, lmfao

seydor4• 3 years ago

Well it s good, this is how you make something that turns us to cyborgs.

A bit pricey to become a household items (because a family needs 4 of them) but this is probably where things are heading to

There is so much engineering going on here that maybe ... it's simpler to start considering retina implants or just brain implants.

This was more like a work of art than a consumer device. I wonder if Oculus can steal some ideas ... Like, these device are not for gaming but general productivity. Ditch the 2 oculus controllers, put the battery in the 1 controller and wire it to the head. I m not convinced if eye tracking is worth it. oculus' controls are precise enough and in any case it's better to hold something instead of pointing and pinching the air, it makes the device more physical. dont know what is needed for the ability to render a full field of view but would be interesting to know what is the level of nausea this causes when movement is involved. I guess Apple purposely chose to eliminate all optic flow movement - all the apps appear to be stationary.

summarity• 3 years ago

With profiles and OpticID you probably wouldn’t need one for everyone in the household. Or even more than one. Just the lenses.

seydor4• 3 years ago

how do u watch a movie together?

DANmode4• 3 years ago

Sony has the patent for the contact lens.

abracadaniel3• 3 years ago

Their cost comparison to a 4k tv, surround sound, high end laptop, etc does seem reasonable for a single person, but it does indeed break down for a family. Everyone sitting on the couch watching a movie, but you with your goggles getting a completely different experience.

epolanski5• 3 years ago

4k tv, surround sound, high end laptop

None of those can be replaced by a vr headset in anything but "some" applications and scenarios.

rektide15• 3 years ago

Notably there doesn't seem to be any tech present to share virtual spaces at all. All these smiling people staring at their virtual screens couldnt even share their experiences if they wanted to & everyone else had a Vision Pro too. These are personal, pocket spaces.

There was notably no effort to do a MagicLeap either, of playing with existing space. Meta for example shows people enjoying a crazy dungeon crawler board game atop their real table; very primitive but something physically integrated. I didn't see a single example of Apple integrating with space, only taking it over.

valine2• 3 years ago

I’m convinced it’s not possible to build a decent headset without eye tracking. Low latency, high refresh rates, massive resolutions, in a tiny footprint just isn’t possible with our current generation of chips. Eye tracking lets you put your compute cycles where they’re needed, and not waste time rendering to useless pixels.

seydor4• 3 years ago

is it really low latency considering that it needs 2 cameras and a bunch of leds? Also, saccades are not very precise and are relatively small movement so i m nor sure how precise and detailed the pointer is in these.

ralfn2• 3 years ago

Sony's VR headset also has eye tracking.

It is a great input, but more importantly: drastically lowers the required computation with foviated rendering, i.e. rendering hires where you look, not everywhere.

numpad011• 3 years ago

Unless you’re doing at least once over 100Hz refresh rates, human eyeballs are too fast for foveated rendering. Motion to photon latency for this thing is 12ms from the presentation, which is 83Hz(so it’s 85Hz), and that’s probably for post-processing 2D warping and not 3D scene shading/rendering where foveated rendering must take place so no way that works.

mikece2• 3 years ago

Apple: We're concerned about myopia from holding screens too close to your face.

Also Apple: Strap a pair of 4K displays an inch from your eyeballs!!!

gbear6052• 3 years ago

Theoretically the lenses could make this not a problem. We’ll have to see how it works in practice though.

nomel3• 3 years ago

It’s not theory. Every VR headset produced, since the 90’s, and every microscope, shortly after their invention, has had optics that make viewing comfortable, by having a distant focal distance, for the eyes to settle on. This is, quite literally, Physics 101 material!

doctoboggan5• 3 years ago

It's the focusing close that is bad, and with the lenses you are focusing further in the distance

fauigerzigerk• 3 years ago

As a glasses wearer I was wondering how this works. They mentioned extra lenses that I would have to install into the device. But why isn't it possible to do this all in software?

EscapeFromNY• 3 years ago

The focal distance won't be an inch away of course. Every headset I've seen specs for puts the focal distance at 20ft. For normal human eyes, 20ft is optical infinity, so there's no difference optically between looking into a headset and looking at the horizon.

wlesieutre• 3 years ago

From my understanding, the Quest's focal distance is at 1.3m

https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1371485209603022853

Valve Index reportedly around 6 feet

https://www.reddit.com/r/ValveIndex/comments/by1j2z/focal_di...

542458• 3 years ago

Most VR headsets have your eyes focused at infinity, so that’s usually not a problem.

quasarj• 3 years ago

Did they say anything about myopia from holding screens close? I thought they specifically said the feature was encouraging spending more time outside. I believe the current theory for increased myopia is from not getting enough sunlight into your eyes as a child. Nothing to do with focusing close.

gorbypark2• 3 years ago

Directly after mentioning the sunlight monitoring/monitoring outside time feature they announced a feature that utilizes the Face ID cameras to warn you if you are holding a screen too close to your face.

function_seven• 3 years ago

Yeah, they also covered a new use of the lidar/camera on iPhones, to notify users that they're too close to the display. Called "Screen Distance"

https://www.apple.com/ios/health/

andelink• 3 years ago

From the iOS 17 press release:

Additionally, increasing the distance the device is viewed from can help children lower their risk of myopia and gives adult users the opportunity to reduce digital eyestrain. Screen Distance in Screen Time uses the TrueDepth camera to encourage users to move their device farther away after holding it closer than 12 inches from their face for an extended period of time.

Link: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/ios-17-makes-iphone-m...

planb• 3 years ago

Funny, the moment they showed the vision health feature, I immediately thought they'd come back to that later to tell us that computing using a headset is in fact better for the eyes (because of the lenses that shift the focal distance).

4rt• 3 years ago

They also went from parents can "track your kids by buying them an iwatch" to "our fundamentals are privacy".

lotsofpulp• 3 years ago

In many cultures, children are viewed as not being owed the same privacy that adults or even older children may be.

asdff12• 3 years ago

Gesticulating with a hand all day like that probably can't be great either

bufo• 3 years ago

This is completely wrong. Learn about lenses.

doctoboggan5• 3 years ago

The price is even higher than people expected at $3.5k! The passthrough of the wearers eyes with a front facing display is pretty interesting, especially with the 3D lenticular display giving every viewer the correct perspective.

I hadn't seen that in the rumors leading up to the launch, its good to see apple still can keep some secrets.

zyang2• 3 years ago

There were rumors of third display but for peripheral vision.

jaywalk2• 3 years ago

I find the eye display to be quite creepy.

thrill2• 3 years ago

Now Apple needs to make a "Pro" version of the Razer facemask.

rektide15• 3 years ago

I'd heard mostly rumors it was going to be north of $5000.

hmate9• 3 years ago

External battery with a cord, and even with that only 2 hours performance. This has to be improved before mainstream appeal. (and the price of course)

comment_ran13• 3 years ago

remember he said all day use. not sure what it mean.

jaywalk2• 3 years ago

All day use if it's plugged in, as in using an AC adapter.

throwaway202351• 3 years ago

iirc, he said something like "when plugged in you can use it all day, and on battery you get two hours"

ASinclair• 3 years ago

All day use if you plug it into wall power.

teacpde• 3 years ago

I guess you could just swap batteries ...

lijok• 3 years ago

All day use when plugged in

moron4hire3• 3 years ago

Yeah, with them touting watching movies and only having "up to 2 hours" of battery, that's going to severely limit the movies you can watch. "Everything, Everywhere, All At Once", which they showed someone watching, is 2.2hrs.

chad1n• 3 years ago

This will only be targeted in US, no? I doubt it's GDPR compliant and won't probably buyers outside of US. If it's $3500, then in Europe, it will be around $5000.

jw12245• 3 years ago

What’s not GDPR compliant about it?

idoh• 3 years ago

What’s the issue with GDPR? If it is similar to other Apple products where data is collected / processed at the edge, then no more issues than anything else they do.

pelorat3• 3 years ago

I don't think GDPR is a problem, but they might have to cut some features in some EU countries where facial recognition is illegal (if they use that, but they probably do).

Kind of like Google Photos which has facial recognition and tagging, except in the EU.

zyang2• 3 years ago

The amount of innovation packed into one release blew my mind. Apple has done it again.

paul79863• 3 years ago

AR sized sunglasses is the next iPhone so much innovation to happen here.

Though as of now and until they shrink all the tech into regular sized glasses the majority will reject while the innovators will jump on this headset and start creating amazing things.

escapecharacter• 3 years ago

What an early announcement before actual availability

762236• 3 years ago

I really miss the authenticity of an Elon presentation. Some of the people in the Vision Pro presentation looked 3D rendered with the degree of post processing the video underwent.

LapsangGuzzler2• 3 years ago

When is the Cybertruck releasing again?

rowanG077• 3 years ago

End of this year.

DANmode4• 3 years ago

Were they the people toward the end they had said were rendered?

tkanarsky3• 3 years ago

No kidding. This honestly felt like something out of Hunger Games, with some obviously well-off, out-of-touch, work-from-home dweebs wearing this unit to show off their status to their Apple ecosystem social circle. And then we have Disney! With Marvel and Star Wars! So you can experience Adventure! Without leaving your home!

Yeesh, this says a lot about their target market.

Cool tech, though. Let's hope I'm not peer pressured into wearing one of these masks for my kid's goddamn birthday party.

IAmGraydon5• 3 years ago

I guess they had to call it a "spatial computer" in an attempt to overcome the shock that they want $3,500 for a VR headset when the competition is selling their newest generation for $500.

ChildOfChaos6• 3 years ago

Yes, but what they are doing seems to be nothing like the other VR headsets, did you watch or read?

philjohn• 3 years ago

Honestly, it really doesn't seem different at all.

AR is also where other notable headset makers are betting, Quest has had hand controls for quite a while (which made the "clunky controllers" dig fall flat).

It definitely seems more refined, but then again, it's over 2x the cost of the competition, so that would have to be taken as read.

kllrnohj7• 3 years ago

It was all 2.5D apps and watching movies - this is the exact stuff that has already been tried. It's a really polished presentation of it with the shadow casting and stuff, but is that really the missing piece? Seems unlikely.

ARandumGuy2• 3 years ago

What are they doing that can't be done with other VR headsets? Virtual desktop has been a thing for years, and VR pass-through and "pointing interfaces" are possible with the Meta Quest. While these features may be better on Apple's headset, they certainly aren't new.

IAmGraydon5• 3 years ago

It's not that different. Did you watch the Quest 3 announcement last week?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhce2OgZu4

jonwinstanley7• 3 years ago

It’s very expensive but this product is offering a lot more than the $500 headsets

jarek832• 3 years ago

With M2 on board and other silicon chip it actually is a computer, not to mention it comes with its own OS.

JohnBooty• 3 years ago

    I guess they had to call it a "spatial computer" in an 
    attempt to overcome the shock that they want $3,500 for 
    a VR headset

With "computer" I think they're trying to emphasize the fact that it's standalone, not an add-on?

That may seem silly, but I have not paid much attention to VR/AR and I had assumed that headsets like the Meta Quest 2 were tethered to some other device. A quick search before this post showed me that is not the case, but I was actually ignorant about that fact. So apparently there are dopes like me who need to be told that these flagship headsets are standalone computing devices.

notfed• 3 years ago

I'm still confused about this: which headsets are standalone and which aren't...marketing seems to gloss over this detail every time.

qumpis4• 3 years ago

Which competitor is providing $500 AR headset?

IAmGraydon5• 3 years ago

I'm amazed at how many people here missed this last week:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhce2OgZu4

coolspot2• 3 years ago

Recently announced Oculus Quest 3 has full color and depth AR pass-through for $499

rektide15• 3 years ago

It should have DisplayPort out so you can use it as a computer too. (There's probably some garbage patent already for using a VR computer as a computer, mercy patents are just such trash.)

anaganisk4• 3 years ago

The cheapest android sells for $50, vs iPhone that starts at $900, yet it takes weeks to get an iPhone on launch. What's the point here. The thing has its own more than capable chip, knowing Apple has seamless integrations and will absolutely start a new trend. Can't wait for Google's and Samsung's substandard implementation soon, like what they did with the watch.

IceHegel2• 3 years ago

Disappointing to see it won’t ship until 2024. I wonder if they are waiting for a 3nm chip.

NotSuspicious• 3 years ago

It looks like they aren't since they said it will use an M2 chip

Dudester2306024• 3 years ago

Congrats Microsoft and Meta! Great work on Holo Quest Vision Pro!

treesciencebot• 3 years ago

Up until to the point they announced the price, apple was doing nice on the street but seems like $3,499 for a brand new platform is a bit too much risk than market was anticipating. Almost 60 billion $s went from the market cap (maybe not much for a giant in Apple's scale but still interesting).

gmm1990• 3 years ago

Could have been that it'll be out next year too

ojbyrne• 3 years ago

I think the price was expected, what was disappointing (at least to me) was "available early next year."

teaearlgraycold2• 3 years ago

Honestly I think they’ll sell a ton to businesses and wealthy people looking to get into the new tech. The high price should raise the stock value if anything.

epolanski5• 3 years ago

That still is not nearly enough to cover all the research, development, legal and manufacturing cost.

giantrobot• 3 years ago

Almost 60 billion $s went from the market cap (maybe not much for a giant in Apple's scale but still interesting).

This is the same exact thing that happens with every Apple event. I can't think of a time their stock went up after an announcement event.

wahahah3• 3 years ago

"Buy the rumour, sell the news"

tpmoney8• 3 years ago

Apple could announce a cure for cancer for which they are the only owners of the patent and for which every world health organization has committed to 40 years of purchases and their stock price would still go down. The best time to buy Apple stock is almost always right after a product announcement.

samwillis2• 3 years ago

The promo site is here: https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro/

saovq2• 3 years ago

Apple really just obsoleted Meta's entire product vision, this is scary good.

LegitShady10• 3 years ago

nah they're not competing for the same customers.

Metas headsets are affordable enough that people buy them for their kids. Apple's headset isn't competing with that.

It's like saying "That bugatti obsoleted all the affordable cars" - not really.

saovq2• 3 years ago

I see it more as tackling the core product they're trying to deliver. Meta is trying to deliver "Virtual Reality." Apple is delivering "Augmented Reality." Meta will be able to pivot quite well, but Apple's execution here has disrupted 10 years of vision and development furthered towards creating a virtual reality rather than augmenting it

jhatemyjob2• 3 years ago

EDIT: Please delete this comment

ra73• 3 years ago

On the contrary, they might expand Meta's market by giving "legitimacy" to AR/VR headsets. Not everyone will want to buy a $3500 Apple headset, but might try out a cheaper Meta Quest.

epolanski5• 3 years ago

While everyone might benefit from it, as many have from tablets or smart watches, the Meta play to be the first of owning groundbreaking hardware has failed.

qumpis4• 3 years ago

Can you elaborate on "this"? How is this better than Meta's product line?

impulser_• 3 years ago

I don't think Meta is worried with the price tag of Vision Pro. Meta will be happy to be the Android of AR/VR. The Quest 3 will probably out sell this by over 10x.

masto• 3 years ago

Doesn't seem that way to me. I'm generally not opposed to jumping on the latest and greatest toy from Cupertino the second it comes out. And I'm a big fan of VR: I own two headsets now, but I was waiting for this announcement before deciding whether or not to buy a Quest 3.

I've decided to buy a Quest 3.

I could elaborate on why, but to each their own. I just don't see this thing fitting any use case for me. I know people who like to watch videos in VR. I hate it. I'm aware that accessing your computer screen through "virtual desktops" is a moderately popular application. Can't stand it. I have never used FaceTime, and certainly wouldn't have anybody with another one of these to call.

We live in a world where forum comments have to be either "this is stupid and anyone who likes it is stupid" or "this is the greatest thing ever and anyone who doesn't like it is stupid". I'm not saying either of those things. I'm saying this is not for me, and furthermore, now that I know that, it has unlocked the purchase of a competing product.

I'm sure there are people who do see their use cases in this product, and also can afford it or its non-pro successor. But my take on it is that the real market will continue to be in games, not putting on a helmet so you can virtually type on a computer.

zmmmmm15• 3 years ago

Seems outlandish ... a $3500 product can't obsolete a $299 one. It doesn't look like Apple has any intention of attacking the low end here.

I'd almost say that Apple is doing Meta a favour because they are doing a much better job at making the case for devices like the Quest Pro and Quest 3 than Meta seems to be able to do. A lot of people will turn to these when they find they want in on the hype but they can't afford the Apple version.

ttul2• 3 years ago

It looks as though it can replace a laptop. Unlike the iPad, assuming the display really delivers on text fidelity, it may be a more comfortable working environment than the old paradigm.

If that’s the case, the effective cost falls considerably because you don’t need the laptop anymore. And get rid of the iPad too.

nehal3m6• 3 years ago

Except battery life is 2 hours.

jasonjamerson2• 3 years ago

Swap batteries with a click. Granted, I'm sure they'll cost $1,000.

tornato7• 3 years ago

However, unlike a Macbook, you could own a few external batteries and swap between them. You'll probably also see aftermarket batteries for this pretty quickly with even more power.

I'm wondering if they're including a small battery on the headset for ~5mins of juice, just enough to swap batteries or from external power to AC power. It would be frustrating to have to shut down completely every 1.5 hours to recharge or swap packs.

ttul2• 3 years ago

This is version 1.0. I imagine down the road there will be larger batteries and greater power efficiency. But for desk workers using AR goggles for “laptop work,” you’re usually near a power outlet anyway.

bobivl• 3 years ago

To replace a laptop (for me), I need to be able to type. It does not look easily possible from what I have seen, but missed the first part.

numpad011• 3 years ago

/s, work is not supposed to involve too much hand manipulations, you are suppose to create and add value through fabrication and theft by showing happy faces in as many boy’s club meetings as possible

bergie• 3 years ago

They said that you can pair it with Bluetooth mice, keyboards, and game controllers.

joshbert• 3 years ago

It was part of the keynote how it can integrate with Magic Mouse/Keyboard and presumably other bluetooth accessories

jarym• 3 years ago

So where does this leave Meta with the billions poured into the metaverse?

msie• 3 years ago

Meta can still create the Metaverse for the device.

LegitShady10• 3 years ago

meta is fine, for now. Apple's $3500 headset isn't something most parents are going to buy their kids, while I know a bunch of people who have bought quest 2s for their kids because they're cheap af.

If apple can lower the price to something reasonable or even twice the quest's price, maybe they can threaten them.

They're not looking at the same customers.

EatingWithForks• 3 years ago

3.5k? Who would reasonably go outside with that thing-- its asking to be robbed off your body.

gbear6052• 3 years ago

People go work at Starbucks with more expensive laptops.

rcarr11• 3 years ago

It's locked to your irises. Unless they're going to gouge out your eyeballs Minority Report style then it's not of much use.

coolandsmartrr10• 3 years ago

I noticed that Apple's demo footage all took place in the living room. Apple probably doesn't expect people to take the Apple Vision outside.

roughly• 3 years ago

The optics will make or break this, but I came in extremely skeptical, but it's clear they've put a lot of thought into the possibilities landscape, the interaction modes, and the human aspects of it. It looks a whole lot more interesting than I was expecting - it's the best shot I've seen at AR so far. It's also clearly the "First" in the line - similar to the first iPhone and iPad, it's expensive and a bit unwieldy, but you can start to see the potential.

rektide15• 3 years ago

Not an iPhone user but I have yet to see a panoramic camera app that gets anything remotely high red for output. The panoramic mode felt cool, but I can't imagine they actually have the data there to make it look good. (Short of copious AI up scaling, which is a pretty new capability.)

lowbloodsugar3• 3 years ago

If this can replace the four screens attached to my corporate M2 Max by acting as virtual displays for it, then I'm buying one.

zamadatix8• 3 years ago

With the per eye resolution for your entire field of view being only slightly more than the resolution of the MacBook's main screen, replacing 4 additional screens seems lofty. I mean yeah, there is plenty of visual space to place all of the screens... but that's a heck of a DPI downgrade before we even get to unused visual space, stretching/warp of placing flat-rendered screens in positions across a perspective render, and the optics. There is also the whole matter of streaming that much low-latency screen over Wi-Fi from the MacBook, which is why I think it's limited to 1x 4k screen right now (per the video).

Virtual screens is probably #1 on my VR/AR productivity list but, having tried so many prior solutions, I just couldn't believe them no matter how many times they repeated "crisp text" when talking about it. I'd love to see it and be so wrong... but the specs don't have me holding my breath. Maybe if it had double the resolution per eye it'd start to be something worth considering.

justinator6• 3 years ago

I'd rather take a vacation for $3500 than buy this.

enos_feedler• 3 years ago

Funny I had the same comparison for $3500. We are 10+ years from a virtual vacation or augmented staycation could deliver similar benefits.

justinator6• 3 years ago

We're not 10+ years from traveling a foreign country, meeting people completely different from yourself, becoming enmeshed socialy in their lives, developing relationships with them (if only for a brief time), etc.

Give me a break.

What these will do is safe us from the dystopia we're creating outside our own doors, which isn't solving the problem, just ignoring it.

Dudester2306024• 3 years ago

Vacations in 10+ years... It will be hard for AR to beat an actual beach holiday in Finland to be honest.

givemeethekeys2• 3 years ago

I think it was Bill Gates who once said that you're not a platform until the things built using your service are worth more than the service.

This feels like it is going to be a platform.

Before the Vision Pro part of the presentation, it already felt like the best WWDC presentation in years!

For those experiencing sticker shock - think of the real estate you can free up in your bedroom-office.

patothon• 3 years ago

You’ll still have all the stuff in your bedroom-office

givemeethekeys2• 3 years ago

I'll be selling the monitor, desk and office chair and replacing them with a nice chair with a footrest, and a keyboard attachment.

tobr• 3 years ago

They should have called it the Reality Distortion Field.

nrabulinski• 3 years ago

In classic modern Apple fashion they show no professional use-cases for their "pro" product

nehal3m6• 3 years ago

Were you watching the same keynote as I was? I saw classic office work (Keynote, FaceTime) as well as 3D representations of manufacturing equipment.

timbit42• 3 years ago

Where is the killer app?

Oddskar6• 3 years ago

Writing emails and compiling documents in Word seems like very "professional use-cases" to me.

codq4• 3 years ago

Did you miss the massive Final Cut Pro project window in VR, or does that not count?

kumarvvr2• 3 years ago

Looks incredible. The cinema experience itself feels amazing.

Wonder what the long term effects of using this will be?

Apple does not mention how usage metrics, or testing for harmful effects on vision, etc.

throwaway4good2• 3 years ago

Looks amazing and wild full of possibilities but the price tag and perhaps the clunkiness of the device (size and external battery) indicates that the technology is not quite there for mass adoption.

mmastrac• 3 years ago

Ski goggles, mixed reality, less storage than a Nomad. I don't see what this brings to the table over other VR systems.

heynk• 3 years ago

Incredible.

The biggest downside is that it looks like you can only use a single display from your Mac. If I could run 3+ screens from my mac, this would become a no-brainer.

rl1987• 3 years ago

But you will be able to to have 3+ screens in your field of vision without needing a Mac...

oatmeal13• 3 years ago

The apps you can run on the 3+ visionOS "screens" will be limited compared to what you can run on a Mac

evgen• 3 years ago

I am expecting a lot of apps to be able to cast a window directly to visionOS devices by the time this thing actually launches or possibly a way to split out spaces into their own screens by the time this launches.

moultano• 3 years ago

No tether. Worse tracking than an index. Lame.

jansan4• 3 years ago

I already hate those people who think they must walk around in the streets wearing these AR masks.

zwieback• 3 years ago

I still wonder what the TAM for these kinds of headsets is, even if they are Apple quality. Nausea and dork factor might limit to a fairly small clientele.

emoII• 3 years ago

"The kids are playing, better record a spacial moment" was one of the most dystopic things I've seen in a long time. Same with the ad at the end, with the father wearing it around his kids. I feel like the interface demands strapping something this futuristic over your head is just... wrong. Perhaps a few years of refining the tech can lead to something that feels more natural

shippintoboston• 3 years ago

Agreed for some reason I had a really repulsive reaction to seeing that as well. Feels like this is the next step in people turning more inward. A screen strapped to our face at all times.

wtetzner3• 3 years ago

If they can get it into a pair of glasses, it might help a lot. Yes, the screen will be there all the time, but people won't be staring down at their phones all the time either.

crack__fox• 3 years ago

Imagine you realise that you haven't taken off your vision for a few months. You lift them up and you're just all alone with sores on your face, in your piss-soaked chair in your isolated flat in your decaying suburb of your polluted city. think I'll just put them back on...

abracadaniel3• 3 years ago

I hope we’ll see Neal Stephenson’s term Gargoyle come into use as wearable computing becomes more common

corysama• 3 years ago

Stephenson’s joke with the Gargoyles is that the Protagonist looked down on them throughout the story, but eventually became one.

sekai3• 3 years ago

"Don't blow the candles yet! I need to grab my VISION PRO"

Longhanks• 3 years ago

To be fair, that is already the case with "I need to grab my phone", which is equally wrong, imho. But a lot of people don’t see it that way.

no_butterscotch• 3 years ago

This is the new version of parents holding phones up in front of their faces to record moments.

Now generations of kids will grow up staring at their parents' eyes through a VISION PRO instead of seeing the back of a phone in front of their face. Progress?

stingrae• 3 years ago

It's the equivalent of people going around and taking photos with an iPad.

tantalor• 3 years ago

Minority Report (2002)

https://youtu.be/arTIRgdEb1g?t=80

adamrezich4• 3 years ago

we just finished conditioning everyone to cover the bottom half of their face—suggesting now that one keep the top half of their face covered, around the home, around their children, is nothing short of horrifying, both in terms of brazen anti-human dystopia, but more importantly, in terms of childhood development. if this, or something like it, takes off in the "iPhone" way that many here predict, future generations are going to be so completely fucked from the perspective of anything resembling traditional social development—which, of course, the iPhone, by way of the iPad, has already fucked up pretty significantly!

sandoze• 3 years ago

I’ve read a lot of comments but yours is by far the winner. I bet you’re a blast at Thanksgiving dinners and family gatherings.

the_overseer3• 3 years ago

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. This looks absolutely great I hope they make a kid size version so everyone can wear one. Anytime a grandpa complains that 'kids these days are fucked' they are demonstrated time and time again that they were wrong. Thousands of years ago people said the same things and they never came true. Have you not learned your lesson yet?

In a few years we will laugh at people not wearing these things just like today you are a weirdo if you do not have a smartphone in your pocket. Kids will be just fine. It's the grandpas screaming at the clouds who will not be fine and excluded even more.

The train is leaving the station. You either board it or remain in the darkness and cold. Forward, forward always forward. Anybody against progress will be trampled under our feet.

Klonoar2• 3 years ago

we just finished conditioning everyone to cover the bottom half of their face

Nobody is conditioned to do this, it was just a necessary thing for a period of time. We've already moved on.

dmazin• 3 years ago

i think the angle they are going for is that it’s exactly as isolating (airplane, the experience you MOST want to get away from), or un-isolating (being with kids, the experience you LEAST want to get away from), as you want. and it flubbed

quickthrower23• 3 years ago

The neural implant episode of Black Mirror has a much better UX. You can help the mass and micro surveillance effort without the uncomfortable headset and be present with the kids.

jayd169• 3 years ago

Home movies are dystopian to you?

drewbeck4• 3 years ago

Very weird, but I can definitely see this becoming something you can capture on your phone eventually (and view on your VisionThing). If these take off then I'll bet money that capturing things for AR/VR on your phone will be a priority for Apple

w-m• 3 years ago

They’ll just slap two cameras spaced an eye distance apart on the back of the next iPhone Pro and bam, you can record your kids with your socially acceptable handheld device. Still won’t need to play with them though.

meghan_rain2• 3 years ago

100% confident this will happen, would bet my life on it

zild3d• 3 years ago

fwiw, doesn't have to be eye distance apart just a known distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_stereo_vision

thewebcount• 3 years ago

It was the same thing in the 80s with camcorders. There was a stereotype of the crazy neighbor who followed his kids around with his camcorder recording every second of their lives. Then it was smart phones. Now it's this. People want to take photos and videos of stuff and it's more important to them than looking dorky for a few minutes. I don't like it very much, either, but I understand it, and it's pretty much human nature.

TehCorwiz• 3 years ago

Are you old enough to remember the big VHS video recorders? The shoulder mounted ones? This is minuscule and unobtrusive comparatively. Nothing dystopian about it.

sample2• 3 years ago

I think the issue for me was how "real life" and "digital life" are basically on equal footing when looking through this device. So your kids are now competing with whatever youtube video you are watching and it's harder to look away from the digital distraction. The same is true today when you are watching a video on your phone, but it's way easier to get someone to look away from their phone when it's not life-size, constantly in view, and always on

asdff12• 3 years ago

The ads I see on billboards for apple have been getting very dystopian over the years. One was just a humongous iPhone being held in hand, completely blocking the actors face, with the wrist cocked at this very uncomfortably looking angle such that the apple watch face was perfectly squared to the phone. It felt like something out of Black Mirror, like if I moved the phone there would be no face or some sick grin. A far cry from the cute dancing earpod silhouettes.

cglong• 3 years ago

This ad where she makes the real world disappear always struck me as dystopian. If I'm near a parade, I'd want to absorb that energy, not repel it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVW8-px4Ufw

crazygringo15• 3 years ago

I'm sure people said the same things when cameras were invented. "The kids are playing, better grab my camera! -- what a dystopic thing to say!"

This thing is no bulkier or harder to use than the film cameras I grew up with. They covered the photographer's face too.

rib3ye2• 3 years ago

The alternative is me sitting at my desk, with my back to the kids, while I tell them to stop bumping into my chair.

Which one seems more engaged with their kid?

nazgulsenpai• 3 years ago

Neither?

cromka• 3 years ago

To me the dystopian moment was when they revealed that an AI-generated rendition of one’s face will be presented during video conversations. We were worried already about the photographs taken with phones no longer being real, this brings the issue to a whole new level.

ragazzina3• 3 years ago

What issue? It's like a memoji (actually worse, because the mouth movements will not follow the real mouth).

speby• 3 years ago

You mean like how crowds of people at live music events ALL have their stupid smartphones up recording the same damn recording which they should be paying attention to and absorbing the experience and living in the moment?

Forget what people should do, look at what people actually do.

valcron10002• 3 years ago

Forget what people should do, look at what people actually do

I'm going to borrow that one mate.

zakki3• 3 years ago

> Forget what people should do, look at what people actually do.

This seems not Apple’s way. Steve Jobs once said “People don't know what they want until you show it to them.”

usrbinbash2• 3 years ago

look at what people actually do.

Will do. *looks around*

Yeah, not many people wearing ski masks that cost more than many people make in a month while jumping around in sweaty hot concert halls.

r0m4n0• 3 years ago

Yea... there were quite a few moments that felt rather cringe, dystopian, and weird at the same time. Honestly the entirety of the screen with your eyes for your viewers is a very interesting choice on Apple's part.

I do indeed want one of these and will likely buy it but I would definitely have opted for not having this outward screen functionality. I do not plan on wearing these ski goggles around my wife, kids, coworkers, etc. The fact they are trying to make it interactive for the folks around the person wearing it seems a little comical. That's like putting a screen on the backside of your phone so your kids can see your face while you are scrolling instagram. Wearing the goggles is an individual experience, why try to force everyone in the room into that experience like its going to be an accessory you will wear out and about?

Some day we will get to the point where we want the AR users to blend in a little more but we aren't at that point yet. You have a giant pair of goggles with cords hanging from it strapped to your face. Are people really going to be regularly interacting with Apple Vision users while they are in the matrix?

I guess if you are on a plane and the flight attendant asks you for your drink, they can see your eyes when you demand your coke... but come on, can't you just take it off to interact with people on the rare occasions?

I think it's just every time that you are using this feature, you should probably not be using this feature

prawn19• 3 years ago

Interesting thoughts about EyeSight. I agree that if I were using/wearing this, I would not care about the ability for others to see my eyes and gauge my reaction. This could've been added to a subsequent version of the device.

But it could be that testing showed that removing the device in work and home settings to deal with quick interactions was enough of a deterrence to devise a solution? Also, that being able to show the eyes was a huge differentiator from competing products?

I wonder if they had a few non-negotiables and this was one. They figured it was on the roadmap, so might as well lock it in from the start.

tpmoney8• 3 years ago

While that was an initial reaction for me too, it's also really just a reaction to different tech. Many a "special memory" was captured by dad (or mom) behind an 8mm camera or a camcorder. The entire opening to "The Wonder Years"[1] was designed to capture that "home movie" feel, which would have been conducted by a parent holding something like this[2]. Even into the 90's and 00's it would have been done with a mini-dv camcorder (and later digital), which while smaller was still a bulky device floating around infront of the image recorder's face.

It's only with the advent of proper video recording tech in a cell phone that this technology has gotten so small that it's (mostly) unobtrusive and since everyone has one on them all the time, it's not surprising when someone pulls it out and starts recording.

And many a larger family event usually has one (or more) family members dedicated to capturing on film / camera anyway, so what difference would it make what tech they were using to do it?

If this thing caught on, it would be no different from any of those others, with the two possible exceptions of

A) actually being more present for the recorder, as opposed to looking through a view finder wobbling in their hands, it's just whatever they're looking at through this thing already attached to their head. Additionally for child events, they could still be actively involved with both hands (as opposed to one or none with other camera equipment and trying to work through a view finder.

B) Being less obtrusive to the rest of the people. Sure, people "should" just enjoy the moment, but I'd rather be at a concert with a few thousand people using these to record their moment than a few thousand people holding their cellphones up trying to record it around everyone else's hands.

Another thing to consider are cases where this is used by people who are already professionally recording stuff. Sure, your wedding photographer you probably still want using a real quality camera setup, but would anyone be salty about the photographer's assistant going around and capturing 3d video and pictures of your wedding with this thing? I doubt it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0bK-vUlw6M [2]:http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Minolta_Autopak-8_D6

albert_e3• 3 years ago

Holding a gadget is slightly different than having a HMD mounted on your face. It is different for the operator, and it is different for thoe standing around and participating. Getting used to the HMD might be possible but would be harder and also sad when it does happen.

Also to capture a 3D photo you could also use just a hand held device with stereo cameras. We dont necessarily need a HMD for it unless we are going for that precise framing where a 2D preview doesnt cut it. I wish such a device was perfected for the mass market. It could be as simple as a pair of regular cameras mounted on the back of a smartphone -- separated by the inter-ocular distance.

AndrewKemendo• 3 years ago

The video of the dad was almost literally shot for shot with Minority Report

https://twitter.com/AndrewKemendo/status/1665868751479218176

instagraham• 3 years ago

8 years ago, I recorded by graduation ceremony with a 360-degree panorama. I did the same with my first live concert at Wembley. It's something I can view with a Google Cardboard headset.

But to this day, it remains my most powerful photographic memory and I'm glad I took it.

parentheses8• 3 years ago

Agreed. As a parent, that just seemed like something that'd never happen the way it was shown. It'd be more like:

- dads enjoying a movie on the headset

- the kids come home and are immediately rambunctious

- headset comes off

ForrestN• 3 years ago

I've seen this sentiment repeated ad nauseam since this morning, but I can't fully understand it. The comparison isn't between Vision and full presence. Imagine watching the same video with Dad pointing his phone at everyone instead. The days of experiencing things worth remembering with full presence are already over for most people—this isn't any worse than pointing a big opaque block at the person. Either way, there's a barrier. At least this way we can see their eyes to some extent, right?

CobrastanJorji• 3 years ago

It was an absolute flop, but I really appreciated how Google's "Clips" tried to solve this problem. Clip it on somewhere or stick it somewhere with a nice perspective, do your day and live in the moment, and afterward maybe it captured some special moments. A product that tried to let you be MORE in the moment. Fantastic idea.

Turned out to not work in practice. Shame, really.

MrJagil• 3 years ago

just a point on my comment yesterday on Metas trailer[0]. I wrote:

I think [Meta] missed the mark with that trailer. They promote it like it’s a skateboard: cool tricks, fast paced, hip and happy. I don’t think that’s why you want a VR headset at all, it’s actually the opposite: immersion, sinking into a another world, it’s concious dreaming. The D&D pitch could be perfect. I’d love to play a VR/AR d&d game. But in the video, the first thing he does is take off the headset and smile? It makes no sense. He should be totally enraptured, not happy to take it off.

Compare this to Apples trailer. The guy sits down, with the headset on and a bowl of popcorn, enlarges the screen, ready to delve in. Sitting in an airplane, but just have it all meld away. A guy playing ball with his kid, while wearing the headset.

I can't afford it at all but Apple made me want the product just for a bit.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36152725

mk_stjames• 3 years ago

Your comment about the Meta commercial is exactly what I was thinking after watching it yesterday. The last shot is the guy taking the headset off and smiling. And the first thing I thought was: "Is he happy to be getting it off his head? Because it looks like he's fucking relieved it's over."

I love the idea of VR but the fast paced, cool games world is NOT for me. I dislike most modern 3d gaming in general. I'm much more interested in either passive viewing experiences, desktop computing augmentation, and creative applications. TiltBrush is still the most amazing thing I think I've come across in VR. TiltBrush in an AR envrionment, surrounded by multiple displays of other conent, work apps, dragging and dropping my 3D work into 2D powerpoint, etc...

There is so much more potential than the hyperactive-chic-gaming metaverse world that the Quest and Meta is pushing.

d3nj4l2• 3 years ago

The weird price fixation and doomerism here is weird. People said the AirPods were overpriced; half my uni has one. People said the AirPods Max were overpriced, and I see it all the time in co-work spaces and libraries. People said the M1 Pros were overpriced; they're literally everywhere, used by almost all of the professionals I know. People said the Pro Display XDR is excessively overpriced; more than a few consumers I know bought it. $3500 is high but considering it is a phone, laptop and massive display bundled into I'm pretty sure there's a more than sustainable market for it.

That aside, I'm curious whether it will be more like the mac or more like the iPhone. Will we be able to "sideload", i.e. install things without papa apple's approval? Can we use a web engine that's not WebKit? Things like that will make the difference for me, not the price.

matsemann5• 3 years ago

The AirPods you see all the time is because wearing them is a fashion statement. You're "hip" or "rich" or whatever you want it to signal. Airpods are advertising themselves by people wearing them and influencing others to buy them. That's what driving the sales.

No one will be wearing this in public. And if anything, the person in the office using this first will look dorky. So I can't see it having the same appeal/free advertising.

uw_rob• 3 years ago

Do you own a pair of AirPods? My Gen2 AirPod Pros are what I consider to be the best purchase I have made in the last 10 years. The small package and ANC is fantastic. Before purchasing AirPods I would walk around with ATH M50X (Great headphones; not fashionable) and these have replaced that.

elijaht• 3 years ago

I don't know about that. My AirPods just work in a way that no other wireless headphones do with my iPhone. Using them is delightful. I still rock a Gen 1 pair which would no longer be "cool"

pdabbadabba6• 3 years ago

The AirPods you see all the time is because wearing them is a fashion statement. You're "hip" or "rich" or whatever you want it to signal. That's what driving the sales.

Exactly the opposite is true among the people I know. People feel like dorks wearing AirPods in public, but often find themselves doing it anyway because they're convenient. (I know this, because it still comes up in conversation all the time.)

Not sure this tells us anything much about the Vision Pro, though--except, perhaps, that some people will happily use the product even if it looks dorky, if the user experience is on point.

pdabbadabba6• 3 years ago

The AirPods you see all the time is because wearing them is a fashion statement. You're "hip" or "rich" or whatever you want it to signal. That's what driving the sales.

Exactly the opposite is true among the people I know, FWIW. People feel like dorks wearing AirPods in public, but often find themselves doing it anyway because they're convenient. (I know this, because it still comes up in conversation all the time.)

jbverschoor3• 3 years ago

Ok.. please you probably can "build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software."

jocaal• 3 years ago

i'm leaning more to the iphone side, theres not a chance apple is gonna allow webxr and have developers distribute products without apples cut.

atkailash• 3 years ago

Given you can use your mac’s screen on it, it’s almost moot depending on the app or latency involved. But knowing Apple it’ll probably be more iPhone since they’ve even been pushing App Store on Macs more too

mikenew4• 3 years ago

I'm wondering that too, but from the presentation it looked a lot more "iPhone" than "mac". The only thing they demo'd that looked like a real desktop was an actual mac being mirrored in the display. Everything else seemed like an app you had to install through a new app store.

LegitShady10• 3 years ago

in the "technology" section of the presentation where they talk about the operating system, the graphic explicitly shows ios not mac.

alaskamiller• 3 years ago

Emphasis on progressive web apps in macOS is a good hint with the first wave of apps this will have. Similar to how iPhone first didn't allow for third party apps, this will take the first year to sort out all the HCI before allowing for app store uploads.

This is very much nReal but polished, and those goggles are dim and not as immersive as this. Magic Leap went with the wrong direction it turned out.

zamadatix8• 3 years ago

I think this is more in the "Pro Display XDR" overpriced territory of "it costs more than many can afford to buy on a whim" instead of "it costs more than it should" of things like AirPods. Where the Pro Display XDR gets away with that is, at the end of the day, it's just a display for content the same as any other. Where the Vision Pro will need to do some fighting is traditional content is a much harder sell for a AR/VR device. I think Apple is trying their best to tackle that software problem head on trying to improve integrations and offer day 1 native options, which is what they always aim for, but it's still clearly going to have some penetration difficulty due to price and small target audience at first. Of course, Vision "Pro" suggests maybe they have a non-pro plan for that in the works already, in which case it would help the ecosystem sustain even more.

GeekyBear2• 3 years ago

I think this is more in the "Pro Display XDR" overpriced territory

It's the same price as Microsoft's Hololens 2, but the tech looks much more impressive, and Microsoft seems to have laid off most of the Hololens development team.

2OEH8eoCRo0• 3 years ago

Apple also provides a credit card with no interest on Apple products. They could "hide" the price as cellphone providers hide the price, by rolling it into a monthly payment.

mountainofdeath• 3 years ago

I agree that it isn't in the "everyone and their grandmother will have it" pricing territory. It will definitely sell well at least within a niche but won't have the deep penetration other products have.

If you recall, for many years, an iPhone was a luxury status symbol; the equivalent of a mid-range hand bag or a low-end luxury automobile. Expensive, but still within the reach of the an average person with at least some disposable income. It's why everyone seems to have an iPhone and EarPods.

The pro display, like many VR headsets before it, is really a niche product that will be limited to a standard deviation of what I would call "enthusiasts" or "power users".

(1). Even pre-iPhone, having an iPod, especially a premium one, was a status symbol. (2). Non-iPhone devices are generally scoffed at in many circles, green text message bubbles being associated with budget Android devices and not the expensive Android flagships.

908B64B1972• 3 years ago

Pro Display XDR is also in a market segment where it's the last step before getting a calibrated display that's 10x the price. When looking at the specs it's actually a great display at a good price point.

Of course, Vision "Pro" suggests maybe they have a non-pro plan for that in the works already, in which case it would help the ecosystem sustain even more.

Like every other platform products, the V1's audience is... developers. Once there are a few killer apps, Apple will commoditize and unleash a much cheaper version.

spaceman_20203• 3 years ago

Someone in my coworking space bought a Pro Display XDR. He's a movie maker who is shopping around a documentary to some major OTT players in my country. He said his work pretty much demands a really good screen and Pro Display XDR is the best he can buy as an independent filmmaker - his previous employer, a large studio, had screens that were slightly better but cost $20k+

joking3• 3 years ago

there's no doubt that with is onw appstore and os is more like the iphone and you will not be able to install anything that Apple has not approved, neither buy anything without Apple taking its cut

orangecat2• 3 years ago

Yes, and that's really obnoxious. But the ability to use it as a display for your Mac (and presumably PC via VNC or similar) should mitigate that to some extent.

Oddskar6• 3 years ago

People said the M1 Pros were overpriced

Yeah but most people aren't paying for those: their employers are.

I don't think many employers are going to buy such an expensive tool.

ajkjk4• 3 years ago

What? Millions of people have personal laptops that are M1+ Macbooks. For people who can afford it and aren't Linux people, why would you buy anything else?

(well some people have issues with buying things from Apple and I don't blame them but Microsoft is busy making Windows as unappealing as possible so Apple wins for me)

lopkeny12ko2• 3 years ago

There's a ton of hidden bias in this assessment. Have you considered that you either live in a wealthy area or are surrounded by people who are more prone to seeing having iDevices as a status symbol? Because

People said the AirPods Max were overpriced, and I see it all the time in co-work spaces and libraries.

Is absolutely not true in my experience.

People said the M1 Pros were overpriced; they're literally everywhere, used by almost all of the professionals I know.

And how many of those laptops are corporate assets that were provided by their employer? How many of those professionals actually use Macs anywhere outside of work?

m3kw98• 3 years ago

AirPods are not a status product for most, the quality and the way it works is why it’s selling like hot cakes. It does show people you know about quality stuff by wearing one. The AirPod Max I would agree it is in the show off territory

ethanbond• 3 years ago

What’s the hidden bias? It’s a premium/borderline luxury brand and GP is saying “yes people do pay for premium/luxury goods.”

Another great proof point is their annual revenue approaching $400B, selling devices that apparently no one can afford.

sebzim45008• 3 years ago

There's a ton of hidden bias in this assessment. Have you considered that you either live in a wealthy area or are surrounded by people who are more prone to seeing having iDevices as a status symbol?

Obviously those people are going to be the ones buying this product, like all Apple products.

stocknoob2• 3 years ago

Apple makes money by not targeting products to people without money. I’d say it’s worked out pretty well for them.

benhurmarcel• 3 years ago

Right, the few times I see some Airpods Max in the street I can safely assume it's a Chinese fake.

justin662• 3 years ago

People said the AirPods were overpriced; half my uni has one. People said the AirPods Max were overpriced, and I see it all the time in co-work spaces and libraries. People said the M1 Pros were overpriced; they're literally everywhere, used by almost all of the professionals I know. People said the Pro Display XDR is excessively overpriced; more than a few consumers I know bought it.

The salient difference between those devices and this one is: none of those require software developers to do anything special to support them.

Granted, Apple had some success in the past telling developers considering a Mac port of their software "these are not the droids you are looking for."

shhsshs• 3 years ago

In theory this does not require software developers (other than Apple's) to do anything special to support it either. visionOS has windows and kb/mouse support which means there is potentially no barrier to entry.

I'm guessing "full-screen" or similar deep integrations with visionOS will require some custom code. But it seems like most sites + apps could potentially "just work".

pathartl2• 3 years ago

There's a huge difference between the lifetime of a pair of headphones and a VR/AR headset (or at least there should be). Bluetooth will be around for a while. This the second generation Vision Pro is going to absolutely kill the first generation... so why even bother getting the first if it's at such a high price?

TigeriusKirk• 3 years ago

It's neither a phone nor a laptop. It can provide some of their functionality in limited situations, but it's considerably less flexible or portable than either.

whimsicalism• 3 years ago

You live in a wealthy area, I rarely see Airpods Max in San Francisco.

parentheses8• 3 years ago

I think you probably see more than the national average. It's a fantastic pair of headphones if you're using them a lot. It's the only pair I've seen that had consumer grade features "normal users" care about while having pretty close to audiophile audio quality.

paxys10• 3 years ago

AirPods are popular, sure, but I have quite literally never seen AirPods Max in the wild. People in the market for premium noise cancelling headsets are all buying Sony or Bose.

And it isn't just about price. There are plenty of AR/VR headsets out there that have the same feature set and are far cheaper, and they still haven't found product market fit. The problem isn't that they need more polish.

With Meta winding down its reality investments Vision Pro is pretty much the last shot this entire sector has. If this device fails then we have no choice but to accept that VR/AR is at best a niche hobby, not the world-changing technology that we so desperately want it to be.

drewbeck4• 3 years ago

Definitely going to be anecdotal here – around my neighborhood (brooklyn NY) I'm floored by how many Airpod Max's I see. It's by far the most common over-head wireless earphones I see.

throw747757• 3 years ago

There are plenty of AR/VR headsets out there that have the same feature set and are far cheaper

Can you list some of these far cheaper products that have the same feature set?

bagels2• 3 years ago

Where did you get the idea that Meta is "winding down its reality investments"?

kerbs• 3 years ago

Airpods Max are 100% everywhere. And not in affluent areas either.

I probably see people wear them on public transit most often—and when I visited NY the subway was by far the most common place to see them.

AdamN2• 3 years ago

Where do you live? I see them quite a bit in Berlin.

JCharante2• 3 years ago

I see Airpod Maxes in the wild every day in Vietnam. They don’t even have apple stores here!

dbbk• 3 years ago

I think the AirPods Max are a lot more hit and miss than the others... for myself and people I know, they were just too heavy/uncomfortable compared to eg the Sony WH XM series.

lm284694• 3 years ago

The weird thing to me is that people forget every failed Apple product and live in a bubble in which every new Apple toy is a hit.

They had as many fails as success, we just forgot about them entierly

ign0ramus2• 3 years ago

I realize that they have had many failures in their long history but it seems like they have been on a roll since the iPod release 22 years ago. Do you know of any product flop from Apple in the last two decades? I'm genuinely curious.

xu_ituairo2• 3 years ago

Have there really been many failed Apple products since Steve’s return? As many failures as wins?

There were failures during Apple’s 80s/90s struggles but not many come to mind in recent decades.

captainbland• 3 years ago

Probably be a little wary on just doing a casual visual inspection. There's a wide range of airpod knockoffs at this point which are much cheaper but look almost identical at least at first glance.

Tiktaalik• 3 years ago

There's overpriced and then there's the next level above that of simply being unimaginably unaffordable.

With the former well, its something for enthusiasts and something for regular people to save up for.

With the latter it's dismissed as something for another class of people and out of sight and mind.

Apple may have ventured into the latter category here.

Not a great space to be if you want to build a platform and lure developers to build on it. Developers want to have a big market.

hyperbovine• 3 years ago

But there were already tons of people using earbuds, headphones, laptops, and monitors. They brought a high-end product to an already mature market. Whereas here, they are introducing a very expensive device into a segment, VR goggles, that has flopped over and over again with consumers everywhere. Apple might be able to pull off their magic, who knows, but it's way more dubious than with the other things you mentioned.

practice92• 3 years ago

phone, laptop and massive display

Including 3d video recording, which is under-appreciated in many of the threads. Two GoPro Hero cameras + rig would cost minimum $500, and you might have to edit photos and videos in post. And Apple does this automagically for you.

stirlo3• 3 years ago

I'm not taking my $3500 headset with a massive screen on the exterior anywhere near where I'd be taking a GoPro.

ztrww12• 3 years ago

Will we be able to "sideload", i.e. install things without papa apple's approval?

I’m sure we all know the answer to this.

web engine that's not WebKit?

rofl

The AirPods, Pro Display XDR, even the iPhone were just improved and streamlined improvements of a established products with clear use cases. This is something completely different.. At this point this is just an expensive gimmick. That might change when people figure what they can do with it or it might not.

it is a phone, laptop and massive display bundled

And the iPad is a general purpose computer..

tqi• 3 years ago

Did people really say that the original Airpods were overpriced?[1] IIRC back in 2016 BT earbuds (that weren't connected by a band) were mostly pretty shitty, which I think was the root of most people's skepticism, not the price?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12446094

francisduvivier• 3 years ago

Since the space/weight for batteries is limited, I bet it will be more like iphone, so only WebKit and tight control to optimize battery usage.

acchow• 3 years ago

It also captures a new kind of content: spatial video. Upper middle class families with toddlers are going to want this. To relive the children's childhood forever.

paddim8• 3 years ago

Most people didn't say the M1 was overpriced. Most people said it was a good value for once. That's partly why it got so much attention. In this case, most people are saying this device is overpriced.

moffkalast5• 3 years ago

I mean Apple hardly ever makes any budget price-to-performance stuff, the high end luxury overpriced market is more their thing. I'm not sure why people are surprised?

CivBase• 3 years ago

Yeah, I read/watched many M1 reviews when it first launched and the general sentiment was that M1 devices were an amazing value proposition for its market segment. Even the most staunch Apple critics admitted it was not just competitive; it blew the competition out of the water.

The response to AirPods was more in line with OP's description, but I don't think the AVP is comparable. Everyone had a need for earbuds, there was relatively little competition in the wireless buds space at the time, $159 was within the realm of possibility for most consumers, and Apple's removal of the headphone jack forced many peoples' hands. The AVP doesn't have any of that going for it.

VerminOctopus1• 3 years ago

Do you honestly think the price fixation is “weird”? $3500 is insanely expensive for a consumer product - so expensive that it is flat out unobtainable for many Americans, and an extremely hard sell for many more.

twoodfin• 3 years ago

Adjusted for inflation, the PC revolution happened on the back of $5,000+ devices.

kmos17• 3 years ago

For comparison the original Macintosh was $2500 in 1984, equivalent to $7000 today.

If this is as good as the demo was showing for pro applications it's revolutionary as a computing interface.

Since you can use it to view your mac's screen it seems there are no app restriction per say, but the built in app I imagine will be like all other Apple walled garden apps only loaded via the app store.

Razengan• 3 years ago

The Vision Pro is a standalone device.

A laptop + high-end headset would be in the same ballpark, at least maybe after deducting $500 or so for the Apple Tax.

rldjbpin2• 3 years ago

this opinion seems more influenced by the writer's environment than not.

i will be cautious to oversell its current use case. like it has been speculated by some youtubers, this might be more of a mvp like scenario like with apple watch in the best case scenario.

although i am glad this is making quest 3 look more acceptable.

hn666• 3 years ago

I think what you're describing speaks more to Apple's marketing prowess than whether AirPods are overpriced or not.

sequoia• 3 years ago

Will we be able to "sideload", i.e. install things without papa apple's approval?

Snowball's chance in hell

heatmiser3• 3 years ago

That aside, I'm curious whether it will be more like the mac or more like the iPhone. Will we be able to "sideload", i.e. install things without papa apple's approval? Can we use a web engine that's not WebKit? Things like that will make the difference for me, not the price.

This is where the product gives me pause. I am very happy to early-adopt this thing but if I cannot "do what I want" then I will pretty disappointed as I would not expect a comparable product to enter the market for another 5+ years as all this specialized hardware experiences commoditization.

I am very happy using my Linux desktop, slightly less happy with my Linux laptop (fingers crossed the 15" Framework changes that" and am not kidding myself by holding any expectations for what the F/OSS A/VR future will look like in the near-to-mid-term.

marricks4• 3 years ago

Meta has a social network, but they don't really have an electronic ecosystem connecting them. Mac has a social network (anyone with an iPhone arguable) and an operating system. This might give them the edge needed in integration to do well.

Additionally, apple fan boys will pay a few grand for a high end device. So the whole "glasshole" issue from Google will be less of a thing. It's easier to see where they are coming from here is what I'm saying.

I think the nay sayers sure have reasonable nays to say, but I can see how it'll be popular to Apple's core "creative pro with pro level pocket change." Growing beyond that is definitely anyones guess and needs a "VisionLite"

rektide15• 3 years ago

The Mac private social networking was on mad display this WWDC.

IMessaging has really upped the game on what a group chat is, mainly via emoji creation tools that will really add personality & flavor & build repetoir over time; touching stuff to me. Other nice to haves like builtin location reporting in the chat & ability to drop emojis positionally on posted graphics are also very good social capabilities.

The communication technologies on display at WWDC impressed me a lot a lot a lot. There's a huge list of ways people will have markedly better everyday experiences, with each other & solo.

fomine314• 3 years ago

Even though it's made well, it's annoying that Apple is investing for their own communication platform. It's completely useless for communicating non-Apple device user. Platform closed communication tool is nonsense IMO.

mikece2• 3 years ago

"Reliving the memories closest to your heart -- that you apparently recorded with this thing over your face."

Seriously though: if this takes off I can see specially designed video capture devices/cameras for recording events like weddings (and other significant life events) meant for consumption on an Apple Vision Pro (and captured in higher quality than the cameras and lenses in the Apple Vision Pro).

abracadaniel3• 3 years ago

I fully expect iPhone pros to start having the 3d camera in the next gen or 2

stuff4ben• 3 years ago

This really blows whatever it was that Zuck and Meta were doing out of the water and into outer space! This is light-years more game-changing than the metaverse and old VR. Only drawback is the price, but I'm sure a non-pro will be released at a cheaper price point.

chrbr• 3 years ago

I was thinking the same thing. I know the price points are way different between what Apple's putting forward and what Meta was shipping, but Apple's vision and tech here blows Meta's out of the water. Meta seemed to be approaching the problem with an iterative approach, where the payoff in vision was down the road, and wanted consumers to share the journey to get there - whereas Apple jumped all the way to the end.

blitztime• 3 years ago

Incredible the amount of new tech that goes into this device. Still seems pretty niche and I’m skeptical about how good the controls will be.

matsemann5• 3 years ago

For the FaceTime calling to make sense, you have to be the only one actually using this product. If everyone in the call is wearing this, you're basically talking with avatars..

gomjabbar• 3 years ago

The avatar is supposed to be lifelike, captured from the lidar camera...we'll see though

turingfeel2• 3 years ago

I think the avatar they demoed was somewhat lifelike to put it very generously.

nickpinkston4• 3 years ago

I'm betting that even Apple can't get this form factor to take off in mainstream use cases.

Maybe in very niche cases, but there's a lot of dead bodies on the VR/AR hardware hill even there with Hololens, MagicLeap, etc.

Then again Oculus sold like 20M units, so who knows...

sebzim45008• 3 years ago

Oculus sold a lot of users but most of them were used 0 or 1 times.

This product will need to be actually useful to take off, the early adopters need to rave about it to their friends. Presumably that's why Apple is targeting such a high price point at first, I'm sure they could remove half the cameras and use a worse CPU and end up with a device that sort of works, but first impressions matter.

l33t2333723• 3 years ago

I highly doubt many Oculus devices were sold that were used 0 times.

satysin2• 3 years ago

For all the tech inside a device you can wear on your head it is quite impressive even for the $3499 price tag.

I will hold off judgement until I can actually use one. While it certainly has some goofiness and kinda dystopian vibes in some of the demos shown it also has some very interesting use cases that could be something almost everyone uses day to day like the TV or computer.

But who knows, predicting the future is hard :)

jadbox• 3 years ago

but will it run VSCode? Or is this iOS apps locked?

satysin2• 3 years ago

Well they showed it being used as a display with macOS but I don't know if you can isolate an individual macOS app window and use it as such within the Vision Pro interface.

rngname22• 3 years ago

Biggest notes:

- 3d camera built-in to the device is huge, photo and video got so big online because smartphones meant we all had cameras on us and they made sharing those media easier, we may finally see stereo photo and video content go beyond adult content if consumers can record stereo video with this device they already have and upload to YouTube, Tiktok, etc

- Microgestures as input like two finger pinch and flicking up the hand are really wise. Gorilla arms syndrome sucks and means most people prefer to sit there and play Call of Duty rather than jump around and play Beat Saber or Wii Bowling.

- FOV seems to be full field of view, unlike Hololens and Magic Leap

oezi7• 3 years ago

Did they say anything about Lidar and room mapping accuracy? The gestures seems very minute. I am astounded they can pick those up well.

joking3• 3 years ago

another product to add to the apple walled garden, you will have to go through the vision store for everything, and they will capture their share from all the transactions happening inside it. It's incredible how apple can be so innovative and nobody can fight such prevalence. Will be a handset with the same features, but that you can connect to an open operating system someday? i would like to think that it will happen someday.

numpad011• 3 years ago

Interesting that they didn't mention a pancake lens. It isn't one?

edit: the other thread is growing faster: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36200708

Rhedox• 3 years ago

$3500 to watch movies or use it as a virtual monitor. With 2 hours of battery life.

Tough sell...

polycaster2• 3 years ago

Well, looks like we'll have to do without the extended LOTR edition...

minimaxir• 3 years ago

No tech spec sheet other than the battery life:

"The external battery supports up to 2 hours of use, and all‑day use when plugged in."

DANmode4• 3 years ago

M2 chip + R1 chip

dragonwriter2• 3 years ago

To be fair, it also gives vague hints on resolution with “more pixels than a 4K TV for each eye”, which is simultaneously more verbose and less informative than giving the actual resolution.

SirMaster2• 3 years ago

I mean, they said it's got 23 million pixel microOLED.

Dual 4K would be 16.5M pixels.

So it's comfortably 40% more than 4K per eye, so as long as say a virtual TV screen filled up most of your vision it should be at least close to 4K quality. Maybe a bit less in the end, but even somewhere between 1080p and 4K should look great.

Ever been to a movie theater using digital 2K projectors? Looks pretty good to me still.

mojomark• 3 years ago

Yeah, "4K TV resolution" doesn't mean anything as that completely ignores viewing distance. Pixels Per Degree (PPD) is the core metric and it drives me bananas that marketing professionals continue to intentionally obfuscate basic facts about products for sale.

I assume they're just ashamed that after billions of dollars in product development, they were unable to obtain the requisite 35PPD necessary to emulate a very basic "virtual computer monitor" and display readible text - or get close to the 62PPD that actually represents the limits of human resolution and is the golden benchmark to shoot for.

Maybe they did achieve these goals, which would be impressive, but without using standardised meaningful metrics for HMD resolution you just can't tell.

thomasfl• 3 years ago

So it is only useful with net power.

llm_nerd4• 3 years ago

It's interesting that HN is completely overloaded right now...with people coming to announce how unimpressed they are and how it isn't for them.

The displays in this device are crazy. I honestly didn't think they'd be able to put together a value proposition, but I think they legitimately did. It's super expensive, and some of the cost of the device seems kind of silly (if I heard correctly, the display on the front is 3d and gives different perspectives based upon the viewers), so obviously they're going to have a lot of room to improve value in subsequent generations.

But it's going to be a hit. HN is going to be swamped with "How I used Vision Pro to..." posts when it comes out.

One element that didn't get a lot of play (if any...though I was distracted with work) -- did they talk about using it as a display for a Mac? I'd love to use a real keyboard mouse interacting with flexible Mac displays.

selectodude3• 3 years ago

The guy on the commercial was using a real keyboard so I imagine this can be used relatively standalone, with the caveat that it uses iPad apps.

peyton5• 3 years ago

did they talk about using it as a display for a Mac

Yeah, you look at the screen through the headset and then pinch to move it around and grow/shrink it.

j2bax2• 3 years ago

There was one moment in the presentation when a guy at the office opened his Macbook Pro and the screen popped up above it much larger.

solarmist5• 3 years ago

He also used a keyboard and trackpad.

soneca• 3 years ago

Yes, they showcased that you just have to take a look at a Mac screen and the glasses become the display.

pjerem• 3 years ago

did they talk about using it as a display for a Mac?

Yes ! In 4k

ChicagoBoy112• 3 years ago

Yeah, although the part about it just had someone use it to extend the native monitor.. I'd be curious how deep that integration went... more than a large virtual monitor, to have you able to spawn multiple/infinite windows of any of the mac apps on it, that'd be killer!

solarmist5• 3 years ago

Probably a v2 feature that isn’t ready yet. But I’d be surprised if they weren’t working on it after the widget stuff on Mac desktop.

paxys10• 3 years ago

It's interesting that every single top HN thread is mostly unanimous praise for this device (which presumably no one has yet seen or used), while also painting themselves as the minority opinion.

llm_nerd4• 3 years ago

Not claiming it's a minority opinion, but early on there were multiple submissions that were dominated by people rushing to proclaim that it was DoA. One claimed it was the end of Apple. There is a huge disparity between people who click an arrow and people who comment.

And you are absolutely correct that the enthused haven't used this device, or even heard from a non-Apple employee that tried a beta. I am hugely concerned about long term comfort, particularly in the eye fatigue realm, for instance, and will be watching to see what the sentiment around that is.

If it were many other companies I would honestly be much more skeptical about it, but I mean Apple has a pretty good track record of actually delivering products that meet or exceed their promises. And they really promised the moon with this reveal.

tempnow9874• 3 years ago

Techcrunch concluded "The price reveal turned any ‘would buy’ in the room into a ‘definitely not’ without hesitation."

Anyways, bookmark the threads of folks calling an Apple product dead on arrival for a revisit in a few years.

The ipod, the iphone, the watch, the airpods... they've had a pretty good record and almost all these have had harsh criticism out the gate (while then going on to absolutely PRINT money for apple).

Apple is sitting on lots of cash and investment with operating cash flow of something like another $100B a year? Why aren't they allowed to take some risks on products like this. Facebook certainly has burnt billions in a similar space.

comment_ran13• 3 years ago

I see the pattern is that C is complained by most of people. And there is another type of programming that is that, which people never talk about. So just by talking about, regardless it's positive or negative, there is a tension in there and it's expectation, it's our will to kind of devices or this technology came into being. So eventually it will become part of our life and I hope that day comes sooner and this company will not disappoint us.

iddan• 3 years ago

There’s Sightful’s $2000 device you can buy right now https://www.sightful.com/ I’ve used an early demo of this and was very impressed. After the demo I had the strong feeling Apple is going to build something similar and I was right

blktiger• 3 years ago

4 Million Pixels is so terrible for an AR/VR headset. 23 million pixels will be indistinguishable from reality for all intents and purposes.

AmericanOP• 3 years ago

It is a viable first entry as an AR computer. Does it need to be anything more than that?

In 10 years with GenAI video creation and GenAI NPCs it could be bonkers cool.

michaelt2• 3 years ago

It is a viable first entry as an AR computer. Does it need to be anything more than that?

It needs to do what HoloLens and Google Glass didn't.

Sell well enough to attract developers and improve manufacturing economies of scale.

For what it's worth, I think Apple has a chance here - there were smartphones before the iphone, but apple made the first one good enough to take off. Perhaps this will be the same?

spaceman_20203• 3 years ago

Don't think we'll take 10 years. GenAI NPCs are like 1-2 years. GenAI video is about 3-5 years max.

A little scary bringing a kid into this world. I've seen how my nephews and nieces get completely absorbed by screens.

juve1996• 3 years ago

Until all of the cool stuff is hidden behind paywalls.

debacle2• 3 years ago

The cost is prohibitive, but I can't think of anyone who I trust more to introduce a cutting edge consumer device.

I wont be a user, but I hope they succeed.

hartator2• 3 years ago

23M for both eyes doesn't seem that far off from Meta Quest 2 Pro at 9.3M (2,160 x 2,160 x 2).

And Meta Quest 2 Pro is one year old at $999.

zimpenfish5• 3 years ago

23M for both eyes doesn't seem that far off from [...] 9.3M

It's almost 2.5x the pixels [edit: was ~~resolution~~ which is incorrect]. How is that "not far off"? It's more pixels per eye than the MQ2P has for both!

mithr4• 3 years ago

The displays in this device are crazy.

I'm actually curious about this, and how the displays will actually feel. The ads/keynote all talked about how they're "more than 4k for each eye", which sounds like a lot when you're talking about TVs or monitors, but... stops sounding quite as impressive when you realize you're talking about IMAX-sized screens (which is the main "wow" draw for watching movies in VR), or when talking about augmenting reality.

febusravenga• 3 years ago

They have eye focus tracking for sure in this, so maybe they can render in adaptive resolution mode je only highest rest in center of vision? Who knows?

xu_ituairo2• 3 years ago

I think resolution will be important the smaller (or further away) the movie you’re watching is. And for things like text in apps.

If you’re watching an IMAX-size screen in AR, the resolution of the content will be the main factor, I think, rather than the density of the goggle displays.

theonlybutlet6• 3 years ago

Each pixel is 7.5 microns. Assuming RGB, that's 22.5 microns. Thats at the maximum limits of detail an eye can see.

Analemma_• 3 years ago

Yeah, 4K per eye stops being impressive when it's five inches from your retina and you're trying to read fine text. Pimax has had a 4K/eye device for years already: it's nice but still nowhere near good enough to do things like replace your computer monitor. They're planning to ship a 6K/eye device next year, which will probably still not be enough. The real world has a very high pixel density!

slaymaker1907• 3 years ago

I'm predicting right now that it's going to have performance problems with that display. While they haven't released exact resolution numbers per eye, 23M would give it a slightly higher resolution than the HTC Vive Pro 2, a headset which requires a GPU. While mobile chips have really impressive CPU performance, I don't think they're nearly as competitive in the graphics space.

Knowing Apple, they're also not going to support anything else besides Apple Hardware so you won't be able to hook it up to an actual gaming rig like you can with the Meta Quest 2. While this isn't a big deal for a lot of people, Apple is taking a huge risk releasing a very premium product like this without supporting the largest established VR market (gamers).

czhiddy• 3 years ago

Roughly double the amount of pixels = "slightly higher resolution"?

stouset2• 3 years ago

Apple is taking a huge risk releasing a very premium product like this without supporting the largest established VR market (gamers).

This reads like "Apple is taking a huge risk releasing a new smartphone without supporting the largest established market (BlackBerry device users).

The VR gaming market is microscopic compared to what Apple is likely aiming for here. They do not give a single flying fuck about this "established market", nor have they for any other market they've entered. The entire Apple ethos is to completely change the narrative for whatever product category they enter. They did this for phones, for bluetooth audio, for watches, and—whether or not they're ultimately successful—you can bet your ass this is their intent for wearable headsets.

What's the eventual end goal for these devices? I'm not sure yet, but I'm certain it will become clearer in the coming years. My expectation is they anticipate this will come to replace fixed displays for a huge number of office workers. Maybe not with this first revision, but by gen 3 that's my bet for the market of this device. If you assume it get lighter and comfortable, higher res, and better battery life over the next few iterations it's clearly something that could just be your work machine with a paired bluetooth keyboard.

hajile2• 3 years ago

100 games at launch isn’t aiming for gamers? That’s at least decent compared to the quest.

zmmmmm15• 3 years ago

Apple is taking a huge risk

Let's contextualise this ... they have so much money in the bank there is literally no way to spend it. This could completely flunk and have zero impact on them. There's no risk here for Apple. Perhaps the question is why they aren't being more adventurous, or pushing this harder by subsidising the gen 1 device to get it off the ground.

RandallBrown6• 3 years ago

Performance wise, in the Platform State of the Union, they mentioned that they will use eye tracking to choose which parts of the "screen" to render at high resolution. That should help a bit.

jayd169• 3 years ago

First off, mobile chips are actually quite good at high resolutions (but usually lack bandwidth). But this is an M2. That's not a mobile chip.

kalleboo2• 3 years ago

Yeah it's clear their focus isn't games. There's no way the GPU can push those pixels with the graphical fidelity expected by gamers. But I'm sure it will have no problem pushing the raw pixels as long as you stick to mostly graphical compositing-level graphics like all the productivity/lifestyle stuff they were showing in the demo.

theonlybutlet6• 3 years ago

I agree 4k in each eye sounds insane. But eye strain that's going to be the big determinant. I initially thought it was transparent OLED at the start but to my disappointment it's just screens. Perhaps they've got the focal adjustment thing Magic Leap was trying to do right.

tmalsburg23• 3 years ago

4K is not much if you consider that these pixels have to cover the entire field of view, not just a relatively small screen.

ctvo• 3 years ago

This is an over confident audience very sure that their experiences and perspective is representative of the mainstream. See the rsync vs. Dropbox meme.

The execution is all that matters here not any speculative flaws. If it’s a delightful, polished, responsive experience for the stock applications, other use cases will come. I don’t want to bet against Apple achieving that bar. They’ve done it over and over again before.

ztrww12• 3 years ago

If it’s a delightful, polished, responsive experience for the stock applications

IMHO this is a perfect description for the Apple TV.

bee_rider2• 3 years ago

I’m still amazed Dropbox is making money. Doesn’t windows come with a Dropbox clone built in?

madrox• 3 years ago

There's a famous macrumors forum post of people raging against the iPod, saying it will be a massive failure. We've seen the same reaction from every Apple hardware announcement since.

The original post in 2001 is still live. Read it for a laugh: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-new-thing-ipod.5...

makeitdouble3• 3 years ago

TBF, there's an equal amount of "I haven't touched the product, nor even read reviews of people handling it in their hands, but I'm totally gonna buy this only based on the marketing material"

I kinda loved how Accidental Tech Podcast's host joke about not having even heard of the product yet but they'll probably buy it for personal use either way.

The pendulum has fully swinged the other way for the a sizeable chunk of people I think.

crashingintoyou• 3 years ago

I'll admit to being quite skeptical of the iPad and was wrong about that.

That said, despite owning a Quest 2 and eagerly awaiting the Quest 3 release, nothing in this headset particularly appeals to me. (Am mainly into rhythm games and am guessing those wouldn't be nearly as fun without the haptics in into other headsets' controllers which this seems to lack).

ztrww12• 3 years ago

Apple also released https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton

Which was a great idea and a very innovative product literally ahead of it’s time by 15 years.

redbell2• 3 years ago

Read it for a laugh

Steve Ballmer also laughed so much of the iPhone being without a keyboard :) , It turned out to be one of the most innovative products in history.

audiodude• 3 years ago

NO!
Great just what the world needs, another freaking MP3 player. Go Steve! Where's the Newton?!

0xr0kk3r2• 3 years ago

Personalities have not changed.

B1FF_PSUVM• 3 years ago

There's a famous macrumors forum post of people raging against the iPod,

Back in the day, it was the Slashdot take: "No wifi. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."

https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i...

brailsafe3• 3 years ago

That was actually quite funny thank you. Reminds me of my friend in highschool who was a Zune fanboy.

Pxtl3• 3 years ago

The device seems amazing, it's just... not really Apple, that's all.

dev_tty013• 3 years ago

Hmmm, I don't get that. Apple builds personal computers. That has been there mission from day one. This is easily the most personal computer they have ever created. I don't see how it could be more Apple.

two_handfuls3• 3 years ago

Yes, the presentation shows it used as a display for a Mac. Incidentally, you can also do this with the cheaper Quest Pro headset (or any headset in the Quest line, so $300-$1000 price range - but you don't get as many pixels). There are a few options for the software, VRDesktop (https://www.vrdesktop.net) being one.

TexanFeller2• 3 years ago

the presentation shows it used as a display for a Mac. Incidentally, you can also do this with the cheaper Quest Pro headset

You may be technically be able to do it on Quest, but it's mostly useless because text at non-massive sizes is completely illegible on current headsets.

ignoramous3• 3 years ago

But it's going to be a hit.

Well, if nothing else, the influencer / celeb culture will make it so. Apple, unlike other tech companies, almost has a monopolistic grip over it.

I mean, they sold AirPods for the most ridiculous price and yet they beat sales numbers of just about everyone in the audio industry.

jen729w2• 3 years ago

This, still?

Do people like you think that people like me buy AirPods because influencers do?

Might it just be that they’re astonishingly good wireless headphones? I mean is that possible in your mind?

comment_ran13• 3 years ago

Taking a positive sign because now the consumers expectations are high and if they not deliver what they promised here then they're gonna have a huge trouble so as a consumer it would be nice if the consumer can provide some our expectations to say how to show our interest and kind of motivate them to build a better product.

amrangaye• 3 years ago

Every. Single. Apple product launch post. “Meh”, “I can’t see the use case for this”, “it’s all already been done before”. Like clockwork. Then they’ll sell a million of these, and by v3 it’ll be much smaller / better / cheaper, and gain mass adoption. It’s like people have an “apple event reaction” algorithm going, and it never changes.

fnordpiglet5• 3 years ago

I think it’ll be 5 generations before it’s a real product. I’d note the first iPhone was kinda garbage as was the first iPod. For the iPhone the App Store was empty and the apps that existed for years were pretty rudimentary. It couldn’t hold a phone call open. It was clunky and comparatively terrible hardware. Apple has the ability to invest and innovate on an idea for decades incorporating advances, fostering investment, and building an ecosystem.

The jaded take to my ears sounds a lot like the LLM / generative AI take - looking at the first real generation and claiming it’s an evolutionary dead end of hype monsterism. I feel sad that people that likely got into this field as a dreamer of what can be are stuck seeing what simply is.

Will this usher in rainbows end within the next 20 years? Maybe. Maybe not. But I’m always happy to see there are still nerds that can dream of what can be, even if they’re often drowned out by the chorus of what today isn’t.

comment_ran13• 3 years ago

I do see your point and it is true that every product is going to be more mature, more complete for the later publication. But things of a first generation product like this is going to be a huge risk for a lot of people. But the things I want to talk to myself is probably if I can pick up one thing or maybe one or two things that this device can solve that probably doesn't have a good solution in the market, then just go for it. And if it is affordable, then go definitely do it. The upside of doing this is you cannot change your workflow in the early stages. So if you consider the time you put into that product in this new workflow, the things or the productivity you gain from this early experiment is going to be more productive. But gain, it's a risk.

jeffhwang• 3 years ago

Wow a reference to Rainbow’s End! IIRC that novel was set around 2026. I don’t think we’ll have Vinge-style AR/VR contact lenses for many years to come. Certainly not by RE’s fictional timetable… :(

mdavidn• 3 years ago

if I heard correctly, the display on the front is 3d and gives different perspectives based upon the viewers

This effect probably relies on a lenticular lens overlaid on an OLED screen. This was similar to the method used by the Nintendo 3DS to create a stereoscopic image without glasses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_printing

FabHK3• 3 years ago

Any word on how many interlocutors standing opposite you this can support?

I'm reminded of the Hallway Projection Scene in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, which works beautifully until more than one person looks at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtA0JS1lBaY

chpmrc4• 3 years ago

It's interesting that HN is completely overloaded right now...with people coming to announce how unimpressed they are and how it isn't for them.

Agreed, polarization is a good sign that this is going to make an impact. Ironically "unimpressed" is communicated by a lack of response, not by a negative one (which more likely indicates people's beliefs are being challenged). The only way this would be a flop is if they shipped something really buggy and worse than the competition (which at the time will be the Meta Quest 3). Otherwise...

it's going to be a hit. HN is going to be swamped with "How I used Vision Pro to..." posts when it comes out.

100%!

did they talk about using it as a display for a Mac? I'd love to use a real keyboard mouse interacting with flexible Mac displays.

Looks like it's going to be a standalone device that you can pair with a magic keyboard and trackpad. Considering it ships with an M2 I expect iPad/Air level performance (assuming the spatial stuff is solely handled by R1). I can totally see myself using it as "the one device" (pun intended) and get rid of my Macbook, assuming there's an easy way to share content with someone who's next to me, e.g. on my iPhone.

I can't wait for it to be publicly available.

pests3• 3 years ago

The YouTube stream I watched mentioned it can detect when you are looking at your Mac and offer the screen up in the googles with full sizing and layout control. Your Mac appears just as another app and you can multitask as ususal.

ryanbrunner3• 3 years ago

Agreed, polarization is a good sign that this is going to make an impact.

Virtually every new Apple product is going to generate this sort of response, and while many Apple products have had a large impact, just as many haven't, I don't know how much predictive strength "this new Apple product generated a lot of conversation on HN" has.

Amorymeltzer• 3 years ago

Agreed, polarization is a good sign that this is going to make an impact. Ironically "unimpressed" is communicated by a lack of response, not by a negative one (which more likely indicates people's beliefs are being challenged).

To quote Elie Wiesel: "The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference." It's an extremely good barometer.

andrepd• 3 years ago

I don't get this. There is no live demo so far, only a pre-rendered ad. So you have no idea what the actual experience will be like (in an industry famed for over-promising and under-delivering; remember Magic Leap?). The use-cases are also dubious: you can... watch TV alone? Scroll through photos alone? Take pictures? Only the virtual desktop thing was something that I thought "that's useful".

I'm unimpressed so far, maybe that will change maybe it won't. But right now I don't see anything worth being impressed by.

yumraj• 3 years ago

But it's going to be a hit. HN is going to be swamped with "How I used Vision Pro to..." posts when it comes out.

I'm not going to predict whether or not this is going to be a hit, I just don't know.

However, remember when Google Glass came out there were tons of these "how I use" posts and I remember people even changing their LinkedIn profile pictures to be with Google Glass. And, we all know how that turned out.

So, early posts by self-styled influencers or wannabe's are in no way predictor of success, or failure, of a product.

shwaj• 3 years ago

I wonder how intentional Apple was about picking a name that can’t be turned into a schoolyard insult like “Glasshole”?

m3kw98• 3 years ago

Most Google hardware products turn out similarly bad

_ph_4• 3 years ago

They explicitly said in the keynote, that you can bring up the screen of your Mac as a virtual display. So it looks like you can use this to work with your Mac.

karmelapple• 3 years ago

It sure can be used as a display for a Mac. Just stand in front of a Mac, and the screen will go dark and the windows will be moved to your Vision Pro.

Here's the point in the Keynote showing it: https://www.youtube.com/live/GYkq9Rgoj8E?feature=share&t=552...

matt-attack5• 3 years ago

I'm wondering if a similar trick will be used with iPhones and Apple Watches that are within view. Will they bother with the camera reading the screen and then rendering to the visor, or will they just seamlessly talk to the phone and watch to get the screen imagery. I'm assuming that would improve the quality.

pests3• 3 years ago

They mentioned the device can detect when you are using your Mac and show the desktop as an app in your headset. So yes that will be possible as well as just using normal bluetooth mice and keyboards.

H12• 3 years ago

The fact this thing has an M2 makes me surprised Apple didn't try to sell it as a Mac.

I feel like at the price point, this device makes much more sense as the kind of thing that could replace a laptop/desktop than as a companion to it.

If you can check connect a magic keyboard/mouse to it, this thing could conceivably be a MBA and badass multi-monitor setup rolled into one. And to me, that's really the only way this form factor makes sense.

miiiiiike• 3 years ago

It looks neat.

parentheses8• 3 years ago

They did share that it can be used as a display for your mac. It sounded like you're limited to 1 screen (i'm guessing because of bandwidth limitations; also guessing that upgraded macbooks may have the necessary hardware to stream more pixels)

rpozarickij• 3 years ago

did they talk about using it as a display for a Mac?

Actually the did:

bring the powerful capabilities of their Mac into Vision Pro wirelessly, creating an enormous, private, and portable 4K display with incredibly crisp text

I wonder what the latency would be like though.

mihaaly3• 3 years ago

Early to tell. No point predicting who will say what, when people will say everything on the scale eventually.

People have different needs, and use cases and are affected by the way things become implemented. The details of usability, impossible to tell just now.

Probably one thing is easy to tell, is that chatting with a helmet on while moving around in the room is not going to work. : ) That's just stupid marketing crap.

I am looking forward its feasibility for external virtual screens of a Mac - or even a PC! -, with physical keyboard and mouse, that sounds attractive. But with patience, let's see how it works first in long run for the masses. And if it gets to a more realistic price tag sometime.

Diesel555• 3 years ago

did they talk about using it as a display for a Mac?

Yes, in the keynote at 1:32:02. It discusses how looking at your computer then turns the Vision Pro into a display.

https://www.youtube.com/live/GYkq9Rgoj8E?feature=share

fio_ini• 3 years ago

you can (over simplified, tech people yell at me or whatever, but) display your macbook screen inside Apple Vision as a screen/monitor/window, whatever it's called same way you would an app.

IceWreck• 3 years ago

Awesome trailer, but the Meta Quest 3 can do the same things, with somewhat worse hardware but that's acceptable considering its 7x cheaper.

The biggest improvements over it are the higher resolution, the spatial audio and using a PS5/xbox controller to play regular apple arcade games. They are heavily leaning into the "use it as a large monitor aspect" which is something Meta Quest sucks at because of poor resolution.

dmitrygr• 3 years ago

Awesome trailer, but the Meta Quest 3 can do the same things, with somewhat worse hardware but that's acceptable considering its 7x cheaper.

"My pinto can do the same thing as your Private jet, just with somewhat worse hardware but that's acceptable considering it cheaper."

faefox• 3 years ago

DOA at the announced price of $3499. I don't think even the Reality Distortion Field can overcome the intrinsic problems with VR/AR, namely that most people simply do not want to deal with the hassle of strapping something to their face or clearing a sufficiently large area for room-scale experiences.

pcurve• 3 years ago

Yep.

Most people don't even like wearing eyeglass.

I feel like we're going backwards from Google Glasses.

ladberg2• 3 years ago

You don't really need to clear an area for this because you'll be using passthrough 99% of the time and won't hit stuff. You'll be able to run around a cluttered room, pick up things, interact with people, type on keyboards, etc. without taking the headset off!

BudaDude• 3 years ago

I can't wait to come back to this comment in 5 years. Hacker News is always so critical of Apple's new products that turn out to be massive successes.

anaganisk4• 3 years ago

HN product predictions almost never come true, Dropbox, React, Apple Watch, Air Pods, Laravel, Flutter the list just goes on.

Tepix• 3 years ago

Unfortunately you can't comment on a comment that's older than a few weeks.

sanitycheck2• 3 years ago

Never bet against the RDF, it's slightly diminished post-Jobs but still very much active and unbelievably (sometimes literally, to me) powerful.

namuol• 3 years ago

It seems like Apple knows this first generation hardware isn’t going to sell much but they’re going forward anyway. Should be interesting to see what the next couple generations looks like.

jsisto• 3 years ago

I don't see this taking off until there is a killer app that sells these things

seatac76• 3 years ago

Lot of potential.Beautifully designed. I can see it selling a million a year. Questioned that before but I can see enough demand for 1M units a year. Could be an iPad level business if they keep miniaturizing it.

GNOMES• 3 years ago

With the M2 chip they should have called it the "eye mac"

nabla9• 3 years ago

how many degrees field of vision?

amoss• 3 years ago

Two hours of battery life is a joke. They did not mention FoV, which seems to be the biggest limitation on other headsets.

The technology looks nice: foveated rendering, eye tracking controls and geature recognition. The image quality could be amazing and the battery life is still bad enough that it will be v2 or v3 before it is worth looking at.

rektide15• 3 years ago

The battery has to be comfortable wear, so I'm hoping it's closer to 40Wh/10Ah than the airline maximum 100Wh/27Ah bricks the laptop class is used to.

Two hours seems fine to me, if the battery is indeed reasonable size. Knowing Apple though they're going to spit in the EU face & require Apple MFi Usb-c certified batteries or some shit, cause that's the shitty shit Apple does.

tkanarsky3• 3 years ago

This really is technology wrapped up in an experience that feels magical. I'm decently familiar with the state of the HMD industry and I reckon they're a solid 5 to 7 years ahead of Meta in terms of processing power and display tech, not to mention all the ancillary details you have to get right to deliver a convincing AR experience like lens adjustment (they demonstrated a crazy 2D motor controlled carriage for centering the screens, no doubt automatically driven by the eye tracker without user intervention)

I guess the only real bummer is the high price -- all those optical components can't be cheap at this scale -- and the short battery life which really can't be solved without either a serious breakthrough in power efficiency (which apple is on the frontier of), battery density (likely same) or sacrificing visual fidelity (not in Apple's ethos). I don't mind the external battery pack, actually; hopefully it results in a well balanced headset.

I wonder if they're going to do in-person demos at the Apple store. I might have to go check it out.

gtirloni• 3 years ago

Did he really say this?

"""“Just as the Mac introduced us to personal computing, and iPhone introduced us to mobile computing, Apple Vision Pro introduces us to spatial computing. Built upon decades of Apple innovation, Vision Pro is years ahead and unlike anything created before"

fullshark• 3 years ago

I am skeptical but applaud anyone trying to introduce a new computing form factor. All the use cases in the presentation seemed like they could be done already with a computer, and much better.

jedberg• 3 years ago

This device will revolutionize movie making. Given that this is cheaper than most 3D rigs used today, 3D movies just became way easier to make. With the ability to record 3D videos and then play them back, you can expect a whole new breed of consumer made 3D videos to hit the market.

Also, no one else is saying it, but this will revolutionize the pornography industry, for all the reasons above. It'll be super easy for OF creators to make custom 3D videos for big bucks for example.

contemporary3432• 3 years ago

The micro-OLED displays alone explain a lot of the price point.. along with apple silicon, really hard to see how Meta can compete at the high end.

anonymouse0083• 3 years ago

This is the first inverse of Apple. It's the first device that doesn't live with you on the journey... everything from "the throw it out the window macintosh," iPod, iPhone, Air, iPad... you name it, was about going with you where you went.

It's striking... This is a shift of epic proportions.

peddling-brink2• 3 years ago

What are you talking about you strap it to your face.

denimnerd42• 3 years ago

RSI inducing machine. No way I could wear that more than 20m.

fnordsensei• 3 years ago

It’s highly custom, and clearly engineered not to compromise on the vision they have for it.

Early adopters will foot the bill for the R&D required to create the non-“Pro” version of this, hence the price. But there’s always going to be a Pro version of this, that pushes what “no compromise” looks like, as there is for the rest of their products.

MatekCopatek• 3 years ago

Interesting, I thought they would come out with some kind of radical new use case that would change how VR is percieved.

But it seems like they decided the main barrier to wider adoption is hardware quality.

lopkeny12ko2• 3 years ago

$3500??? What a complete joke

shp0ngle2• 3 years ago

I will say this is not for me, but the presentation makes it look like it makes more sense than anything Meta has produced so far.

I don’t want it, but I understand why someone might. I don’t care about metaverse or gaming, but they made it look actually useful.

graypegg7• 3 years ago

Well said, I’m not convinced I’m going to get value out of it, but I can totally see real use cases here. Better than “you’re going to socialize” from meta.

rtsao• 3 years ago

The demonstrated software doesn't look too compelling (mostly floating 2D app windows), but I could see this becoming the ultimate learning/training tool. Interactive, step-by-step guides/instruction on how to do literally anything would be incredibly useful (play an instrument, vehicle maintenance, cooking, etc.)

If the hardware is sufficiently good, eventually the software will come, which is probably why this initially targeting the pro market. I'm skeptical the current frameworks make it easy enough to build quality AR apps, but hopefully the difficulty will go down eventually (maybe with the help of AI).

pipeline_peak3• 3 years ago

This won’ be successful

No one wants a serious product strapped to their face hours on ends, idc if it’s $1200.

VR is a 1980s pipe dream that will be as “revolutionary” as the wiimote was (which we all thought would be)

Steve Jobs would think this is stupid and you all know it.

Sorry to come off as pessimistic, would rather tell it like it is than pretend this thing taking off.

vvilliamperez• 3 years ago

Apple is taking small but important steps here. Notice how most of the content is 2d rendered onto a plane in 3d space.

Meta and previously Magicleap perhaps bit off more processing than they could chew with 3d models in a 3d world mesh.

qbasic_forever5• 3 years ago

If apple really believed this were a revolutionary product they would have done the entire keynote with every presenter wearing and using the device. The fact they didn't is a major tell...

This thing has sunk cost fallacy written all over it and I'll be shocked if it even makes it to a version 2 of the device. They likely had so much time and talent engaged in the creation of it over the last few years that they feared it would be more of a demoralizing and attrition inducing event to kill it before launch vs. quietly abandon it afterwards.

I'm just starring slackjawed at their press photos of people using it and thinking if that's the absolute best they can make this thing look it is completely DOA with normal people. Nevermind all the usability issues that are sure to exist with strapping goggles to your face and head for hours at a time.

homarp2• 3 years ago

https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i...

qbasic_forever5• 3 years ago

If you recall Steve Jobs was actually wearing and using the iPod when he announced it.

This AR device is so shoddy and weird looking I'm certain Jobs would have binned the whole project the first time he saw it in prototype.

it_citizen• 3 years ago

They announced a product that is a year away and dedicated almost an hour to it, stretching the entire conference to two hours.

They are definitely not burying it.

Demmme11• 3 years ago

Google did a sky dive live.

Talked about glasses the same way.

Do you see Google glasses?

the_mar7• 3 years ago

No? That would make a very shitty demo since you are looking at it on a 2D screen.

qbasic_forever5• 3 years ago

No I mean every apple leader on stage would have been wearing this device as they presented their part of the program (even parts unrelated to the headset).

rcarr11• 3 years ago

Waiting til the end for "One More Thing" has always been used for the big new product reveal.

tpmoney8• 3 years ago

If apple really believed this were a revolutionary product they would have done the entire keynote with every presenter wearing and using the device.

To what purpose? At best, we'd all get to see how the virtual eyes thing worked, and that's about it. You wouldn't see them do any interactions with it, even if they were replacing their teleprompters it would all be automated scrolling. So what would be the purpose of putting it on the presenter's faces?

qbasic_forever5• 3 years ago

They're on that stage to sell us the vision of AR improving all of our lives. If they can't even be f'ed to do it in front of the most captive and interested audience for the device... it is a major tell and the device is doomed.

Think about it, if even the presenters on stage have no use for it or don't want to be seen using it then why would you?

mciancia• 3 years ago

Interesting, in terms of resolution:

PS VR2: 2000 × 2040, so ~4Mpix per eye

Quest pro: 1800 x 1920 pixels per eye, so ~3.5Mpx per eye

Vision pro: "The custom micro‑OLED display system features 23 million pixels" So 11.5Mpix per eye, assuming similar aspect ratio (1:1) resolution ~3400x3400

Probably there is more then resolution to this, but still, seems impressive

illuminati19114• 3 years ago

The price is so insane and outrageous that this will be pretty much 101% failure.

It's essentially iOS app browser inside Oculus Quest like glasses + Disney garbage content. Hard to see even value for 1000 USD price tag.

adamwk2• 3 years ago

I always consider V1 Apple products like kickstarters funded by Apple whales

travisgriggs• 3 years ago

I think this is very point on. This is not the sweet spot on the supply demand curve that maximizes the units sold * price per unit. But at this point in time, that's not actually what Apple would want/need with this new "innovation". They need a limited set of people who are zealous enough to jump in at that price, and help refine the product. Apple gets feedback and a publicity that will be biased positively. "Let's drop 3500+ and then pan this thing" will not fit the majority of reviewers. But "I spent discretionary money that you didn't/don't have and I want you to know it, and I'm certainly going to paint it as a wise first mover type experience" is more likely. People who pay more for seats at a game, always make a bigger deal about how awesome the game was.

wongarsu2• 3 years ago

A Valve Index will run you $1000, for less resolution and no onboard computing. Lenovo has $1700 AR glasses. Both of these seem like much better comparison points than a budget product like the Oculus Quest.

NickC25• 3 years ago

Neat. I won't buy one any time soon, but it looks cool and knowing Apple, they will iterate like hell on this platform over the years and hopefully the price will eventually come down to a more reasonable point like $2k-2.5k.

In 3-5 years down the line, though, this will really start to take off. The Vision Pro 2 or Vision Pro 3 will be a game changer.

Some of the features are quite useful, though.

yvsong• 3 years ago

AirPods Max synthetic fabric is not comfortable to touch face. Hope Vision Pro has more comfortable materials. Many big headphones have comfortable velour or leather ear pads. It's also better for the pads to be replaceable.

stellalo• 3 years ago

If there’s a company that can make the VR/AR headset thingy fly, that is Apple. I’m not sure it will fly (I’m skeptical) but I’m happy that we will finally find out.

w10-1• 3 years ago

The underlying tech is amazing, as is the design.

Augmented reality is a much harder problem than virtual reality.

Have they defeated cybersickness?

Possibly, in part due to only 12ms latency from outside camera to display. The neurological visual latency is about 100ms, but there are many drivers to cybersickness[1].

fovea-centric resolution: improve not the whole screen, but the area seen by the retina's fovea, which has much higher resolution (and attention). I can see how the R2 processor schedule could prioritize what you're actually looking at relative to the rest of the UI.

Is it weird? The device projects the eyes and face out to others, so they can "interact" with you. It's telling that the ad places the user not in a business context, but making toast for kids, and interacting with a surprise soccer ball.

Notwithstanding the "everyday" appeal of 3D games for play and minority-report displays for work, there are many, many specialty applications where this could be huge and $3,500 would be nothing.

I wonder what their manufacturing runway is. It could take time to start selling millions of these units, but small lots can be really, really hard to justify.

[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frvir.2020.5822...

activitypea4• 3 years ago

12ms puts it at about 90hz latency. I play games on a 144hz screen, and I can tell the difference between 90 and 144 hz, and that's on a bad screen at an arms length from my face that's definitely not trying to convince me I'm looking at reality.

It'll probably be in the same ballpark as a good transparency mode on headphones -- close to indistinguishable in small bursts, but long term causes alienation/lack of presence.

ncr10010• 3 years ago

A Wall Street Journal reporter tried a preproduction unit, she felt nausea after 30 minutes, Apple said they'd "fix that by release time".

samsolomon• 3 years ago

I've always thought the killer feature to get people to start using AR/VR wasn't games or social experiences, but just a bigger screen for web browsing, Excel, dashboards and a bunch of other boring software.

Honestly, I'm not sure how Vision Pro product stacks up to what Apple says, but the marketing shows that Apple has clearly figured it out.

I was initially a skeptic of widespread adoption of VR. I'm not sure that it's going to be the next smartphone. However, if it gets more comfortable and the price point goes down, I could see it being a replacement for traditional desktop monitors. Instead of paying $1k for a 27-inch display you get as many large screens as you want. That seems probable to me.
I know that sounds awfully boring and mundane, but that probably comes way before other applications. After all the original iPhone was just an iPod you could make calls with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33358495

rcconf• 3 years ago

Regardless of how well this product does, the presentation and vision from Apple was phenomenal. It was like watching a cinematic AAA movie, so exciting and inspiring. There has been no other company that has been able to present AR and VR in such a way that is so exciting.

The augmented reality shifting to virtual with the dial is so genius. I feel like a kid, and that's rare to feel these days. Love it, dream on Apple!

the42thdoctor• 3 years ago

Can't wait for the GPT integration with GitHub and start programming like Tony Stark

moron4hire3• 3 years ago

Disappointed there was no mention of WebXR support in Safari.

ecliptik• 3 years ago

Can't wait to run GopherVR [1] on this.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GopherVR

sekai3• 3 years ago

Useful metric to gauge potential success of an innovation: will it make consuming porn more enjoyable / transcendental?

tennisflyi• 3 years ago

I think if Apple leans in to it, porn might prop it up.

eastbound• 3 years ago

Apple is too prude to authorize that.

Maybe Apple’s strategy relies on EU’s sideloading law… to make porn both persona non-grata and available in VR. They can deny it’s here, and blame it all on EU, and let parents decide whether they give the “PUK” code to their teenager, and that’s a winning trio.

riffraff2• 3 years ago

VR porn has been around for years. I do not own VR goggles so I can't comment on how enjoyable it is.

paxys10• 3 years ago

The hardware is no doubt impressive, as expected, but I just can't see myself in any of the situations they keep showing in VR/AR demos.

Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset, and scroll through their vacation photos? Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their family/friends? Would I want to be in a group call with generated avatars of people rather than their actual faces? If the kids are having a fun moment would I want to run inside, grab my headset, strap it on and record a video, or just go join them? Would I rather work on this all day instead of a laptop?

And the one thing I could maybe see this being useful for – gaming – was barely even mentioned in their keynote.

If I'm dropping $3,500 and cutting myself off from the outside world (and no, that weird eye display thing doesn't count), a half-assed substitute for consuming the same content as I would on any other screen isn't going to cut it. Show me the actual future, in terms of software/content/communication/immersiveness, then we'll talk.

drrotmos2• 3 years ago

Would I rather work on this all day instead of a laptop?

That really is the $3,500 question. Can I see myself preferring to work streaming my Mac's screen to a Vision Pro for my IDE, having and things like Slack and e-mail off to the side running on the headset? I don't know, but if I can, this seems worth it to me.

oezi7• 3 years ago

The key question is if this thing will stay cool enough to be comfortable.

donbongo2• 3 years ago

This is the same question i'm asking myself too

ARandumGuy2• 3 years ago

All day is the key component. Most VR headsets recommend taking breaks every half hour, which isn't just a "cover your ass" warning. I know I can't use my personal headset for much longer without feeling woozy after I take it off.

By comparison, I'm at my laptop for 7+ hours just for work. I would need to see compelling evidence that the Vision Pro is safe and comfortable to use for that long before I'd even consider replacing my laptop. And if it can't replace the computers or displays I use, then it's just a $3,500 gimmick.

mgrandl• 3 years ago

I can 100% see myself preferring working on this thing over a Mac, as long as I don’t need a Mac to host my dev environment.

paxys10• 3 years ago

A bigger question is – does it support mouse input? Because none of their demos showed it, and without it the headset is basically dead on arrival for any real work.

rad_gruchalski5• 3 years ago

That really is the $3,500 question.

For me the question rather is: is being able to work from the sofa a couple of hours a day without having to stare at a small screen worth $3.5k? Certainly.

rtkwe3• 3 years ago

It really depends on how the fake screens actually look in use. You need a decent multiple of the number of pixels in the screen you want to emulate on your AR glasses to be able to pull it off well and so far we haven't really gotten it. I do not see myself getting these till they're a third or less the price either unless they're issued to me for work for some reason.

acomjean• 3 years ago

Anytime its on your face, you could be working.

Front and center, your work. anytime, anywhere. depending on how its implemented you can't get away. Hope they include a power button.

But 2 hours of battery life is a good amount of work, though it seems short somehow. Nice to know there is a limit on it taking over your time.

cesarvarela• 3 years ago

I think that price tag is not for end consumers, but early adopters/builders. There is going to be a gold rush of "maybe I can make that flashlight app that makes me a millionaire".

Fun times incoming.

wnolens• 3 years ago

These days I've moved over to pomodoro technique to be able to get any work done in the face of WFH distractions and general indifference to my work.

So strapping on immersive goggles for 30m-1h chunks and taking lots of breaks actually fits my current work model perfectly and might improve my productivity.

It all comes down to.. how clear is text?

ignoramous3• 3 years ago

Exactly. You know it is worth it when corp pays for the gadgets ;)

I mean, how terribly over-priced is the Mac, and yet...

dathinab3• 3 years ago

Why?

Because if well done I get my reasonable high multi monitor like setup everywhere I want, no matter weather I'm sitting or lying or on the train or at home.

Fun thing is if you just skim the article it looks as if they copied https://simulavr.com/ :=) (They didn't this was developed independent of each other and Apple put some tweaks in it which they claim no one else did and gave it a new name and claim they are the first, like always.)

coolspot2• 3 years ago

Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?

A male sitting alone in a dimmed room watching photos with a smug on his face. I think they were hinting at something else than “vacation photos”.

prawn19• 3 years ago

They are going to need a setting to disable hand gestures.

otabdeveloper4• 3 years ago

It was a special kind of vacation.

allenu4• 3 years ago

I'm in the camp that sees the whole thing as a novelty. I didn't see any use cases that made me go "Ooh, I need this in my life." I already have multiple screens around me. If I'm watching TV and want to look something up, I can open up my laptop or look at my phone.

The nice thing about those are I can physically close the laptop or turn off the phone. With a virtual screen, I have to use some UI to do it. I know it doesn't seem like much of a difference, but to me, there's enough lag and lack of real feel of control that I'd prefer a real object than a virtual one.

Interacting with app windows in 3D space also doesn't feel any faster than just using a flat window on a flat screen. I'm already super productive using keyboard + mouse and a flat display, so I don't see how using my voice and turning my head to look at things in a virtual space is any better.

m3kw98• 3 years ago

To be fair when the iPhone 1 came out nobody really said they need it in their lives vs a Nokia or BB

XorNot5• 3 years ago

I see a bunch of use-cases I might like, but they all have a big asterisk of "how well does it actually work".

And it would have to be pretty damn spectacular for me to drop ~AUD$5200 on it in a "I will be using this all the time, pro-actively sense". Which maybe it is!

But this press-release spends a lot of time talking around the hard numbers - i.e. 23 million pixels is a lot of things but its not a resolution. Nor is their any mention of the FOV angle (this data is obviously out there, but avoiding mentioning it in your own marketing copy means you know it's not what you want people up front comparing).

alanwreath2• 3 years ago

The success of this really depends on the developers’ and consumers’ patience, and since that will fade quickly, probably also depends on the amount of dough Apple is willing to sink into it until the tech allows for more practical non-intrusive products.

jayd169• 3 years ago

Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?

Right now they pull open a (what was once massive) laptop and scroll through vacation photos.

If the kids are having a fun moment would I want to run inside, grab my headset, strap it on and record a video, or just go join them

Same as running inside to grab the camcorder, no?

Would I rather work on this all day instead of a laptop?

If I got multiple monitors from a laptop on any desk then I would find that pretty compelling.

PascLeRasc2• 3 years ago

Recent phones like the 3GS have a camcorder built in and fit in a pocket.

bredren4• 3 years ago

Same as running inside to grab the camcorder, no?

Presumably new iPhone will record 3d video.

shusaku2• 3 years ago

Same as running inside to grab the camcorder, no?

I agree with this, plenty of us are old enough to remember our parents lugging a huge video camera around at family events. If the videos are compellingly better, this is a use case.

JumpCrisscross7• 3 years ago

Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their family/friends?

Flights. This might become a must-have for the jet-setting class. That not only makes Apples first-year numbers, it fertilizes the market for developers.

snackwalrus• 3 years ago

I also thought flights were a compelling use case until I saw that the battery life was “up to” a whopping 2 hours

moooo99• 3 years ago

But it fertilizes the market for what kind of developers? Currently I see no real convincing reason why this should be substantially different than existing headsets except for a better operating system experience.

I can see this being an exceptional gaming device if the screen specs are anything to go by. But any game that would justify spending the substantial premium for that device would likely need an extra PC with really beefy specs, bumping the price up even higher, further limiting the target audience.

I've read other peoples thoughts about 3D modelling usecases. For most CAD related use-cases this thing is almost definitely overspeced considering the shitty textures most CAD prototypes utilize. Maybe it would be cool for architecture studios, but thats also a fairly limited audience.

I'm sure developers will come up with very creative use-cases for that device, but I cant imagine most of them being as impactful in the average persons everyday life as the introduction of the iPhone was. What I'm very certain is that this device is launching at a bad time economically. 3.5k is a significant expense, even for people with higher incomes. In a time where disposable incomes shrink and uncertainty is continuing to stress many employees, I don't think as many people would be willing to drop the 3.5k on that device as maybe 3 years ago.

But hey, maybe this comment will age as poorly as the famous dropbox one.

numpad011• 3 years ago

XReal(Nreal) glasses are much cheaper and lighter and with good reputations for that use case.

justapassenger• 3 years ago

They focus on AR experiences, so doesn't fit into flights. Why would I need to see my sweaty passenger?

hindsightbias• 3 years ago

There was a lot of negativity online about the iPad and iWatch. I knew they'd all be successful the first time I boarded a flight after their intro.

Everyone in first class had one. As first class goes, so goes at least America.

grogenaut2• 3 years ago

My M2 air works great on flights no matter the seat configuration and I'm not small person. Costs a lot less than the ar as well.

haberman• 3 years ago

On flights you want noise cancellation. Maybe you could pair these with noise-cancelling AirPods, but then would you still get the "spatial audio"?

hadlock2• 3 years ago

VR movies in economy maybe. To tune out the awful experience of sitting in a 17" wide seat with not nearly enough leg room.

Nobody is paying business or first class prices and wearing a VR headset. Certainly not devoting carry on baggage space for it.

CydeWeys3• 3 years ago

All the most enjoyable stuff I've done in VR has involved, at a minimum, lots of arm movement, and typically also leg movement as well. Think Beat Saber, or Half-Life: Alyx. I don't really see this working in a seated plane environment.

cj2• 3 years ago

Maybe, but you'd need to wear bulky Bose on top of the VR headset to get decent audio quality + noise cancelation.

xp846• 3 years ago

I kept picturing someone, having turned the "immersiveness" crown to the max and put on noise-cancellation, sitting in a window seat, smiling and calmly watching Ted Lasso all the way down while everyone around them braces for impact and grabs their life preservers!

anigbrowl• 3 years ago

Doubt. It might provide an (expensive) escape from the misery that is economy class, but if you are travel in first class or on private jets then you're already living in a very pleasant version of the world.

partiallypro8• 3 years ago

This sounds absolutely awful and everyone on the flight will think you're a massive tool. It also costs $3500, people that can afford that just for flights are flying business or first class anyhow. I also don't know how much hand room you need to navigate the thing and personally don't like the idea that the person next to me on a flight could be watching porn, flights are already kinda gross.

SkyPuncher9• 3 years ago

Flights are my most compelling use case for my Nreal Airs.

Nothing worse than being 1" too deep and having to work at a terrible, awkward angle.

mithr4• 3 years ago

Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset, and scroll through their vacation photos? Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their family/friends?

This was exactly my biggest question. In what situation do you sit and watch family photos of a vacation with your kids alone on your couch? In almost all cases, you're doing that with your family, or showing them to someone else. And if you've got a family (as many people in the ads did!) you're also watching movies together with them most of the time. Apple completely sidestepped talking about how other people might be able to share your experience. Even if this is amazing for actual work, and you're working in a physical office (as the guy in the ad did! as Apple requires all employees do a few days a week!), how will you show your coworker what you're working on? They also conspicuously focused on manufacturing, presentations, and conferencing as their office use cases, and not coding, despite repeatedly stating that small text looks very clear.

As for the "running inside and grabbing a headset" aspect, it felt like they were implying that people will wear this everywhere they go (which they similarly imply won't feel weird exactly due to the weird eye display thing), so you'll already be wearing the headset. But that feels like a very, very ambitious goal, that right now seems ridiculously unlikely/niche.

jumpkick• 3 years ago

Regarding looking at family photos alone, this is typically only done in a film, when you, a character, have experienced some terrible tragedy.

ryanbrunner3• 3 years ago

I mean, I have looked at old pictures of a vacation, but it's usually a pretty idle thing, often in response to some notification from Google photos or a facebook memory or something like that, it's definitely not something where I'm going to dedicate time to it or pull out a separate device.

tootie• 3 years ago

AR is so, so, so difficult and so much more than just good resolution. If they are trying to do passthrough camera then the framerate has to be super high while also delivering all that 4k video. The problems with opacity and occlusion of real and superimposed objects is almost impossible to make it truly immersive. I think their trick is likely going to be in the software and in the interaction modes. You can't strap this to your head and ride a bike with heads up display, this will be a seated experience with a controlled environment. And it may do that one job very, very well.

opportune• 3 years ago

I have not developed a VR/AR game, but I imagine there are several chicken-egg problems making this possible killer app hard to achieve. One is that VR/AR adoption (and usage) is not enough to justify large studios spending huge sums of money developing games that make extensive use of Vr/ar features, at best they’ll take a regular game and port it to VR. Another is that there aren’t very many workers who are experienced at developing VR/AR applications yet, and that the tooling isn’t mature enough (or standardized enough) for this to be easy. But without killer apps there won’t be enough VR/AR users to begin with.

Also the hardware is rapidly developing and creating super flashy applications requires high-specced SKUs that are only supported by a small number of devices in the wild.

Porting 2D desktop applications with a couple VR/AR gimmicks to VR is something that is well scoped and comparatively easy, it also is mostly re-usable because any “render a 2D UI in 3d” tech is going to work in most or all applications. So in terms of getting features and applications to encourage adoption, it has very high ROI.

Also, people probably aren’t just going to strap on a VR headset to look at vacation photos or YouTube videos if the only thing it offers is a super wide field of view and immersive audio. But they will for… other kinds of photos and videos that Apple can’t demo on stage

t-writescode• 3 years ago

Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their family/friends?

Some of us don't have local friends we want to sit down and watch a movie with; and some of us don't have local friends at all.

I know people who already watch whole movies, etc, in VRChat. This usecase already exists.

prawn19• 3 years ago

We have multiple TVs in our house. After the kids are asleep, my wife will watch her preferred shows on an iPad in bed (or second screen while working) despite there being a TV in the room. I can see people using the headset like this.

Even when the kids are awake, if granted screentime, more often than not they split off and watch/play completely different things. They'll usually only watch the same thing on the same screen if we insist, usually watching a documentary or telling them to watch the same movie together. Otherwise, their different tastes prevail.

peoplefromibiza2• 3 years ago

I know people who already watch whole movies, etc, in VRChat. This usecase already exists.

mmmmm

this line of reasoning is a bit worrying to me.

I'll use an hyperbole here, apologizes in advance, it's not specifically a counter argument, just a thought, but to me it's like saying "some people are alone, don't have friends, so they use heroin, I can totally see a usecase for manufacturing heroin"

Maybe we should try to fix the underlying problem, before trying to exploit it?

goosedragons3• 3 years ago

As someone who lives alone in a tiny apartment I have watched a movie on my Quest 2, quite a few. It's better than watching a movie on my PC monitor that pulls double duty as a TV. Would I pay $3500 for that though? Absolutely not.

I'm curious how well gaming will work too. They didn't show off any sort of VR controller a la Quest or PS VR2.

LtdJorge2• 3 years ago

Because their gaming market would be tiny. Gaming on Mac is completely dead, and mobile gaming will take at least a lot of time to adapt to the hardware.

RandallBrown6• 3 years ago

I think they purposefully avoided showing a VR controller because they're making the claim that you don't need one at all for the use cases they were showing.

I think they're claiming that their hand and eye tracking are good enough that you don't need to be waving your arms around to navigate menus.

They did show people using a Playstation controller to play games so I assume there will eventually at least be a third party VR controller.

erTAlEAS• 3 years ago

I agree that it's undoubtedly a very impressive device.

I think the next generation of computing devices is going to be centered around the device understanding the environment around you, what you are looking at and doing. E.g. you are shopping, cooking, fixing something at home, running, playing basketball and the device understands what you are doing and gives you info and help about the activity. Democratizing access to a personal universal coaching for everyone, like the Internet did with access to information. This device is kind of like a mac on your head, I think it doesn't differentiate itself enough from what is currently available. That's with the exception for entertainment: gaming and movies where I expect it will provide a much more immersive experience to what you can have at home with a traditional setup, like the other similar device do.

I do like the eye display on the front, I think Apple is making a correct bet that these devices can't cut you off from the outside world. In the long run they will be small enough not to cover the face at all. I think it's probably another 5-10 years before the next big thing, but with the Apple silicon advancements and few year of lessons from this device Apple is the best position to dominate that space then.

zebnyc3• 3 years ago

Regarding the photo library, I can speak for my wife. We have a kindergartener and one of my wife's favorite activities is to watch pictures / videos of our kid in bed. She can do this for hours on end to entertain herself.

She also likes to watch movies on an iphone instead of a big screen cause she can use it while performing other tasks (cooking, cleaning etc). She has always said no to a larger form factor like a iPad but I think this might be a good use case for her.

prawn19• 3 years ago

My wife also watches content on phone and iPad. Usually in a room with a TV in it. Doubt she's intentionally watched something on a TV screen for weeks. I mostly watch on a second or third screen while working.

Our TVs are used by the kids, and even then they will happily take an iPad instead.

Pxtl3• 3 years ago

Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their family/friends?

Let's be real, most media content is being consumed on phones these days. In those cases? Yes, a headset is basically just a smartphone for your face.

But I agree about the demos in general focusing on stuff you can do already just fine in 2D. There was very little that looked like a useful application of a HUD. No 3D modeling work, no superimposing digital info over relevant real-world objects... just normal computer and smartphone tasks, but wearing a big sweaty heavy expensive face-screen.

princevegeta89• 3 years ago

Can it be straining the eyes, head, ears, and jaws? Also, what are the negative mental effects of being lost in that world for 2+ hours? Staring at my phone, I still know what's beside me.. I can fall asleep with stuff still playing on my phone... but I can't imagine what sort of an experience it is to fall asleep with the headset still wrapped around your skull...lol

robbyking• 3 years ago

Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?

There was a time that people said the same thing about digital photos -- people swore nothing would ever replace physical photo albums, and thought the idea of having to look at a screen to view your vacation photos was insane.

Now just imagine a few generations from now when Apple Vision is the size of a pair of regular eye glasses.

wpietri23• 3 years ago

When do you believe that time was? Because that's not how I remember it.

I borrowed an Apple QuickTake from friends in the mid '90s, and bought an Olympus 1-megapixel camera not too long after. People definitely complained about the low quality. And some said they didn't want to have to go to a desktop computer to view their photos, which was very plausible given the size and slowness of desktop computers of the time.

And they turned out to be basically correct. Digital photography became wildly more popular with the rise of the smartphone and the tablet. Basically computers had to get much more human-friendly, fitting into the existing human world, so that you could use photos as you would with an album, handing them around, pointing at them, etc.

Which is part of what makes me skeptical about facehugger VR. Instead of putting technology in their living rooms, it requires people to cut themselves off from their surroundings and pretend to be somewhere else. It's the exact opposite of what made digital photography work for the masses.

paxys10• 3 years ago

Cool and in those few generations I will absolutely buy that magical device. But we are discussing what's in front of us today.

ztrww12• 3 years ago

I guess the question is whether this the Newton or the iPad. It might take another 5-10 years before actual uses cases get figured out and at that point it might be very different from what Apple is offering now or are envisioning for the next couple of generations.

thefz• 3 years ago

AR/VR is still a solution in search of a problem and will be for a long time.

This is one of the most laughable launches and devices I have ever witnessed in my life.

johnfn• 3 years ago

Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset, and scroll through their vacation photos? Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their family/friends?

Not saying that I like it, but a very large swath of people mindlessly scroll instagram for hours a day, or watch movies on their laptop.

richardw3• 3 years ago

Unity as a partner. This thing hasn’t arrived yet. It’ll definitely have games.

Personally this is the first AR kit I’ve vaguely wanted. The software, hardware and partner list makes this a game changer. There are more like me.

ztrww12• 3 years ago

Unity as a partner.

Shovelware games drowning in ads and iAPs?

zitterbewegung• 3 years ago

This is good for gamers actually not for the obvious one (hand tracking ) but actually the ability to immediately change the isolation. The biggest problem I have with doing stuff in VR is that I multitask in certain games and if you make it so I can switch to something else momentarily then that’s a big win. I agree with you though that why they haven’t been much more aggressive with gaming at wwdc unless at launch or nearer they wanted to announce then but that would be ridiculous since gamers preorder everything and announcing a game would push more gamers to that.

asdff12• 3 years ago

Apple hasn't cared about gaming seriously for perhaps decades.

Aeolun4• 3 years ago

I find the gaming experience on the Apple TV really nice.

beezle• 3 years ago

Nobody really likes wearing ski goggles, especially for many hours. I can't begin to imagine how annoying it will be to wear something heavier. Hope it has some type of ventilation system!

Perhaps a HN opthamologist can chime in - what are the long term effects on vision likely to be from wearing/using a device like this for extended periods of time every day?

Melatonic3• 3 years ago

Thats what I am wondering - is this good for us?

beachy• 3 years ago

I wonder if there will be an answer for this.

I've spent the last 35 odd years of my working life peering at screens, from teensy phosphor numbers to decent wide screens. I've had issues with OOS but never with my eyes.

I have never heeded any of the warnings about taking a break, refocusing every 20 minutes etc. My eyes are just fine, well as good as most other people my age.

My pick is there will be some recommendations with this, but they'll be hand wavey and you won't know if ignoring them will fry your eyes or have no effect whatsoever.

OJFord• 3 years ago

(and no, that weird eye display thing doesn't count)

That weird eye display thing is the only novel thing here, as far as I can tell? I actually thought that was pretty neat. (Not 3.5k suddenly-I'm-interested-in-VR neat, but still.)

caconym_15• 3 years ago

massive
sweaty
strapped
instead of [...] their family/friends
generated avatars
kids [...] grab my headset, strap it on [...] or just go join them?
cutting myself off from the outside world
half-assed substitute for consuming the same content
Show me the actual future

It seems like you're trying very hard to convince yourself this will be a bad product that is unpleasant to use and carries unavoidable antisocial externalities. It could very well be all of that and more, but I don't really understand why you would bother with this level of self-assured negativity before there are even any unbiased hands-on impressions out there. Apple is historically very good at execution.

Would I rather work on this all day instead of a laptop?

You know, I very well might!

electrondood• 3 years ago

Shoot, I would. I've been dreaming of a headset to replace my monitors for years now.

sanderjd6• 3 years ago

I don't think all those points seem like "trying very hard", they totally seem to me like the base case, and it's up to the product to rise to the occasion and show how this is all wrong.

Aeolun4• 3 years ago

I don’t know if you’ve used any existing VR glasses, but that’s a pretty accurate characterisation.

prawn19• 3 years ago

I think in some reactions, there's an element of "I can't justify this cost, so I want to convince myself I don't want it." I can't justify this early version, but at $1k I'd be quite happy to strap on the headset and cut myself off from the outside world in the evenings, or for some of my work.

I can absolutely see a future where many adults spend idle evenings with a headset instead of a TV or iPad.

alex_duf• 3 years ago

Apple isn't devoid of any past mistakes though...

Removing ports that re useful, making a computer that looks like a trashcan etc.

Just because it's apple trying to fit a use case doesn't mean it will succeed, and I too am skeptical about it to say the least.

wslh6• 3 years ago

This, and we can say the same of the current present where, we, people behaves like zombies watching our own mobile phones without looking at the faces around. Not saying that this is a good future but the technology is sound and Apple execution excels and is well integrated within their ecosystem.

hn_throwaway_994• 3 years ago

I totally agree with everything you've written, but I'd just put forth that I think what Apple did with Apple Watch could be instructive here.

Apple Watch was basically originally marketed as a high-end app/notification device (remember the original 10k gold Apple Watch?) Over time they realized the real target market and use case was as a fitness/health tracker, and they doubled down on features and design for that.

With these AR/VR headsets, I agree that gaming is the one use case I've actually seen these headsets be great at, but all these companies keep trying to extend it to our daily lives that nobody seems to really want. But I could believe Apple would eventually come around to seeing one or two really good target markets (gaming and watching movies maybe?) and then just really hone in on that. Folks say games will be a tough sell because Apple isn't really known as a gaming platform, but I don't think this is really true if you take iOS games into account. I can easily see game developers wanting to build for this given the hardware capabilities.

lolinder7• 3 years ago

No one is going to buy a $3500 headset for their puzzle and idle games, so Apple's existing games market is not going to help them sell this device.

For Apple to break into the VR games space they'll have to woo both serious gamers and large game studios, both of which seem extremely unlikely given the huge cultural disconnect.

etempleton4• 3 years ago

But an Apple Watch is still a watch. Even though though first watch kind of sucked it still did what every other watch did and 90 percent of the time you just wore it and ignored it.

You can’t ignore this thing. If it isn’t offering utility 100 percent of the time you are using it you are going to take it off and set it aside.

foobarbecue• 3 years ago

I watch tv shows often and movies occasionally on my Quest 2. Often the TV shows aren't in 4K anyway so I'm not losing any resolution. The main reason I do it is the perfect darkness you get with the headset on. Shows like Silo are too dark to watch during the day in my southern california apartment. I know I could get blackout curtains or whatever but the Quest is actually cheaper and easier.

jillesvangurp• 3 years ago

Sure, the announcement is full of cliches and more than a little cringeworthy. But I'm not aware of any device that provides this level of quality and immersion for things like 2D and 3D movies, games, or simply the amount of screen real estate for anything 2D people already use. The genius move with this strategy is that it is mostly about leveling up 2D and existing content and software. With some sprinkling of 3D content.

And probably this device is not fast enough for full immersive 3D gaming to begin with. You'd need that new Mac Studio in a backpack mounted on your back with probably a few kilos of battery dangling behind it and some cooling for you and all that hardware. Not going to happen. Some light gaming is probably fine. But it would be a mistake to aim this at gamers.

If this works as advertised, this could basically replace most of my devices. Why have a laptop when I can just project whatever in my field of view, grab a wireless keyboard and go to work. Not that different from what magic leap promised to deliver years ago. Only issue with that is of course that they never really delivered that. Apple seems a bit further with their R&D.

Probably the first generation will have some significant limitations and a certain level of being just a bit uncomfortable. That head band doesn't look fun without AC, for example. And of course motion sickness might be a thing. Not to mention headaches and other potential side-effects of prolonged exposure to this. And probably showing up in public with this is not a great idea in terms of getting robbed, beaten up, etc. Also, the whole interacting with family is seriously cringe-worthy to look at. This looks to me like a solo experience that has not much capability for sharing it with others.

On the other hand, I think they just presented a big money making machine with an amazing walled garden that is pretty much guaranteed to bring countless users if if gets even close to delivering what is on display here.

I think 3.5K$ is pretty OK as a price point. I don't have that kind of disposable income necessarily. But lots of people undeniably do. And this does have a certain level of wow that unlocks that kind of budget for those with this kind of money. I bet lots of people are itching to throw money at this thing on the off chance it is much than half as good as this announcement suggests.

I'm just hoping that this kicks the competition into gear. This looks like it is a lot nicer to have than some of the other stuff out there. The flip side is of course that it's all locked behind the towering walls of Apple's walled garden. This just screams for a more open answer. Meta looks like it just got its lunch eaten pretty thoroughly. Mark Zuckerberg going on about having meetings in VR just isn't quite going to be good enough. I'd love to see what MS comes up with. They've been working on holo lens for years and been holding off on putting it in the hands of consumers. This might prompt them to kick a few things into gear. A pro-sumer focused version of that maybe with some XBox and Steam action on the side could tempt a few people.

And of course all of this stuff is going to be cat nip for the adult entertainment industry. Forget games. I don't think I need to spell that out for this audience. I'm curious to see how Apple is going to contain that.

onepointsixC8• 3 years ago

Meta looks like it just got its lunch eaten pretty thoroughly

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Meta's offerings looks far better in my view. Unless, I'm missing something here, Meta's Quest Pro appears to provide basically 95% of the experience for $2,500 less, while providing great controllers for gaming. All in a form factor which IMO is better (no wired hip battery).

codelord• 3 years ago

I think if the hardware is good and even more importantly developer tools are easy to use and better than competition this could be successful. It doesn't really matter what Apple shows in their demo what the use cases are. Does anyone share heart-beats on Apple watch? No. Yet, Apple Watch is a best selling product.

crazygringo15• 3 years ago

Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them

I just want to say, absolutely. Except it's not sweaty.

You're not going to do it in a social situation -- it's not replacing a movie the family watches together -- but in your bedroom or home alone absolutely. Just recline on your bed/couch and watch an IMAX-sized screen in the sky above you. Surround sound in your AirPods.

I already do it with my Quest 2 and it's glorious. It's hard to imagine how good the experience is until you've tried it.

And I'm convinced that within a few years, it's going to become the main way of watching movies together with friends/family/lovers when you're geographically apart -- whether 2,000 miles or 2 miles.

dahwolf3• 3 years ago

I must be old-fashioned or even anti-social, but what exactly is the point of watching a movie together remotely? Does it become some kind of group debate that constantly interrupts the movie?

nocontextpls5• 3 years ago

I own a Quest 2 and it's far from glorious. The resolution makes everything a blurry mess, and the lenses make anything off-center even more blurry.

It DOES get sweaty, hot, and it leaves pressure marks on your face.

My 65" 4k OLED TV and shelf speakers absolutely destroy the Quest 2. I have also owned an HTC Vive and a Valve Index.

I would rather do nothing than use any of them for media consumption.

partiallypro8• 3 years ago

I don't have a Quest 2 myself, but my nephew has one and even wearing it for 15 minutes has the padding full of sweat any time I've messed with it. I can't even imagine wearing it for 2+ hours.

drited3• 3 years ago

I would totally rather work on this all day instead of being hunched over a laptop. The freedom of posture, and the expansiveness of the desktop real estate blow laptop productivity out of the water in my opinion.

kaba027• 3 years ago

And type on what exactly? On a keyboard in your desk/lap. I don’t see the posture that much more flexible.

fnordpiglet5• 3 years ago

I have a 360 go pro. That does make the headset worth it.

30minAdayHN• 3 years ago

I always wanted something like this. I lived in small apartments where I cannot have large screens. I always thought having a good VR / AR headset will unlock a huge screen which I don't have access to otherwise.

Of course, it's anyone's speculation and numbers will give us answers in future.

I see very similar parallel to headphones imo - why would anyone wear a device instead of listening to amazing speakers. I feel the same for vision.

rib3ye2• 3 years ago

Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?

If your photos are: 1. 3D movies 2. viewed in a collaborative setting instead of trying to show your stupid phone to everyone at the table, one at a time

yes, you are going to view photos in headset.

olyjohn10• 3 years ago

So, instead of projecting onto the TV, everybody in the same room is gonna put on a headset?

LightBug14• 3 years ago

To be honest, I was looking to hate on this, but they sold it much better than the others...

I can see value in it where before it was a gimmick.

And come to think of it, isn't this where Apple does best? Taking the components of an idea that others have failed with, and using them to create a new market category.

That thing will have to be as light as a feather though...

What weirded me out most though, was the feeling that all the presenters had run their demonstrations through chatGPT "in the style of Steve Jobs". Maybe the SMT have rebooted Jobs via an LLM!

I enjoyed the memory of him though.

lolinder7• 3 years ago

What value do you see here that others haven't already tried selling? I haven't watch the keynote yet, but the landing page looks like all the same concepts Meta's been trying and failing to get people excited about for years now.

oblio• 3 years ago

Historically, I think it dates back to Jobs not liking them, Apple doesn't really care about games. It begrudgingly accepts them on the platform as second rate citizens since there's a lot of money involved.

prawn19• 3 years ago

I wonder if they think you either have to be the top dog (PC? PS5?) or you're better off getting the casual gamers (iOS) and not distracting the core business? It's a massive, successful company. I don't think they begrudgingly accept it, or extrapolate from the personal preference of a past boss. The past boss taught them that style and status sells and they've continued with that because it's successful, not just because it was his thing.

pxc• 3 years ago

Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their family/friends?

My mom does this because she's legally blind and the best assistive devices she can use for movies are AR goggles that do magnification/zoom. It's the only way she can make out a human face in a film.

I've worn them for parts of movies as well just to try them and it's really not so bad. The calculus here will obviously be different for people with normal vision, but I figured this experience with a similar use case was worth noting.

liendolucas• 3 years ago

I got very similar thoughts... I think the most promising future of this tech are simulations of all kinds: let's virtually open a human body and study it, let's disassemble an engine to see how each part works, let's project how a city should be wise-designed to avoid transport issues, etc.

Even most of these things can be also appreciated using regular tech. Why should Apple succeed when most of other companies have not succeeded (Occulus, Hololens, HTC Vive)? Putting aside not so stunning technology, people actually didn't get engaged with the tech so much.

I had the opportunity to use a version of the Occulus some years ago and found them pretty impressive, but even though at the time I saw it like a cool gadget only to be enjoyed for a very limited amount of time.

wslh6• 3 years ago

Why should Apple succeed when most of other companies have not succeeded (Occulus, Hololens, HTC Vive)?

Because it is Apple and has shown success (excellent execution) where others don't? How can Apple make chips that astonish incumbents such as Intel without having their own fab? How can they run a real OS in iPhone 1 where Linux existed for long?

Surely Apple can fail as other companies do but I they can estimate a market potential with real data.

tinus_hn• 3 years ago

No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.

mynegation• 3 years ago

At least one use case I could think of is work on the go. I work from home but I can work from anywhere in my country. But I really do not like working on a small laptop screen, and wish my two 27” displays were with me. If this thing provides at least reasonable substitute- I am game.

sanderjd6• 3 years ago

Would I rather work on this all day instead of a laptop?

Generally right there with you, but this is the one that I think ... maybe? I don't see laptops as an unbeatable experience, and I see work as probably the only thing in my life that might benefit from an "infinite digital canvas".

z3t4• 3 years ago

What about glasses ? https://xreal.com/air/ https://global.rokid.com/ https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/thinkrealitya3/ https://www.tcl.com/eu/en/glasses/tcl-nxtwear-air

quartz• 3 years ago

Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their family/friends?

I actually tried watching a downloaded Netflix movie on my quest while on a cross country flight once and it was surprisingly not terrible.

Also I managed to get away with not ending up on some viral twitter post despite probably looking ridiculous.

That said if it wasn’t so bulky I’d probably bring it on more flights but it’s such a pain to lug around I haven’t really done it since.

goodoldneon• 3 years ago

We’re still really early in the AR/VR space. Hardware is bulky and expensive but that’ll change over time. Eventually we’ll have lightweight, high-fidelity, reasonably-priced hardware and AR/VR usage will be common

p1necone• 3 years ago

Agreed. VR/AR headsets are amazing for gaming, and I imagine could be pretty useful for 3d modelling type applications too. But after the novelty wore off for me I couldn't imagine using it over just a regular screen for basically anything else.

CPLX• 3 years ago

Ctrl-F

Did anyone say porn yet?

Looks like no.

So I guess I’ll say it.

wly_cdgr2• 3 years ago

Agreed, bur just give this to some cool people, they'll figure it out

patrickwalton• 3 years ago

I have type 1 narcolepsy and the prospect of being able to work laying horizontal in bed while my muscles are 90% shut off from a sleep attack is worth at least $3k.

partiallypro8• 3 years ago

I thought the hardware was a bit underwhelming considering Apple has an ultra-powerful chip that no one else has with amazing battery life...and they can only squeeze in 2 hours and there is a big cable running down/side of the headset. Maybe it's nicer in person. More impressive to me would be a really well-done pair of actual glasses that are "smart glasses" like the ThinkReality. This to me just doesn't solve any of the major problems with VR/AR (this is not really AR.)

matthewhartmans• 3 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-kdRdzxdZQ

It's all going to plan ;)

Dalewyn• 3 years ago

but I just can't see myself in any of the situations they keep showing in VR/AR demos.

We said the same thing about fingering our way through endless content on a handheld slab of glass we now call smartphones. Innovation doesn't happen without some thinking outside of the box; most of them will be flops, but you'll never succeed if you never even try.

Would I want to be in a group call with generated avatars of people rather than their actual faces?

Speaking as a gamer who reminisces the good old days of MMORPGs, I don't care for peoples' mugs. Speaking as a Japanese, the insistence on seeing peoples' mugs everywhere seems distinctly like a western thing that I can't really relate to. Besides, I see them all the time in person (or the rare video call) anyway.

Would I rather work on this all day instead of a laptop?

If it turns out the work flows better there, you'll probably say yes. Won't know until we try, though.

And the one thing I could maybe see this being useful for – gaming – was barely even mentioned in their keynote.

Apple has given negatives damns to games since time immemorial. iOS being a great mobile gaming platform is an outlier, not the norm.

dann0• 3 years ago

I don't think this is for 'us' yet - which is why its labelled Pro.

I think this is definitely going to be like the Watch - they can see the segment could do with a high quality platform, but they don't know what the killer app will be.

This is about getting it into the hands of the developers and people with strong ideas on how it can be used.

Also, Apple is rumoured to have been spending lots of energy and money on relationships with high quality game developers lately. I think this shows how seriously they are taking gaming, and area they are really not done well at.

Hopefully, they can make this an Apple Watch hardware-wise, and Apple TV content-wise.

I excited to see what the clever 3rd parties come up with!

sam0x17• 3 years ago

All of this is true, but my biggest complaint is the only really good use case other than games for this sort of tech is immersing yourself in a bunch of terminals in VR, and they even botched that what with it not being a real OS that can run traditional dev environments and only allowing you to embed one mac screen in the whole thing. Like who wants to sit around in a glorified iOS all day and essentially screen cast your one mac screen into there? I should be able to have my vscode window to my left, browser to my right, more terminals to the side and above, etc..

This is going to very quickly become the product that allows CEOs and other megalomaniacs to sit on the couch for three hours watching photo albums of their accomplishments or whatever it is they alluded to. I can see why they went for the $3500 price tag, this is basically an admission that there isn't mass-market appeal for non-gaming VR stuff at the moment, so might as well get $$$ and make it a status symbol for the C suite. The problem is all the people within apple who sanity test this idea, are also those types..

This is not the category disruption they made this out to be.

nextlevelwizard2• 3 years ago

only really good use case other than games

I would actually say that games are NOT a good use case for VR. Some simulation games (mainly racing and flying) are fine for VR, but if you are really into those genres you probably already have better equipment to actually simulate cockpit equipment or at very least wheel and pedals.

All other games in VR suck ass. Either they are just 3d movies with some small interactive pits in them or they are tech demos which are stretched to couple hours and called a game or they are just "jump scare the game".

My main problem is the movement. Unless you dedicate entire room(s) to VR you have to use D-pad/stick to move - which for me defeats the whole purpose of VR - or you have to use the stupid teleportation which either breaks your game by completely trivializing it or makes movement extremely frustrating.

I think we have pretty definitely already showed that gaming isn't the killer VR app. We have had affordable VR headsets on the market for years, but the industry hasn't shifted (because VR is at best a mildly amusing gimmick). We need one of those infinite mats where you can walk and run to become actually usable and drop in price low enough that headset + the mat are together affordable.

babyshake• 3 years ago

The audience right now, IMO, is mostly wealthy people who want a new toy. So with that in mind the use-cases they showed make more sense.

justizin• 3 years ago

Oculus already lets you watch Netflix and stuff, visually it’s a pretty decent experience, but like … 42” TVs are $300 or something. you’re not gonna fall asleep on the couch with your headset on, or at least you certainly don’t want to.

I think it’s a beautiful and fascinating piece of tech, I doubt I’ll be an early purchaser, but I’d sure like one. It does feel like they are grasping at straws for mainstream use cases.

albert_e3• 3 years ago

the 3D camera should be a separate device. Don't need a head mounted monster for it.

I am actually surprised that with prevalance of all the big powerful smartphones with cameras being a flagship feature, we haven't seen 3D cameras (two 2D cameras separated by the inter ocular distance, mounted on the back of a phone) become common yet.

FpUser2• 3 years ago

"Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie..."

Avatar is 3+ hours. Would drain a battery which accordingly to specs lasts 2hrs.

Jemm• 3 years ago

Sure, for $500 get a Meta Quest 3 which works just fine. Apple is smoking Steve's ashes with the $3,500 price tag.

veidr2• 3 years ago

I share some of your skepticism, but I do indeed watch movies in my VR headset (while running on my elliptical trainer).

I use the Meta Quest Pro right now, so it's not plugged into anything, but I would not be averse to plugging it into some phone-sized battery unit in my pocket or clipped to my belt or something.

And I definitely, desperately, do also want to do my software engineering job in VR (with many large displays or floating windows) and not my laptop. But the question is, will those of us who see this future coming and are waiting impatiently for it want to do it with this headset?

The Meta Quest Pro is pretty amazing in its own right (and pretty expensive, although not Apple expensive) but it nevertheless just isn't there yet.

It reminds me of using Linux for desktop computing in 1999. You can see it will be great one day, but it's definitely not great yet.

I feel like Apple could maybe build that if they wanted to... but do they?

nine_k2• 3 years ago

In the video they show luxurious, spacious interiors. To my mind, the virtual space makes much more sense when your pysical space is cramped (plane, train, car, cubicle) but you need a large display, preferably in 3D.

3D footage and movies, which can be relatively easily downcast to 2D for flat screen consumption, may be another hit. Especially the footage you shoot yourself, pretty exclusive and likely more future-proof. Imagine an upcoming iPhone with a stereo camera (in landscape mode).

Also there are obvious traditional applications of AR / VR that become more useful with a retina-class display, such as medical, mechanical / repairs work, and, of course, military. I suspect the medical market can be pretty large, because serious medicine, like heart surgery, won't be strained by the price.

bandrami2• 3 years ago

I think in practice AR is the bigger use, e.g. the Louvre lets you rent one of these (or maybe you've bought one and the Louvre gives you an app for it) and it shows you where to walk to go see the painting of the guy made of vegetables or whatever. Like an audio tour but visual and interactive.

olyjohn10• 3 years ago

I wonder what it will look like when your wall is 3 feet from your face, but your "monitor" is 10 feet away?

parentheses8• 3 years ago

I feel this is an overly negative take on what they shipped. It's a platform. The platform seems to solve a lot of the problems of AR/VR (feeling of isolation, control of leaking outside world, better integration with your digital life, truly enhanced media - media that's more mainstream).

For those of us who have no use/space for a TV in their home, this is a SMASHING replacement. Imagine if you watch TV nightly but do so alone, this could bring a whole new meaning to "watch parties".

For those who don't have a desk and want to be able to stand and work on a kitchen bar, this is a great substitute for an office. I would love to have an office but some times you just can't. The idea that I could use my mac side by side with iOS features that matter to me is huge. I'm slightly disappointed that it's limited to one display, but still pretty nice.

I feel like the argument here is the same as the iPhone when it came out - it replaces a lot of low cost items with not 100% coverage but enough to be a compelling buy such that you can rid yourself of those other things.

If they make one that can stream 2 screens from my laptop and can be a standalone device for certain useful situations, it's a good buy for me.

Ultimately you have to try it to buy it because unlike an iPad, it sits on your face.

behnamoh• 3 years ago

but I just can't see myself in any of the situations they keep showing in VR/AR demos.

They told Steve Jobs that no one likes to tab on a piece of glass, people want physical buttons. And yet, here we are.

SamuelAdams3• 3 years ago

Read the novel Warcross by Marie Lu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcross?wprov=sfti1

Imagine a world where visual, immersive tech is the default.

Look around your home. Realize how much money you have spent on cosmetics. Pictures, photographs, throw pillows, plants, paint, lighting, etc.

What if all of that could be replaced at the snap of a command? What if you could hang Christmas lights virtually in less than 10 seconds? What if a poor family who could not afford Christmas lights and decorations could now snap them into place in a second, for free?

Sure these goggles are not that mainstream yet. The battery life is too short. They are bulky and sweaty. But the tech will improve. What if wearing immersive goggles was no more difficult than wearing glasses? It might take a few decades but the tech will get there.

rapiz• 3 years ago

We're talking about a product and you present a story.

zerbinxx7• 3 years ago

Sure but.. there’s just the fundamental “not real” element of digital “stuff”. It goes away when the $3500 headset comes off. And I’m not even a pure luddite about this shit, I enjoy getting a new sword in Diablo IV, but the notion that the average guy will buy VR Christmas deco for their AR home (which they don’t own) is hilarious/deluded in a special way

jkestner2• 3 years ago

Is that another scifi novel where you forget it’s set in a dystopia?

kaba027• 3 years ago

Realize how much money you have spent on cosmetics. Pictures, photographs, throw pillows, plants, paint, lighting, etc

Like a $100 bucks at most? That poor family will surely buy every member a used car’s worth of device. And no, I don’t see it a reality neither in 3-4 generations — it is fundamentally more expensive to produce than a TV/laptop/phone so if its price lowers, so does the rest.

It is not a must like a phone is, so why would they not buy a really good TV instead for a tiny fraction of the money?

hypfer• 3 years ago

What if a poor family who could not afford Christmas lights and decorations could now snap them into place in a second, for free?

Sure that would be neat, but wouldn't it be even more neat if "poor family who could not afford Christmas lights and decorations" didn't have to exist? It's not like that's how it _has_ to be. It just _will_ be like that if we just continue building this deranged tech-dystopia where we sell the problem as the "solution" to itself.

lolinder7• 3 years ago

Almost all the furniture in my house we got for free—and it's not bad furniture, either! We just benefit from people who spend enough on regularly replacing their furniture that a $3500 device looks like an improvement.

As for Christmas lights, they run $10/25ft. The cost on these goggles would have to come down a lot for a family that can't afford lights to be able to afford a pair of these for every family member (because you can't have the 4yo excluded from the Christmas lights).

baby2• 3 years ago

I definitely watched Netflix on the Oculus go which was a crappy screen and a overheating headset, and yet it was amazing. The only thing that prevented me from finishing was the battery. I also joined a cinema experience and there were other people sitting next to me in the room. Man you really have to try it to understand how dope it is

capex• 3 years ago

They're just advertising the tech and the platform. Probably so people could come up with some real use cases and apps for it... otherwise what's the point of introducing it a year earlier.

Sparkyte• 3 years ago

Just buy your whole team the Quest 3.

jrnichols• 3 years ago

Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?

I would, yes.

Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their family/friends?

Yes, absolutely. We have a very small 2 bed, 1 bath place and only 1 TV that's in the central area. If I want to watch a movie while my wife is involved in her studies or work, I'm limited to my iPad or my iPhone. With this, I can lay there and chill. We have no kids, and we don't have friends over for movies. I'm also very susceptible to outside distractions. This would allow me to focus a whole lot more.

And the one thing I could maybe see this being useful for – gaming – was barely even mentioned in their keynote.

Perhaps Apple doesn't want it to be brushed off already as another Oculus or gaming toy?

a half-assed substitute for consuming the same content

I don't think this is a half assed substitute at all. There's literally nothing else like this.

Show me the actual future, in terms of software/content/communication/immersiveness, then we'll talk.

They just showed you. You weren't listening. You focused on gaming. Again, that's probably why they didn't.

The anatomy app demo alone would be reason enough for me to buy one. I am frequently in medical related classes and often refer to my anatomy guides on my iPad.

websap3• 3 years ago

I wonder what you'd have to say when someone built the first laptop? It's large, slow, sluggish and not powerful enough as my desktop PC?

The device is an engineering marvel and this is the first time that an AR device that's bringing mass appeal. The demo with Disney looked sick, watching the replay of a sporting event in that table top 3-d view would be awesome!

kaba027• 3 years ago

Laptops fit a real use case, this not so much.

nextlevelwizard2• 3 years ago

Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch

I have never watched movies in VR, but in my previous smaller apartment I did watch quite a lot of Youtube with Quest2. I didn't have room for larger solution, phone is way too small and pad is hard to position. With VR headset you could lie in a coffin and still have huge screen.

I am also pretty sure I spent longer than 2 hour sessions in VR and sweat wasn't an issue, but I live in Fennoscandia, so I won't just sweat while sitting still.

with their family/friends?

It has been a hot minute since I have actually watched a movie with anyone else

iopq• 3 years ago

They're not going to show you jerking off to the most immersive porn ever in their ad

But that's what majority of people would actually buy VR headsets would do

graderjs• 3 years ago

I totally want to get this thing! This is awesome! Ha ha ha! :) I don't know if I'd like it, but I certainly want to try it. Looks fucking great! Ha ha ha :)

ccppurcell• 3 years ago

I wouldn't mind having a huge monitor that I can use anywhere, set up just how I like it. Other than that, you are spot on. Also the camera presents a privacy issue. It has to be always on I suppose.

heresie-dabord• 3 years ago

but I just can't see myself in any of the situations they keep showing

In other words, what problem is being solved by this product, and will the demand scale sufficiently to turn a profit?

Some solutions are enthusiastically -- almost pathologically -- in search of a problem.

mo_42• 3 years ago

Computers and peripherals have been coming closer to our bodies for decades.

Think of the first mobile phones and how strange it was to see people talking on the street.

Now, we have headphones with ANC.

So, something for eyes might very well be the next step.

davycro• 3 years ago

I would use this at work in the hospital, especially ultrasound guided procedures.

mihaaly3• 3 years ago

I see myself using it for virtual screens as a work environment. But with real keyboard and mouse. And not for this price. I'll wait. Also for first experiences about comfort, reliability, practicality.

I despise desks and chairs with screens, that's why using laptop with internal screen only most of the time - which is not ideal, not at all -, relocating based on my needs and mood. But could use lot more screen space.

The watching movie and have a chat with a helmet on while moving around in the hotel room scenarios are just .... well, sorry, couldn't find kinder word for it, just stupid. I feel the sweat of the marketing folks through, trying to find a usecase they feel is pompus enough, worthy for fanfares. It is repelling. Especially for 3500, they are out of their minds! : ) It is in the way, physically and seriously in the way for movies and chat.

I am hopeful for the virtual monitor scenario, where the comfort is less demanding than on leasure (even an incentive for taking a break). Of course its exact level is to be discovered, I mean relative the two, office use needs adequate level of comfort too.

crocowhile• 3 years ago

They will never mass-sale this unless they unleash porn. We know it, they know it. Nobody is paying $3500 to look at their emails on a visor.

GuB-42• 3 years ago

Maybe they are showing off this because they want to make a difference.

If you show someone playing Beat Saber, you are inviting comparison to $500 headsets. And chances are, the $500 headset plays Beat Saber just as well, maybe even better. Apple doesn't want that, so they are going into a different direction.

I don't know how it will turn out, but Apple is usually pretty good at marketing, so I think they know what they are doing.

shsteimer_1• 3 years ago

I’m continually amazed by how many people translate “this product in its current form isn’t for me” into “this product shouldn’t exist, even as a gen 1”

lolinder7• 3 years ago

That's not how I read OP at all. Everything they said is in the first person. It's very clear that they're saying they see no purpose for themselves, and people are upvoting because they also see no purpose for themselves.

If Apple finds a market, more power to them, but HN commenters was never going to be that market.

kwanbix• 3 years ago

It is not 3.500. It is 3.500 plus tax. So closer to 3800. Almost 4000 dollars.

blantonl• 3 years ago

Don't forget the Apple Branded Case and cleaning cloth, which will easily push the cost to $5,200 /s

wslh6• 3 years ago

The "I'm dropping at $3,500" should take into consideration that Hololens 2 has a higher price tag [1] but nobody talks about their product, and price ;-) Microsoft seems invisible where Apple doesn't. I also assume with high estimation confidence that Apple has a deep market knowledge to launch this product.

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy

npteljes2• 3 years ago

As a general late adopter, I see the thing similarly. Flashy tech, no doubt, and I'm sure it would entertain me a bit, especially as I tend to be asocial.

However, it seems like a thing that wants a part of the user's life for itself, rather than adding to the life of the user. For this reason, I'm not enthusiastic for it at all.

barrenko• 3 years ago

No, but they will.

f6v• 3 years ago

Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their family/friends?

I can see myself getting two of these when they’re less expensive and never going to a movie theater again.

godzillabrennus• 3 years ago

If I still flew 18 hour every two weeks to visit facilities in Asia from NYC I would want one of these for the flights.

Outside of that, I don’t think I could justify $3500 for one. Even if it’s a fun toy.

asimpletune3• 3 years ago

The demo greatly exceeded my expectations. If the v1 actually works as well as their presentation, then this is going to fundamentally change personal computing. Sure, it's expensive, but that's because they are bringing to market something that is truly high tech.

In 5-10 years this will be mainstream if it's not too expensive. It's going to be interesting because we're going to repeat the cycle of a new competing platform coming up, like Android, and copying the UX. This time around though it seems that they patented it really hard, so it'll be interesting to see that fight go down.

Ultimately it's going to come down to if their products lives up to its claims, and if they'll be able to bring the costs down.

s-xyz• 3 years ago

I am sure that I bought a TV for the very last time. This is mind blowing, the future is here!

srvmshr• 3 years ago

I understand they have built a whole deal of spatial audio technology around it. But in a practical sense, I hope one could just plug in Airpods instead to go with the MR display. Under no circumstances, real world settings will match their design studio perfection. Too often stray sounds & ambient noise pollution could dilute that experience.

Geee• 3 years ago

Yeah, they showed the guy using Airpod Pros in the airplane for noise cancellation (and privacy).

rallyforthesun5• 3 years ago

they have shown in a video that they use the lidar to scan the room and its furniture for spatial sound

kabanossen• 3 years ago

For someone who hasn't really tried this kind of thing (VR goggles...), what's it like after thirty minutes? Two hours? I feel reluctant because it's a huge thing wrapped around my head, isn't that something a twelve year old likes but not a 32 year old?

rcarr11• 3 years ago

I was sceptical going into today that Apple were going to be able to make an AR product for $3000 that could justify that price point, especially when my XReal glasses only cost $399. I was even more sceptical when I heard they were going to be VR capable and goggles.

Well fuck me. This thing looks absolutely insane. It’s come in at $3499 and if it performs as good as those videos make out then, if anything, it’s a bargain.

I can’t believe they’ve managed to do away with controllers for everything except serious typing. I can’t believe they’ve managed to cram more pixels than a 4k TV on to the size of a postage stamp. And I can’t believe we’ll soon be reliving memories in 3d (just please put the same camera technology into the phones so the kids don’t have a childhood of staring up at goggle eyed parents until this tech become sufficiently miniaturised).

Computers this decade are going to be incredible.

qumpis4• 3 years ago

What stood out to you that justifies the pricetag, especially in comparison to cheaper competitors?

oezi7• 3 years ago

Low latency Video pass through so that you can actually see the physical surroundings and/or your own hands to grab something that somebody is handing to you without getting motion sickness.

rcarr11• 3 years ago

Well for starters, this demo was so insane and full of tech that no one is even talking about the fact we’re all going to have realistic animated avatars that interpret our facial expressions in real time.

jmkni• 3 years ago

Agree the tech is incredible, it just seems like something I would use a handful of times, be like ‘that was cool’ and then never really use again

rafark3• 3 years ago

You wouldn’t watch movies or shows with this thing? I’m pretty sure this will make watching videos in tiny rectangles from our phones and TVs seem so outdated.

zmmmmm15• 3 years ago

I puzzled how you can be surprised by all this. There's nothing here that wasn't well understood, expected. 95% of it is just showing things other devices have done for years.

I can’t believe they’ve managed to do away with controllers

Meta has been shipping it for several years on the Quest line. It's now extremely good. I'm keen to hear if Apple have shipped something better and they may have, but it's hardly "can't believe" territory.

I can’t believe they’ve managed to cram more pixels than a 4k TV on to the size of a postage stamp

You're repeating Apple marketing lines verbatim. That's just what a micro OLED display is - the tech has been around for a while. They aren't made by Apple, half a dozen other VR/AR headsets are shipping these.

IMcD23• 3 years ago

I went to Meta’s quest page. I see controllers everywhere. Are those optional? https://www.meta.com/quest/

Which other headsets are using this display tech?

rcarr11• 3 years ago

Well fire the marketing departments of all those other companies then if that's true. Because I've seen their demos and none of them showed anything anywhere near what I saw today.

You can be salty if you want, but Palmer Lucky came out and said this thing is "so good" last week. He knows a thing or two about this stuff and I'm inclined to believe him.

anonomousename3• 3 years ago

The Quest 2 has a PPI of 780, and the highest out right now is the HP Reverb with a 1057 PPI. The Vision Pro is 4000 PPI, a substantial jump. That’s not “just a micro OLED display.”

kelseydh2• 3 years ago

The Quest Pro (~$1300) has an upgraded resolution of 2,160 x 2,160 pixels per eye. If Apple's marketing is to be believed they are offering double the pixel resolution of the Quest Pro.

hagbarth• 3 years ago

95% of it is just showing things other devices have done for years.

The rallying cry of people being wrong about what makes Apple products successful

STM32F030R8• 3 years ago

I’d never heard of micro OLED before. Do other headsets ship with them?

eiiot• 3 years ago

just please put the same camera technology into the phones so the kids don’t have a childhood of staring up at goggle eyed parents until this tech become sufficiently miniaturised

This section of the video was just weird. The dad playing with the kids with a headset on points more to a sort of dystopian future than a groundbreaking innovation.

gigglesupstairs• 3 years ago

I think people are missing out on the point of that snippet. It was just about reliving some of the special memories of your kids, family members etc which/who you hold special. It’s most definitely not about keeping a headset tied to your head forever. But when you want to capture something, it is there.

And going by the history of digital devices anyhow, use-cases evolve drastically over a lifetime of a product. Let’s wait and see and perhaps experience first.

spike021• 3 years ago

I didn't see that as being much different from the classic 80's and 90's dad brings huge camcorder on summer vacation. The difference being that now the person wears it as 3D goggle cameras rather than a single camera in one handheld package.

getmeinrn2• 3 years ago

Calling it now, the failure of this Apple product is going to be a big turning point for the company. Apple is supposed to be the company that sets trends, but instead they're following Meta down a path that has now shown to be a dead end, and no amount of aesthetics or marketing can prevent it.

DANmode4• 3 years ago

Has it been a dead end because of no demand, or has there been no demand because of the poor UX?

illuminati19114• 3 years ago

100% agreed. This is going to be the point in history that people will remember when Apple went too far and how it destroyed the company...or destroyed the Apple as we know it today.

I've understood every single Apple product so far (with some small exceptions) but this is just DOA. People are used to thinking that Apple doesn't go into a product space unless they can really nail it in terms of implementation and pricing.

There is no excuse for 3499. This product is dead. If they can't manufacture it any cheaper they should have never done it.

klelatti• 3 years ago

It may or may not be a dud but I’ve no idea how even a resounding failure could ‘destroy’ a company as profitable and with as successful a product as the iPhone.

pcbro141• 3 years ago

Destroy the company how? They have tens or hundreds of billions in cash. Couldn't they just discontinue the product and move on if it flops?

stirlo3• 3 years ago

What makes you think they can’t manufacture it cheaper?

I see this price as a way of earning a healthy profit off early adopters and allowing them time to get third party apps developed before they announce a Vision (non pro) for $1000-2000 that flys off the shelves

gnicholas11• 3 years ago

It’s possible, but I see a use case for this as a replacement monitor for my Mac, plus a lot more. If this were $2k I’d get one immediately, assuming an in-store demo is not disappointing.

I have never had any interest in Meta products (partly because of their affiliation with FB).

lm284694• 3 years ago

as a replacement monitor for my Mac

Have you every worn literally anything for 2+ hours on your head. Even glasses get uncomfortable after a day

bostonsre• 3 years ago

Why would it be a turning point if the product fails? Couldn't they just amputate and operate the business as usual?

oliyoung• 3 years ago

How many times are we seriously going to say

the failure of this Apple product is going to be a big turning point for the company

and then Apple go on to make a billion dollars on it?

Capricorn24812• 3 years ago

Feels like you're just rewriting history. Apple product launches have had way more excitement in the past. A clip of Steve Balmer saying people won't buy iPhones isn't evidence of an overall sentiment.

riffic• 3 years ago

Think before you post.

Remember, whatever opinions or hot takes you have of this product now will be resoundingly made fun of for the rest of history.

picture• 3 years ago

You make it sound like this is the new steam engine, but is it really that historical of a product? Nothing here strikes me as an entirely novel idea, in fact it just seems like an iteration on an already pretty well developed concept

renewiltord3• 3 years ago

Not wireless. Higher price than a Quest. Lame.

ok_dad3• 3 years ago

It’s everything that’s best from the VR world put in one package by Apple. The only downside to this device for VR might be if it isn’t supported by SteamVR or OpenXR. If this is a walled garden, it will be more of a niche product for professionals. If you can plug this into any PC to do VR, it’s actually quite awesome as a headset, but pretty expensive due to all the extra chips.

barneysstory95• 3 years ago

I don't think riffic suggested they know whether the impact will be significant or not. It was just a reminder to check our hubris.

jonwinstanley7• 3 years ago

Yep, you could probably describe the iPhone as an iteration on an already pretty well developed concept too

curiousllama• 3 years ago

Last October, I sent my coworker a short rant that chatbots don’t work, never will, and everyone really needs to stop trying to build them.

ChatGPT was released a week later. My coworker claims he’s gonna have my rant framed.

lm284694• 3 years ago

It's been what ? 8 months ? Who lost their job ? Where is skynet ?

harveywi• 3 years ago

"A new era of facial computing."

racl101• 3 years ago

Looks Rad yo.

shp0ngle2• 3 years ago

Or not.

It's not like past always predicts the future. Apple has a lot of stinkers too, just not recently. Apple TV (the HW device) is not all that successful either.

On the other hand, this is rather hype-free (no metaverse!!!!! no AI!) and has actual usecases presented. Also I thought Apple Watches were stupid, but now almost everyone has one. So, who knows.

ActorNightly• 3 years ago

I mean its pretty clear how this stuff goes by now.

1. Tech already exists. Not really widely adopted since its super niche.

2. Apple comes along, takes existing tech, makes it sleek, gives it modern processing power, integrates it into the apple ecosystem, puts everything behind a paywall

3. Because Apple is cool and has brand recognition, people adopt the tech and start using it.

4. Non Apple cheaper alternatives eventually pop up.

Rinse and repeat. Happened with iPod, iPhone, iWatch, e.t.c

anonzzzies• 3 years ago

I have been trying a lot of these helmets/glasses for work the past years. I didn't expect Apple to go for something that still needs so much work, but more is more. The Quest 2 is my favourite for meetings, some gaming, movie watching etc, but for work, I just use the nreal air. It really did become the replacement for my laptop the past 6 months. There isn't a lot of software for it, but I don't take my laptop anymore for coding. I do see when these things all fall in place, monitors, tvs etc could just fall away. Phones seems not very real now, but it depends on how fast the developments go.

I had expected Apple to wait 5 or so years more with this until it's a market they can really take on; currently this is quite bold imho.

But it's good; huge corps going in means hopefully someone will solve the battery usage of these things; even in this presentation, there was a battery connected. That's why I like the nreal; for all it's faults (mostly; just open source the thing so people can dig in!), it is very light and has the battery life of my phone, which is 15 hours. So I can wear it all days, there is no irritation or fatigue, and when I take it off, it has a lot of time left.

Oddskar6• 3 years ago

It takes a lot of time for people to warm up to a new device type. Probably makes sense to get a premium version out to make people yearn for it and build an ecosystem, and then create a more palatable version for mainstream use.

ok_dad3• 3 years ago

The only question I have is: can I use this as a SteamVR headset? If not, then Apple will only sell this generation to Apple consumers who can afford this sort of thing. If so, I'll buy one tomorrow, because an OLED ~5k-per-eye VR headset made by Apple would be worth that price, because I know it would work and be supported for a while. Oh, and I just noticed they seem to also support some sort of hand tracking, so knowing Apple that feature alone will be pretty revolutionary, maybe you won't even need controllers to play VR games anymore?

alexb_3• 3 years ago

capable of running for two hours on a single charge.

hahahahahahahahahaha

This is absurdly awful. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is going to use this if it can't even survive two hours on a single charge.

stiltzkin• 3 years ago

Saved comment, like the Slashdot user mocking the iPod: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

rektide15• 3 years ago

I hope this actually turns out to be a win. The idea, in my mind, being that comfort is a priority & swapping batteries should be low effort.

I didn't see real info on the battery (no surprise), but I'm hoping it's like a 40Wh/10Ah pocketable little thing that isnt very noticeable.

It'll be interesting to see how the fate of the IBattery goes. Will it charge fast? I hope so. Will it be easy to pocket? Will price be reasonable enough for people to pack a few? Hope so.

Apple didn't talk about it but they shipped a presumably usb-c battery this WWDC. That's interesting for sure.

herval• 3 years ago

Anyone have any idea of what the FOV will be?

jdprgm2• 3 years ago

No tech specs available on https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro/ and no release date "early next year". Both are unusual for apple. I wonder why they didn't hold off to announce it when actually ready.

jhatemyjob2• 3 years ago

Kuo says supply chain issues.

cududa• 3 years ago

What do you mean "no tech specs" are "unusual for apple"? That's like their ethos. It has an M2, 2x "over 4k" display panels, and 2 hour battery life. Has Apple ever announced the amount of RAM in an iPhone?

jdminhbg• 3 years ago

I wonder why they didn't hold off to announce it when actually ready.

Apple has always pre-announced new product categories. No worries about Osborne-ing their own sales, time for developers to build before launch day, etc.

dcchambers2• 3 years ago

They need apps, thus they need developers, thus WWDC is the perfect time to soft launch it.

debacle2• 3 years ago

Apple Vision Pro starts at $3,499

Insane.

donbongo2• 3 years ago

The only thing I dread is having my expensive ass monitor and speaker setup made obsolete by this.

mellosouls3• 3 years ago

There is not one mention in the Apple Press Release of any of the terms associated with the product's market:

virtual

augmented

reality

Etc

It's a Spatial Computer don't you know.

Very arrogant but clever marketing I guess.

Anyway, as somebody who would normally by default scoff at the Apple tax, I'm pleased to see them taking the tech seriously, it definitely needs to advance to fulfill the non-gaming promise pointed to by Meta/Oculus.

Perhaps the huge price is justified by the significant specs here.

kjreact9• 3 years ago

Why should Apple use existing technology words to describe their new product? They are trying to create a “new” product category and come up with their own vernacular for this segment.

I can just see the patent trolls salivating over this new opportunity. At least now Apple can use each of these lawsuits to promote their product with their own terminology (ads via news articles, Apple Marketing 101).

mellosouls3• 3 years ago

They are trying to create a “new” product category

But they haven't. Its a VR/AR headset; just relatively powerful and expensive; absolutely no need for the new terminology technologically; its pure marketing.

gregmfoster• 3 years ago

I wonder if folks can trade in dev kits for the first version when it's released next year. That was the case for me with the Apple TV dev kit.

donohoe• 3 years ago

Honestly, I just want a headset that's so slimline I don't look like a weirdo on an airplane, and to achieve that all I want is for it to be able to play movies in the 3d cinema experience. Doesn't need to be optimized for games or interactivity. I get that I'm likely minority but my VR needs are very simple.

bullen2• 3 years ago

This is pretty bad for VR.

It will most likely flop because it has no reliable input.

So far FrankenQuest 2/3 is on top: http://move.rupy.se/file/FrankenQuest.png

Let's see what Valve can do...

pelorat3• 3 years ago

Already have an index, and SO has a Quest2, but I'm holding out for their rumored standalone, codename "Deckard".

I wish valve actually worked on the "Steam VR Home" environment again, because in 2023 their engine is ready and could be used to create something like ChatVR but on steroids.

bullen2• 3 years ago

It needs to nail many things: pancake with diopter and open drivers.

I also want it to use lighthouse tracking since I have them.

firefoxkekw• 3 years ago

If this device delivers 80% of what they showed, this is insane.

Like with iOS, the devs that adopted early where able to make a lot of profit, 3.5k looks way too cheap for what they showed.

Legit makes me want to work for apple.

jumploops• 3 years ago

As a child I used to read books with just one eye open. This device will be revolutionary for me, but not because of the immersion.

My excitement is tied to the two high resolution displays, entirely independent for each eye. I asked Brendan Iribe about this for Oculus back in Fall of 2014 and he told me they were two generations away.

As a programmer, I'm staring at a screen all day long, and the effect has not been great. Having both eyes focused 1-2 ft in front of me has caused strain on my eyes, headaches, and seemingly permanent loss of far-sighted vision (my prescription gets worse every year).

It's not proven yet, but hopefully the estimated 20ft focal length can help alleviate my eyes for my day-to-day work!

dcchambers2• 3 years ago

Incredibly impressive technology with a price that is simply unreachable to almost everyone.

Maybe if Apple can bring the price down in a few years we'll see widespread adoption, but until then I don't see how this is anything but a toy for the wealthy. Maybe it will have some commercial/industry adoption.

drumhead• 3 years ago

Vision Pro implies a non-pro version could be possible. Cheaper and less funcionality. Either way its an interesting new product and knowing apple they wont ditch it after a couple of years. At this price its just going to be the pro users and richer people that buy it, but hopefully its going to spawn competitors from Samsung and the Chinese companies, at a much lower price but with less functionality.

billychuck21st2• 3 years ago

This is the "pro" verison, maybe eventually Apple will sell non-pro version that can connect with the pro one, but at a much lower price, then you can create experience for the whole familiar, if the set of 4 can cost <$6000, then it will be the same as a 8K tv + sound bar + a couple of work monitors.

billychuck21st2• 3 years ago

This is the "pro" verison, maybe eventually Apple will sell less powerful non-pro version that can connect with the pro one, but at a much lower price, then you can create experience for the whole familiar, if the set of 4 can cost <$6000, then it will be the same as a 8K tv + sound bar + a couple of work monitors.

contemporary3432• 3 years ago

Those micro-OLED displays alone will drive the cost that high. Still kinda shocked to see them at this scale and in a product!

bmcclure• 3 years ago

Ooof, the price point on this is killer ($3500). Will need to have some major differentiating features to justify that pricing compared to a Quest 3.

I know they are fundamentally different (Quest having roots in VR but also enabling passthrough AR and Vision Pro focusing on AR ala Microsoft HoloLens) but hard to chew on that price!

duncan-donuts• 3 years ago

I think this looks cool as hell. The only thing that obviously sucks about it is how big it is. Admittedly I didn't really jump on the VR/AR hype train years ago so I don't know what's possible today. This headset gives me some serious uncanny valley vibes and kinda freaks me out which no other product in this space has ever done.

motoxpro6• 3 years ago

As someone who travels for work, this is well worth 3500. To wear these on flights, in small hotel rooms, etc. is definitely a game changer. I have no use for video games so the Quest stuff with the controllers never made sense.

I think people that complain about the price are anchoring on the Quest price, same as people who anchored on MP3 player prices when the iPod came out at 10x the price. Even if the Quest was $100 or $50, I wouldn't buy it because its just not useful.

For sure I am an early adopter on this one, but as others have said, this is Gen 1. It will get cheaper, faster, smaller, better, last longer, have less bugs, etc. This is the way technology works. It makes progress.

So many unfortunate maximalist (bigger than the iPhone moment) or doomer (this is pointless and always will be) takes here. I'm glad companies still take swings in the face of the way people respond here.

EDIT: I don't see these as "metaverse" glasses or VR as much as a $3500 display which framed in that way is completely reasonable, it's $1000 cheaper than this https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/pro-display-xdr

kllrnohj7• 3 years ago

As someone who travels for work, this is well worth 3500. To wear these on flights, in small hotel rooms, etc. is definitely a game changer. I have no use for video games so the Quest stuff with the controllers never made sense.

Eh? Things like watching videos on a flight were tried with Samsung Gear VR or Google Day Dream. It flopped. Want a virtual office on a flight? Well fire up Virtual Desktop on an Occulus today and you've got exactly that - no controller needed.

On a flight something like Occulus' passthrough mode looks perfectly adequate - after all, the whole point in that scenario is to isolate not to socialize. So the plain/train/bus usage seems questionable, and do you really want to travel with something that bulky?

motoxpro6• 3 years ago

This is not the same experience https://youtu.be/74KInxQ8suI?t=208

The low res, jerkiness, having to use controllers, etc. wether or not the apple experience is worth it is up to the person.

I don't see these as "metaverse" glasses or VR/AR as much as a $3500 display.

frakkingcylons• 3 years ago

GearVR was a precursor to the Oculus Go, which was quite successful. It showed that lots of people wanted a device to watch media and user retention was pretty good:

From Carmack's Oculus Connect 2018 talk:

With Oculus Go, about 80 percent of usage time has been for viewing "media" and only 20 percent for gaming.
Oculus Go and Rift are much "stickier," he says, with users that "come back... week to week and spend a lot of time in it."

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/09/carmack-oculus-quests...

denlekke3• 3 years ago

what's the virtual desktop on a plane situation you're describing ? i thought it needed airlink to a local computer or a really fast internet connection to a remote computer but maybe i'm not up to date

if the vision pro gives me a laptop-mac experience in vr without needing a separate computer with me, that's a pretty compelling use case to me

parentheses8• 3 years ago

What you say is technically true but you still need the controllers for setup and that is quite annoying if you travel a lot. I read OPs level of travel as > 8 hours in air per week and > 3 nights in hotel per week.

At that level this is an easy buy.

mahathu• 3 years ago

You're still gonna have to type on something.

motoxpro6• 3 years ago

A keyboard fits on the tray a lot easier than a laptop if youve never tried it.

rcarr11• 3 years ago

Might want to check out the Tap XR.

https://www.tapwithus.com/product/tap-xr/

varenc3• 3 years ago

From the video, you can turn the headset into an external display for your Mac[0]. This is critical since I'm doubtful I'd be able to get much work down in visionOS alone.

The use case I imagine is that you still use your laptop keyboard and trackpad like normal, but now you just have a mirrored display floating above it in whatever the ideal size/position is for you. For this to work of course you have to still be able to see your laptop. But if the marketing is to be believed it'll do that quite well.

([0]: Apple already supports turning an iPad into an external Mac display and amazingly it works quite well. It sets up a direct device-to-device wireless link (awdl/llw) and there's no noticeably latency. I assume the headset will take a similar approach)

SkyPuncher9• 3 years ago

Either bring a keyboard (like a low-profile mechanical keyboard) or fold your laptop screen down half-way and dim the screen.

buildbuildbuild• 3 years ago

This is also now the most private display. You can work in public with no risk of leaks.

moduspol• 3 years ago

It'll probably work well until you start making the "boob honking" gesture with your hands. Then we'll be able to tell.

motoxpro6• 3 years ago

Totally. Meta framed any VR device as a metaverse device, which I have no desire to ever participate in. I just want to use "VR" the same way I use my laptop.

zakki3• 3 years ago

With a big IF. If leak is interpreted as someone recording our screen from our back. What about someone stealing it? Are we aware with our surrounding while using it?

sdn90• 3 years ago

Same use case for me.

Laptops have terrible ergonomics it’s near impossible to get proper posture while traveling.

- Laptop stands help but introduce a new set of problems around the distance of the screen and keyboard height

- Hard to find adjustable office chairs anywhere

- If you’re in a city where you’re walking for hours a day, carrying a larger laptop gets tiring

hollerith2• 3 years ago

Sounds like you know that this new product weighs less than a large laptop.

warning266• 3 years ago

I just wish this ran something more like macOS instead of iOS.

Like the iPad, it seems I wouldn’t be able to do anything productive on the Reality Pro due to the lack of any sort of meaningful coding tools.

graypegg7• 3 years ago

Really? On flights? That struck me as a… weird use case I could never be confident enough to do. Strapping something to your face, noise cancelling headphones in, you’ve become basically unapproachable for anyone around you. Is someone that needs to get past you going to awkwardly tap you on the shoulder and you either creepily turn over to them with your projected eyes staring back, or watch in awkward silence as you disentangle the headset + AirPod max combo. I hope you don’t get the aisle seat!

kylehotchkiss2• 3 years ago

you’ve become basically unapproachable for anyone around you

Oh! you're not the captive audience of a strangers unwanted small talk then? That's been an undesirable part of traveling solo for a lot of people. The shoulder tap will still work fine if you need to get past somebody to stand up.

varenc3• 3 years ago

The audio isn't noise cancelling. The speakers are on the strap right by your ears so you'll still hear everything else around you. If anything my concern on flights would be that someone next to me can hear my audio, not that I can't hear them. (but maybe you can also use AirPods)

You can also adjust your "immersion level". As in, have the screen floating in front of you and still see the space around you, or have reality totally blanked out. Seems like at a low immersion level you'd have no problem turning to address someone trying to get your attention. The worst part might be how ridiculous you look talking to and addressing someone normally while wearing these. (though perhaps like the AirPods, the perception of it being a goofy look will fade with time)

HDThoreaun3• 3 years ago

you’ve become basically unapproachable

I don't want people talking to me on planes.

savef• 3 years ago

This is no different to how many people behave on long haul flights anyway. Face mask on, eye mask on, ear plugs in. Isolated from everybody else as much as they can be, trying to sleep, and they manage it in isle seats.

Also, I remember TotalBiscuit talking about using an Oculus headset to watch films on a plane and it being a better experience than the screen in front for him (I don't quite remember why). So it's not a new concept and this device just makes it less cumbersome, I guess.

motoxpro6• 3 years ago

I'm introverted so it's actually a nightmare when people want to have conversations with me the whole flight. I do intercontinental flights (10-15 hour) every 2-3 weeks. I'm either sleep, have my headphones on, or both.

I don't think it would feel too much worse than waking someone on the aisle up.

9935c101ab17a66• 3 years ago

Being unapproachable on flights is a decidedly good thing IMO. Also, so many people already use noise cancelling headphones and/or sleep masks, how is this any different?

SkyPuncher9• 3 years ago

I've done this with the NReal Airs on flights. Absolutely amazing.

erikpukinskis• 3 years ago

Using a laptop on a flight is very uncomfortable for me. Just being able to push the keyboard to the back of the tray table and push the screen out into the row in front of me would be worth a lot to me.

Not $3500, but a lot.

npteljes2• 3 years ago

How is it different to someone sleeping?

zmmmmm15• 3 years ago

I agree the simple monitor replacement use case is probably one of the best in terms of real world usefulness.

But it's also the one that is most open to competition because it has no ecosystem link. There are already half a dozen alternatives at $400-$1k type range that give you virtual monitors. eg: the XReal Air [0]. It's interesting that even while they are generating some interest, it doesn't seem to me that AR glasses as monitors on their own are taking off yet in a mainstream way.

So it's going to be a question of how much more it can add to that or do better than that. Is just branding it Apple enough? Maybe. But I feel like it needs at least something else than purely being a monitor to compete with the alternatives.

[0] https://xreal.com/air/

notJim3• 3 years ago

Resolution information is conspicuously absent from this page.

dev_tty013• 3 years ago

It's a display and a computer.

Demmme11• 3 years ago

It's super big. Much bigger than a thin laptop.

And you need your laptop also because you can't work in it the whole day.

Gz now you have to travel with two laptops each 3k expensive and you look totally funny with it in anything public.

rldjbpin2• 3 years ago

feel free to be optimistic about this and help the progress by being an early adopter.

although do not discount the skepticism made through objective observations. apple has tried ar for better part of a decade with limited success. ar/vr/mixed-reality headsets have come a long way but the realities of current technologies remain.

on the other hand, we've had established music players before ipod, people using internet-connected phones before the iphone.

in retrospect, google glasses wasn't a bad form factor all along than these ski googles!

ragazzina3• 3 years ago

As someone who travels for work, this is well worth 3500.

On trains you can plug it in, but how can it be used for air travel when the external battery lasts up to 2 hours?

whiddershins• 3 years ago

You plug it in to the outlet in your business class seat.

whatarethembits2• 3 years ago

Throw in a USB C power bank in your backpack? Also, most seats (even economy) tends to have a usb outlet these days.

motoxpro6• 3 years ago

Most economy long haul flights have power outlets. I do at least 20 ten hour flights a year and always sit in economy so for me, the battery power isn’t an issue.

nateb2022• 3 years ago

Because of the "Pro" branding, I'm really interested in how soon we can expect a baseline non-pro Apple Vision. Determining what specs/features they're going to cut will be interesting.

Also, with the release of visionOS, Apple is now maintaining a pretty hefty load of systems: macOS, iPadOS, iOS, watchOS, tvOS, and now visionOS. I have no doubt that beneath the UX they share a LOT of common building blocks, however I wonder if Apple will try to consolidate one or more of those platforms. E.g. macOS and iPadOS could be merged into a hybrid, watchOS is basically turning into iOS on a small screen, and visionOS may have some very interesting common ground with macOS -- possibly a continuity-screen style interop in the future.

xtalax• 3 years ago

I really hope that they have thought about alternative accessible gestures, not all of us have the luxury of functioning fingers

stuckkeys• 3 years ago

3500? Holly Applemolly. That is expensive as shit considering the VR is not new tech. Ofc, someone is going to smash at me with "well this is Apple ok." Cool story. Looks like a fun little gadget but is way too pricey for the consumer line. Unless ofc, they will have a beat down version without the "pro" features.

coolandsmartrr10• 3 years ago

It's probably the most expensive product launch price since Jobs returned to Apple.

Apple probably considers Apple Vision as an alternative, not a compliment, to desktop computing.

browningstreet3• 3 years ago

Bets please:

Date and city location of the first reported occasion of a person, wearing these outside, who get them stolen off their head.

maxlin• 3 years ago

February 24th 2024 in SF

rattray• 3 years ago

dup of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36201593 I think

preseinger3• 3 years ago

Honest question: will this play any subset of existing VR games?

evan_2• 3 years ago

None of them. The only games they mentioned are essentially iOS games in little floating windows.

Beat Saber is the only VR game most people know and Meta owns that so I think they're just ignoring games until some third party developer comes out with something that catches on. I don't think they expect anyone to pay $3,500 strictly for Apple Arcade.

preseinger3• 3 years ago

Oof. Thanks for the reply. Yeah, good luck, Apple.

GiorgioG• 3 years ago

Amazing tech, can't wait for it to get smaller and cheaper in the next few iterations.

pyrophane• 3 years ago

I was a bit surprised to see the "virtual monitor/TV" use case featured so heavily here.

A bigger TV/more monitors is neat, but I doesn't feel particularly revolutionary. Also, if that is what you are after, you don't need a $3,500 device.

I imagine that is just where they are at with the device right now, rather than an indication of where they are going.

bovermyer• 3 years ago

It's really, really expensive. But after watching that video, I might have to get one.

The appeal of having a portable display of arbitrary size but great resolution anywhere I go... that's pretty worthwhile.

richardw3• 3 years ago

First one of these things I’ve wanted. They’re honestly the only company that could pull this off. Meta has been doing some draft devices and Google will follow as hard as they can, but the UX, ecosystem integration and leverage with partners makes this a whole new animal.

jdlyga2• 3 years ago

I used up all of my interest in VR with the Oculus Quest. It's cool for a month to watch Netflix on your ceiling on a giant screen, until you get tired of the poor quality video. The same goes with having 5 monitors surrounding you. This is stuff we were all doing pre-covid. So the ideas aren't really new.

The real deciding factor is implementation. Oculus / Meta Quest remains on the cusp of "having potential, but not being there yet" for the past X years. What will this actually be like when you try it yourself? That's to be determined.

IceHegel2• 3 years ago

2024 release date is disappointing. I wonder if they are waiting for 3nm chips?

They didn’t announce any tech specs so I guess it’s all subject to change.

turingfeel2• 3 years ago

They announced all the tech specs. As for the chips, an M2 and a new dedicated chip for sensor processing called R1.

jFriedensreich• 3 years ago

this thing is so feature complete the only thing left i was kind of hoping to see is innovative use of the apple watch as HID. For example using the taptic engine as feedback provider and the apple watch sensors for improved microgestures similar to what google Project Soli was researching. i am very sure this will come in a future version if this prevails.

ambyra• 3 years ago

The oculus 3 will be most people’s choice for games. This will cover “the rest”? Oof.

drno123• 3 years ago

If it can run stable diffusion in real time, and “augment” people walking around you to appear naked, it will be a hit

jdlyga2• 3 years ago

It's a much better version of the Oculus Quest, basically. The reason why AirPods took off is because they were immediately, 100% useful in your day to day life. The same with Apple Watch (notifications, fitness). What is the day 1, must have use for this?

FredPret• 3 years ago

I have a sweet setup - huge screens, stand-up desk, mouse and keyboard at home.

But when I go on holiday / a long trip / a weekend away, I have to hunch over my laptop.

Now I can pack this thing and have 15 massive monitors. Heck, I can set up a little bridge-of-the-enterprise situation where I know where to turn my head to get the status of system x. This could really change how I work once it's all ironed out.

divan• 3 years ago

Can anyone help to orient in the current VR/AR/XR programming landscape in a light of this announcement?

My goal is just to learn programming in VR/AR for myself. Assuming this is gonna be a leading XR platform in the coming years, does it make sense to focus exclusively on learning ARKit/RealityKit? Or there are some "true cross-platform XR" stacks are being actively developed?

I vaguely remember some initiatives from Kronos group, but have no idea how this landscape currently looks like. Would really appreciate some elif5 brief into current state of XR programming.

turbo_fart• 3 years ago

No controllers mean that people will get bored of this very quick. It's already tiring using a headset even if you can just let your arms flop. Also very out of date strap design that has the device resting on your face instead of using a builders hat type of harness system. Massively disappointing

0xDEF2• 3 years ago

Everything serious in VR/AR is being done using either Unity or Unreal Engine.

sleepybrett2• 3 years ago

I pickture Mark Zuckerberg, in the fetal position in a running shower wailing "I'm not crying, you're crying."

UI_at_80x24• 3 years ago

While I don't think this has yet shown 'the killer app' that will make everybody want VR; I do think that this has a killer feature that will revolutionize the segment.

Facial expression matching on your avatar.

The ability to make an avatar of yourself is kinda cool, but match the eye-tracking and other internal cameras you now have a way to have your avatar facial expression match your real-life expression. And THAT is what flattens the uncanny valley.

Regardless of a 2D 'Teams/Zoom' meeting or a special 3D Facetime, you will (A) always be looking directly at the camera, and (B) your facial expressions will convey all the hidden subtext that missing in communication done via voice-only.

This is a WIN over having a webcam pointed at your (messy) room too.

I am not an Apple fan. I do hope that this can inspire the spark that gives us the VR killer app.

avaloneon• 3 years ago

FWIW, the Quest Pro can do both eye and face tracking on avatars right now, although whatever app you're using needs to support it and it's not yet photorealistic. (Meta's been working on photorealistic avatars but my understanding is they're currently too computationally expensive)

I couldn't find a really good demo, but this should give a decent idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt0O4_56_qE

Meta also announced plans to use face tracked avatars for video calling in What's App and Messenger, although I'm not sure the status of that.

preseinger3• 3 years ago

Honest question: can I play Elite Dangerous or No Man's Sky on this thing?

Uptrenda• 3 years ago

I'm really surprised that Apple chose to work on this. Think about the track record of companies of similar products (in no particular order):

- Google Glass -- tried and failed

- Facebook's 'meta' -- slashed development

- Metas space glasses -- now defunct, idk if they even even shipped

- Magic leap -- did they end up shipping?

- Microsoft surface -- looks like it was rolled out to 'enterprise' but does anyone actually use it?

- Numerous headsets on the market causing nausea, eye strain, head aches, and social ridicule (lmao)

Many big companies tried to do this but didn't really get past the gimmick stage. So yeah, it seems like a massive risk that Apple took or is taking to do this. Hopefully they've done enough to push the concept past these usability hurdles. I mean: as a tech guy this would be awesome if it delivers.

coolandsmartrr10• 3 years ago

Did you mean Microsoft HoloLens?

iamthepieman• 3 years ago

I just can't imagine buying one of these for every person in my household so we can watch TV together or game together. My kids have friends over and they take turns playing on the switch. Even the kids who aren't playing get involved because they can see the screen and shout encouragement/advice/heckle.

Even if they come down in price by an order of magnitude, that's still too pricey to buy one for everyone in my house and an extra or two for a friend.

Totally see the value for certain specific business and industry uses though. My company has a product that help keep line and construction workers keep utility information up to date in real time by scanning poles, cabinets, transformers etc and identifying them along with positional information. This could be amazing for something like that and the price tag will just be a business expense.

m3kw98• 3 years ago

Apple just started the AR/VR era, thank you very much. Every other company will use this as the new benchmark for VR/AR, every other device feels like prototypes compared to this.

coolandsmartrr10• 3 years ago

I'm sure Apple Vision made Meta feel more validated in their efforts in Occulus.

nemo44x• 3 years ago

If the price is a concern to you then this product isn't for you. Watch the video and look at the spaces the people were in. Every single one of them was in a high end space that has been maintained by maids (no clutter, sparkling clean) and professionally painted and styled and their spaces were large.

At least initially, this is for the high end market. For people that want an object others can't really obtain yet. For those that want to be the first.

zamadatix8• 3 years ago

I wouldn't read that deep into it, they used the same types of homes in the same announcement video for the Apple TV ($100) section. It just looks nicer to the marketing folks.

hgl• 3 years ago

This seems to be another iPhone moment, but I wonder what’s its killer feature? iPhone had the killer feature of phone calls, so everyone has a reason to buy one, I can’t come up with any for AR.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m actually incredibly excited about AR, I just can’t imagine how it becomes mainstream. It can of course be mainstream if it’s just like glasses and has all day battery, but it still seems pretty far away.

Demmme11• 3 years ago

Porn.

Perfect for porn.

Honestly could be a deal breaker for porn.

Just no clue if I will ever shelf out 3.5k for porn.

But it's perfect for porn.

Otherwise holy shit if this is taking of in any relevant capacity I will eat a broom.

And it looks even weirder than I thought.

It looks like a really interesting piece of technology while also looking tremendously weird.

It's like a gold dagger pearcing to my dream of ever having a cool at/vr future ever.

sylens• 3 years ago

This headset is without a doubt an order of magnitude above things like the Meta Quest Pro, but even with that increase in power, UI, hardware, etc - I'm not sure they have really figured out the "why" for it quite yet.

The biggest tell is the fact that the battery pack is going to give you only two hours of use. Part of the appeal of a headset being AR instead of VR is that I can use it while out and about to add context and value to what I am seeing. The battery is a major limitation that will keep its use squarely at home or in the office, where it essentially is just another monitor (or set of monitors).

codq4• 3 years ago

Perhaps, but my sense is you can hot swap the battery while using the device, instantly getting back to 100% charge. Inelegant, but solves the battery problem.

patwolf• 3 years ago

I'm usually a fan of shiny new things, but this might be the first time I'll make an intentional effort to not buy something. I expect it's going to be fantastic, and using it for my development workstation would be amazing. However, I feel like this will be a net negative for humankind.

My kids will plead with me to get them one, and it will be easy to say no because it's so expensive. But with each successive generation it will get better and cheaper until I can no longer use cost as an excuse. My kids will explain to me that they have no way to interact with their friends because they all use it. I'm already dreading it.

spideymans• 3 years ago

Apple says kids younger than 13 shouldn't use the product. Another excuse for you :)

l33tbro• 3 years ago

For now.

Think it's pretty reasonable to assume these things become integrated with childhood over time in the same way other screens have.

pityJuke• 3 years ago

However, I feel like this will be a net negative for humankind.

The sinking feeling hit me too.

I'm well aware of how my usage of computers and technology, despite how well they've served me professionally, have absolutely caused me to be a more isolated human being. Spending times on online forums were fun... but frankly, I shouldn't've been hanging out there, and instead been developing my social skills with my peers.

But now having conversations with others while my AI eyes signal to them that I am totally listening?

Sitting in an empty room watching a TV? Or worse, sitting in a room with someone else, both of us strapped up with a headset to watch something, which we have to sync through the internet.

I mean, one of the demos was a parent sitting with one of these things strapped to their face so they could record a 3D Video of their kids. Instead of, you know, being with their kids.

VR/AR was already here, but now Apple have made it real. Not looking forward to this.

antoniuschan99• 3 years ago

I agree, the tech is amazing but it’s definitely not something I want to see becoming the norm :(.

In 10-15 years it’s going to get so advanced it will all be integrated into a pair of glasses. Then into a pair of contact lenses. Neuralink will probably try to leapfrog and have AR/VR surgically implanted.

The one thing I really want and like VR for is Thrill of the Fight boxing simulator. VR games in general are really fun.

nagonago• 3 years ago

It's funny, I've noticed that this seems to be a common sentiment among the HN crowd. Maybe spending so much time with tech has made us more aware of its downsides.

penjelly2• 3 years ago

think if it was just like wearing glasses though. It would be far less intrusive

JPws_Prntr_Fngr2• 3 years ago

However, I feel like this will be a net negative for humankind.

I'm hoping things like this are just humanity's awkward first steps at augmenting our anatomy with tech. And after decades (or centuries) of withering our bodies (and often minds) with these myopic goggles, mobile internet terminals, and isolating earplugs, we'll make the jump to retinal HUDs, language skill implantation, and whatever else. The only thing I'm sure of is that we won't be the same species anymore.

xattt5• 3 years ago

I was cringing at the parts of the keynote talking about reliving the memories (... because they were in la-la VR land). Just no!

However, I think this will be a breakthrough for at-home therapy sessions due to the immersive nature of the device.

ericzawo• 3 years ago

I don't want the face computer.

gslaller• 3 years ago

Disney did a better job of demonstrating the Vision Pro's ability than apple. This is obviously going to be a hit, and by gen 3 - 4(with a ton a immersive apps) it might by trailing behind iPhone.

wildpeaks2• 3 years ago

They shouldn't have revealed the price today, it would have afforded them more time to build hype around features and in-person demos (and to give themselves a chance to reduce the price before release).

Now it's going to kill interest in the device before it's even out.

__MatrixMan__2• 3 years ago

I'm skeptical. But if I put my inner skeptic in the corner, what I'm most excited about is how it will affect ergonomics.

Most input happens in a (typically horizontal) plane, but the human body is better modeled in polar coordinates. It's called "tech neck" because we've attached a screen to the input plane and then end up hunching while we look at it. Decoupling the two, if we can pull it off, will help a lot of people.

peddling-brink2• 3 years ago

Hanging a computer on on face seems like an ergo negative.

__MatrixMan__2• 3 years ago

That's going to depend pretty heavily on what you're doing with that computer on your face.

Ergo problems typically come up when you're assuming the same posture for long periods. If there are no other constraints to lock you in (e.g. desk and monitor), then I expect there will be much more moving around (perhaps even explicitly encouraged by the OS).

Whether this offsets the weight-on-head thing... time will tell. Whatever the problems will be, they'll be different problems.

quickthrower23• 3 years ago

I could see myself enjoying this for work - insane screen real estate! And for catchijg up with family abroad IF we can see each other in 3D. How do you see each others face though? Can it reconstruct your face using AI or something (it already is looking at your eyes)

summerlight2• 3 years ago

Given the $3500 price tag + US only release, it looks like Apple also doesn't think that this product will strongly appeal to the market broader than enthusiasts. Perhaps the first version is more of an experimental product with no high expectations, so we probably need to see if it draws enough attentions from enthusiasts and generates a good level of tech hypes here.

ur-whale• 3 years ago

If I need reading glasses, will I be able to use this thing?

zamadatix8• 3 years ago

In the announcement video they mentioned you'll be able to get prescription lens inserts via some partnership with a lens company. That said, even though they are physically very close, optically most VR headsets are somewhere around 6 feet focal distance, so if you don't need reading glasses for that it might not matter.

stephenhandley• 3 years ago

visionOS UI unsurprisingly still feels very tethered to a stationary AR model (i.e. mostly on couch / at table use cases). Of course hard to tell without trying it, but even if this had full day battery and wasn't a glowing please rob me sign, wearing this while navigating some outdoor spatial environment with the current OS seems like a great way to break an ankle. Maybe they have some gesture or accelerometer-based trigger to do the equivalent of Mission Control's "desktop" to minimize everything except for the camera pass-through so a person can safely walk around their house.

Seems like if it is eventually going to become outdoor-friendly OS, it would need to minimally be multi-mode for stationary vs. moving user, where when moving there's more minimal overlay (maybe like Anon [1] hopefully minus the dystopian hellscape).

3D camera + spatial audio is probably most interesting near term thing for me in this version, will be interesting to see how people use that to record and share immersive experiences.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuaa4hJVC5s

SebastianKra• 3 years ago

I'm not going to make predictions that I'll later regret, but I have the following concerns:

Comfort: This needs to sit on your face for 8 hours or more. Unlike with the Quest Pro, your face always touches the shield. If you wear AirPods Max with this, the majority of your head is covered, sweating and unable to breathe. Apple supposedly paid lots of attention to making the material breathable, but their rubber products also deteriorate notoriously fast, so we'll have to wait and see.

Resolution: The displays have an impressive resolution, but I'm not sure it will be enough. So far, none of the VR headsets I've tried have come even close to matching the resolution that I would want for coding and desk work. But image quality at the same resolution can vary heavily based on the lens quality and the headset, so we'll have to wait and see.

Input: I hated Hand Tracking on the HoloLenses and disliked it on the Quest. The pinching gesture becomes uncomfortable really quickly, as it requires more and more monotonous movement than tapping a key or clicking a mouse. However, they seem to heavily involve eye-tracking as an input method, which none of the other headsets have tried, so we'll have to wait and see.

Price: Well, I have a year to justify this in my head.

rahkiin• 3 years ago

Apple Vision pro has 3x more pixels than the Quest 3. Cannot say anything about the resolution without comparing exact display sizes though

hxugufjfjf2• 3 years ago

It has a battery life of 2 hours.

fomine314• 3 years ago

It's not a problem if people don't mind (I don't mind if I can afford $3499) to buy multiple batteries, thanks to it's external.

fnord772• 3 years ago

I imagine the tone of the comments would be a lot different if this thing were $500

consultSKI• 3 years ago

Not happening. Where is my new iPhone like the AR units used in "The Expanse?"

Oh yea, the great SciFy series about the future of outer space is on Amazon Prime.

Tim Cook: Stop by and I will show what you should have released. #justSayin

djake• 3 years ago

If I want to try developing an app for this, should I just wait for the thing to be generally available and try to buy one? Would Apple ever offer some kind of developer preview device?

lukko3• 3 years ago

I think they will probably offer some kind of developer program? Developers apply for early access to a device.

I wonder if it will also be possible to preview Vision apps on Xcode via the simulator... Very interested to see how much access they give to the hardware and sensors via APIs.

lukko3• 3 years ago

Edit: you will be able to preview in simulated rooms in Xcode simulator; Apple will have testing locations where you can test on a physical device.

idk1• 3 years ago

Now I see why they never made a tv! Why make a tv if you can replace it!

karowana• 3 years ago

$3500 is insanity

nikolay• 3 years ago

I will never buy something like this and put it on my head. Sorry, Apple is way too late into this gimmick!

curiousgal• 3 years ago

Has anyone pitching these products actually worked with a computer all day? I can't imagine the state my eyes would be in after staring through this thing on a workday.

nappy• 3 years ago

"starting at $3,499"

I wonder what the model that you actually want to buy will cost and what average sales price will be.

From the looks of it, I wouldn't be surprised if they sell a "pro" headband like Meta does for the Quest that has a battery pack that does better than the 2 hours of charge with the brick.

dboreham3• 3 years ago

Zuckerberg was right then.

frou_dh• 3 years ago

Even once this is released, it's going to take a while for the OS and applications to find their groove. So rich people will essentially be paying to beta test this.

Probably going to be unequivocally awesome 3 years from now though.

wildpeaks2• 3 years ago

allenu4• 3 years ago

The high price tag is interesting from a strategy perspective. It feels like they wanted to start super high to really test the market and give themselves an out if it doesn't succeed for a long time.

Each year that they keep the price high, it can be used as an excuse for the lack of uptake, should it not succeed. If they ever exit the space, they can always announce that it was too difficult to make it work at lower price points, instead of "people just weren't interested in an AR headset".

coolandsmartrr10• 3 years ago

It feels like they wanted to start super high to really test the market

Reminds me of how Steve Jobs announced a price reduction by $200 in two months after the release of the first iPhone. Apple can likewise reduce the price of Apple Vision, but save face this time by releasing a non-Pro version.

If they ever exit the space

I'm not sure if Apple would exit the space that easily. While markets for auxiliary products like homepods were easier to exit, Apple announced Apple Vision announced with too much fanfare to exit quickly.

Apple will probably commit to Apple Vision for a while, just like the Apple Watch. While the first Apple Watch did not take off massively, Apple persisted by pivoting it from a luxury item to a more practical device for fitness and Apple Pay.

m3kw98• 3 years ago

Welcome to the ultimate skeptics vs optimists thread regarding our AR/VR future

tdba• 3 years ago

The external facing screen conveying the user's eyes and a sense of what they are looking at is a simple but really great idea that makes this device feel much more faithful to the idea of augmented reality than any predecessor.

porsager• 3 years ago

I'm just looking forward to being able to work/focus without the people around me always disturbing me, not thinking I'm doing anything important.. I hope this outside eye thing can be tweaked so I can use them as an "availability marker"

VisionNoob• 3 years ago

It's hard not to be impressed by it. From a design standpoint, it feels magnitudes more human and thoughtful than everything else. It will help open the world of "spatial computing" to the everyday consumer (who has the money), not restricting it to the VR people who have already grown used to the limitations of current headsets and may not see how cool this handset-free, see-through-ish device is. The fact that existing apps already work on it is amazing, and who knows what new apps this will inspire. I'm excited.

artemiszx• 3 years ago

Regardless of the future of the device, it’s been a long way for Apple to get here. ARKit was released in 2017 and is on version 6 by now, so far mostly for gimmicks. The same is true for the lidar sensor on every iPhone and iPad Pros: consumers have been bearing cost of R&D and establishing the supply chain for years. Also don’t forget binaural spatial audio: though quite cool on its own in the AirPods, it is clear that AR/VR is the application it shines. Finally, Apple Silicon’s absolute performance and performance per watt gives them an definite edge over competitors.

Although not needing handheld controllers is quite an Apple move, I am personally disappointed that the UX is not more spatial, but rather floating traditional 2D interfaces. As users of the first gen bear more of the initial manufacturing and R&D cost, let’s hope Apple can further iterate on the ideas, and also reduce costs for a proper consumer-range model.

solarmist5• 3 years ago

All new paradigms heavily crib from the original while finding their place. I fully expect this will fall away within 5 years if there’s a healthy adoption.

xwowsersx2• 3 years ago

Can I use this with my Mac to replace my physical displays and work with the headset on? That would be incredible if possible.

MacsHeadroom5• 3 years ago

Yes, you can airplay your Mac's display to a virtual display inside the AR experience of the Vision Pro.

mjamesaustin2• 3 years ago

It looks like yes, but only one display for now. One of the reasons I'll wait till version 2 or 3 – my primary use case would be to have unlimited virtual displays for working in macOS.

xwowsersx2• 3 years ago

Right, that's exactly how I feel. I'd already have 3-4 Studio Displays if it weren't so costly. To be able to have unlimited virtual displays would be so great.

two_handfuls3• 3 years ago

The presentation says that yes you can. Incidentally, you can also do this with the cheaper Quest Pro headset (or any headset in the Quest line, so $300-$1000 price range). There are a few options, [VRDesktop](https://www.vrdesktop.net/) being one.

lvl102• 3 years ago

There’s no question this will be a game changer. Applications will be absolutely endless. Can you imagine putting this on and having guides on fixing homes or cars? I didn’t know it was going to be completely untethered. That you can walk around with this thing freely.

By the 3rd gen and cheaper price, Apple will be selling a lot of these devices. As software ecosystem emerge to create this entirely new experience, I cannot wait to see what people develop to use this device.

I don’t necessarily think this first gen will sell well but it will make people start thinking of all the possibilities. I am excited.

uticus• 3 years ago

A unique dual‑chip design enables the spatial experiences on Vision Pro... The powerful M2 chip simultaneously runs visionOS... the brand-new R1 chip is specifically dedicated to process input from the cameras...

Any information on the new "R1" chip?

Signal processing sounds like FPGA territory, would be interesting to know what is unique for giving this chip new branding, versioning, and calling it out... versus just saying "the headset processes input from the cameras..."

jwmcq• 3 years ago

I think that signal processing is really only 'FPGA territory' because most people who need to do custom signal processing don't also have access to large scale chip design and fabrication capacity. For Apple, it could just be a matter of "we built a custom chip because that's kind of what we do now - might as well tell people about it". I agree that I'd definitely love to hear more, though!

mikenew4• 3 years ago

I find it pretty hilarious that VR started off as a product for gamers, designed by gamers, and funded by gamers. And even before it made it to market, it was bought up by Facebook who said "no no no, forget games, we're going to give you experiences". And it's been a parade of uninteresting, nobody-actually-wanted-this products and ideas ever since.

By far the most compelling things you can do in VR are games. Modded Beat Saber is incredible (and a total pain in the ass now that Facebook bought the game and tries to release a mod-breaking update every few weeks), VR Chat (a moddable, nerd/furry/whatever/anything goes playground), and Half Life: Alyx, a AAA game delivered by a gaming company. EDIT: almost forgot Phasmophobia. Hearing all your friends (and yourself) scream like little girls in unison is a priceless experience.

I think Apple designed an incredible piece of hardware here, and I really would like to put on a headset and have as much virtual desktop space as I want while I'm sitting on a beach. But what I really want are games. That's what everyone has always wanted from this, and yet somehow the whole VR space has been taken over by these lame corporate execs who have never touched a game more serious than Candy Crush in their life, insisting they know better.

programmarchy• 3 years ago

I don’t care about games at all. Have never put on a VR headset. But I will likely pre-order Vision for a better productivity workflow. Apple will get the OS right, whereas Meta never had a chance.

mrguyorama9• 3 years ago

Oh good, just wait until you get regular headaches from attempting to decipher the text on your virtual screen. It works terribly. VR is an awful, desperate, not fit for purpose replacement for even a single 1080p monitor.

swarnie• 3 years ago

Tim, if this is your alt account you're legally obligated to say so.

BulgarianIdiot2• 3 years ago

Better productivity workflow: a sweaty device you need to carry on your head, with a cable with a battery pack, for the spectacular 2 hours battery life, reproducing low-resolution virtual displays around you, which you are supposed to very productively operate by clumsily making finger gestures around the display (instead of on them).

Yeah, I'll keep my monitors, mouse and keyboard, and my smartphone, thanks.

detrites• 3 years ago

Consider trying any VR headset first, the interface has a few unanticipated effects for many people. Eg, nausea, headaches, dizzyness etc. A "productivity workflow" might only last half an hour before you're fatigued from its innate unnaturalness.

jknoepfler• 3 years ago

Having made a serious attempt at a virtual workspace for development myself, I'll just say: it's ok, but there are a lot of challenges.

To develop, I need an actual fully-featured operating system with a terminal, a full suite of tools and libraries, and an application ecosystem.

To date, proxying all of that through a desktop/laptop to a virtual display or virtual remote desktop is clunky at best. Reading in VR is unpleasant. Typing in VR is unpleasant. Juggling controllers in VR is unpleasant. Wearing a headset for more than an hour or two is gross - you will really need to spend time and effort keeping the bits that touch your face clean. Cords are a hassle and the weird constant slight resistance starts to drive me nuts after awhile. For me there wasn't a hard deal-breaking issue, just a death by a thousand cuts.

Don't get me wrong - you can absolutely do it. For myself, it fell far short of the friction-free space for deep productivity I was after.

Also, again speaking personally, there is no way in hell I'm going to show up to work video meeting as a cartoon avatar (or turn my camera off). So meetings sort of break the whole thing.

Maybe this product will solve a lot of those friction points. I think that would be great, personally, but I'm skeptical.

underlipton4• 3 years ago

Everyone read that one Vernor Vinge novel and decided to get on the gravy train before Chicago gets nuked. /s

Speaking more seriously: I think you're right in the short-term, wrong in the long-term, but getting at a fundamental truth, which is that *applications* are what will drive development and adoption. And they have to be fully-formed and wedded to the form factor, while still being accessible.

AR/VR will revolutionize general computing, but if you can't figure out how yet - clearly, they have not - the focus should be on the applications that are already well-envisioned (and, in the past few years, as you've said, well-executed) on the platform.

Further, it helps if the killer-app is emotionally engaging, allows and anticipates the failure of the user within the app's internal UX logic, and doesn't interfere with a user's crucial assets or processes (related to work, health, etc.) until the platform's kinks are worked out.

Sounds like games fit the bill quite nicely. It is truly weird that execs taking home eight figures or more can't (or refuse to) wrap their heads around that. Gaming is anathema amongst a certain portion of the population, I suppose.

gumby• 3 years ago

Obligatory pedantry: True Names was a novella, not a full novel. And the better for it.

Or you were referring to Rainbow's End in which case I'm embarrassed about my comment.

More seriously: I was really excited by True Names when it was published (and a bunch of us at MIT talked about it a lot) but by the time Snow Crash came out it seemed pretty obvious that real world metaphors weren't really desirable in virtual environments. Certainly the web and its abortive competitors (like apple eWorld, and many others) made it clear for those not paying attention: nobody wanted to "walk" from Gap to Williams Sonoma in some virtual mall: they just wanted to click over and get satisfaction. Nobody likes long boring travel in an open video game; a little is OK to avoid breaking the spell, but soon something has to happen or you need a convenient elevator. The same applies to movies.

BTW you're 100% right about gaming being the killer app. Once people are used to that perhaps they'll want to do other things. But without a reason to develop the right metaphors, affordances, and experiences, there's "no there there".

wpietri23• 3 years ago

AR/VR will revolutionize general computing

People keep thinking that stereoscopic 3D will revolutionize things, but they've been consistently wrong about that for more than 170 years.

It starts with the Brewster Stereoscope [1] which was shown at the Great Exhibition of 1851. [2] It was a huge success, and in following years hundreds of thousands of viewers were sold, with lots of content following. Eventually the fad blew over, ending up as antique-shop fodder.

Next up was the ViewMaster; the US Department of Defense bought 100,000 units because it was going to revolutionize military training. Then came the 1950s wave of anaglyph 3D movies, the 1990s VR boom and bust, the Avatar-driven resurrection of 3D movies in 2009, which was quickly followed by a wave of enthusiasm for 3D TV. Then, most recently we have the resurrection of VR, this time with the Metaverse attached.

I think 3D worlds have revolutionized a chunk of gaming, from Quake to Minecraft and onward. But the available evidence suggests that stereoscopic 3D interfaces are an idea much more popular in theory than in practice. As best I can tell, the most representative 3D technology is not facehugger VR, but those Magic Eye stereograms [3] that go in and out of popularity. They are a fun novelty, but they never transform everything. There's a big hype cycle and everybody gets excited, but after a bit of use they quickly go back to 2D and most are just fine with it.

[1] https://stereosite.com/collecting/the-brewster-stereoscope-i...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Exhibition

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Eye

mrguyorama9• 3 years ago

The actual concept of VR was basically done the second the Vive came out. Now you can have really good immersion for a Flight Simulator game that won't come out for a few years and nobody really knew it would happen yet, and the couple driving simulation games on PC that somehow haven't died, and a smattering of immersive FPS games.

Nothing else really benefits from the increased immersion, and everything struggles with the discomfort, nausea, cost, loneliness, and extra development effort of VR.

VR isn't the next generation of graphics, it's just the display equivalent of a really powerful direct drive racing wheel with load cell brake or that airbus branded joystick that costs $500 bucks. It's for turbo nerds.

mikenew4• 3 years ago

You're missing something. Yes it's for turbo nerds, but it's also for ultra casuals.

I have shown Beat Saber to probably around 30 people at this point. The game is set up in the living room with the TV mirroring the headset and the audio coming through the living room speakers. So it feels like a party environment with everyone trading off with watching and playing. Without even a single exception, every person who has tried it has absolutely loved it. Even several people who have never touched a digital game of any kind in their life, and took all manner of convincing to even try it at all.

In any other game you play, there is always some mapping of inputs into actions. Doesn't matter if it's MKB or game controller or touch screen; you have to learn that deflecting a joystick moves the player camera, or pressing "A" causes your character to jump. But in VR, at least in games like Beat Saber, you simple move your body in exactly the way you'd expect. You don't press a button at the right time to slice a block, you just slice the block. Couple that with the immersion you get in both sound and visuals, and it adds up to something that feels absolutely magical.

Yes, many things do struggle with clunky movement, nausea, etc. There are many games that I have no desire to play in VR. But the stuff that shines bright shines really bright, and I think there's a huge amount of potential there.

chazeon• 3 years ago

Apple themselves clearly know their bad reputation in the gaming community, and their lock down model for selling software will also not be embraced by many gamers. In this respect a $399 Steamdeck is a better device than Apple’s piece with 10x the price.

arcticbull2• 3 years ago

... released by Steam, a company with a lock down model for selling software. The gaming world has long embraced the App Store model. In fact, I'd argue the macOS and iOS App Stores were probably inspired by Steam.

skatanski• 3 years ago

That's a very good point. VR Chat is the magical quirky "META" experience, which is already there. Straight from either Gibsons novels or Ghost in the Shell. Apple seems to be more in line with more gated, streamlined and polished experiences, than what's in VR Chat. Its a similar story with the Sony VR HeadSet.

johnfernow2• 3 years ago

I am a huge fan of VR gaming: some of my best gaming experiences ever have been in VR (notably Resident Evil 7 on PSVR1 and RE8 on PSVR2).

Even still, I acknowledge putting on a VR headset comes with some notable downsides: those sacrifices are 100% worth it for some games because it enables an incredible experience you can't otherwise have. Sure, you can play a modded version of Half-Life: Alyx without VR, but you're going to have a much worse experience and a lot less fun. Same for RecRoom and plenty of other titles.

But for work? I'm 100% willing to put up with a little discomfort for an hour or two if I'm having a great time; I'm less willing to do that for 8 hours a day when my job can be completed in a far more comfortable manner.

Comfort no doubt could be improved upon, but even still, I like to see the world with my own eyes. VR is a nice brief escape, and it doesn't have to be a solo activity: playing RecRoom or Zenith with friends is a lot of fun! I even bring my Quest 2 over to my friends' house IRL and play Zenith in the same room with him. But it's not much of an escape if that's what you spend your whole day in.

There are many activities that are a ton of fun for short periods of time, but if done all day, are miserable. I enjoy gaming quite a bit, but I dread the idea of being a pro-gamer who Streams on Twitch 10-12 hours a day playing one title to get good: that'd suck all the fun out of the activity for me and I'd much rather just work a more regular job like web development. I see the same being true for VR: I enjoy it a lot for an hour or two a day at most, but being in it all day could cause me to hate it.

wpietri23• 3 years ago

A question I ask of all VR gaming enthusiasts: how much time do you spend on VR games versus other games?

A while back I rented an Oculus Quest. For the first week, it was the hot property in the house. By the end of the second, the kids were back on their Switches and nobody even noticed when I returned it. Asking around, I know a bunch of people who own VR gear of one form or another, but I still haven't met anybody for whom it's a daily driver, or who spends most of their gaming time using it.

rcpt2• 3 years ago

Resident Evil 7 on PSVR1

Yikes. Hard pass from me but congrats on getting through that in vr

alliao• 3 years ago

while I share the same sentiment, it is hard if not impossible, if gamers became permanently attached to VR/AR tech and then try to bring everyone else onboard. that's why apple went in with high prices first, got to make it look sexy/cool/elusive while the tech matures, then only release to general public at affordable prices when it's 99% there; like macbook air.

asdff12• 3 years ago

If anything that sort of thing backfired with the plummeting demand for the mac line after the the ungodly expensive mac pro caster wheels and such.

b33j0r• 3 years ago

It’s for bringing employees back into the office who are never coming back into the office!

In our Titanium tier, you can even eye-track how often your employees glance at their phones!

…

What happened here is that VR/AR have always been nerd dreams. But it’s always been expensive, or uncomfortable to use. Nerds funded rounds 1-3.

Now we’re at the point where it’s board meetings and people making presentations about workplace reintegration. Aka employee monitoring and nudging.

api• 3 years ago

Companies like Meta are trying to push what they want this to be about, and it's not games. Its ads, completely immersive ads and the addictive infinite feed model perfected by TikTok applied to VR and AR to push those ads. The ad market is significantly larger than the game market.

We'll see what Apple does with this. It's a chance for them to redeem themselves in the gaming market a bit if they make it good for games, which as you say is what everyone actually wants from this technology.

m4632• 3 years ago

"You're not the target market"

sigh.

this seems to be the way the world is going.

The market for what the tech world seems to be producing is people who can be easily swayed from their own vision to the company vision, and have little expectations of (actual) privacy, of actual utility, and just adapt to what they get.

It's hard to push back against this sort of thing.

Mindful people don't want to be limited by the scenarios the manufacturer has allowed. They don't want to ask permission, to be locked-in, to have subscriptions, to have surveillance, and advertisements.

justinator6• 3 years ago

Ugh - so much of what you say resonates with me.

This is certainly the future (VR) but I'm not really interested in it. I'm interested in just being outdoors (not indoors). I want to feel rain, and cold. I want to know I can't just escape.

Others not so much, and all you need is a little bit of money. The brain doesn't know the difference. Doesn't know you're in a dead neighborhood in suburbia in a house that looks like all your neighbors you don't talk to anyways, far from any restaurants or public spaces. We have this now. Food and other items are being delivered to our doors. So on and so forth - I'm not going to belabor my personal view of a future hellscape of rich tech countries.

KuriousCat2• 3 years ago

What are the 'self assembled PC' equivalents in this space?

etempleton4• 3 years ago

But who is the target market for this? I like to think I am usually pretty good at saying this isn’t for me but it is for demo Y. It isn’t clear here, but if I take the marketing video and the price point and put two and two together the target audience is people with a trust fund. Not upper class, but multi-millionaire inherited wealth types. The kind that travel a lot and so something like this makes a lot of sense when on a plane or in a hotel room.

For everyone else though? It is too much money and too little utility. I am sure it will come down in price, but I still don’t see it unless they let you plug it into a PC and use it like a normal VR headset for games, because those are the only people that will shell out over a grand for a headset.

rvba• 3 years ago

That's why no real programmer or hacker owns an iphone - overpriced, non customizable phone...

jchoca• 3 years ago

Facebook bought it up because they saw the opportunity for that sweet behavioral surplus and just couldn't pass it up.

LocalPCGuy• 3 years ago

The real money isn't in VR right now though. The real money is in AR. Does this fit that? Not sure, but there are hundreds of use cases for something like this in the workplace (and not just for developers/desk workers). Think the person who needs to reference a manual while working on something (machinery, car, top of a telephone pole, etc.). Just a single example, but I feel that is the kind of market that the executives are aiming at cause they know for businesses, the cost is immaterial if it solves their issue or makes it so 1 person can do the job of 2. Not endorsing it either, fwiw, just saying, that has to be part of the thinking. The gaming market just isn't big enough, especially when you figure in the cost of the equipment (even at half the cost).

paxys10• 3 years ago

That was the idea behind HoloLens, and they tried to make it work for a decade, but ultimately that flopped as well. No one wants to fix a machine or a telephone pole or whatever else with a massive headset strapped to their head. These are just pointless scenarios dreamed up by techies who have never done any of those jobs in their life.

If such a headset were to be commercially successful gaming and porn are the only areas that need targeting, but those are also ones that large corporations are least interested in.

cptaj2• 3 years ago

This. Drives. Me. NUTS.

Just make games! Its that simple. Those are the experiences, those are the killer apps, they are the metaverse! They literally just need to get out of the way with their corporate bullshit.

LightBug14• 3 years ago

Yeah, actually you're on to something. I admired the hardware but you just nailed the feeling I was getting from this presentation but couldn't describe.

It's the old print magazine adverts for the Atari ST or Amiga or early PC's... and shown on the screen was a spreadsheet...(and don't get me wrong, I love a good spreadsheet, but.... )

tmpz22• 3 years ago

If the goal posts was just to make a billion dollars they could make games. But the goal post is to make 100 billion dollars. So here we are.

moffkalast5• 3 years ago

Apple has done everything in their power to strangle and kill gaming on MacOS, they'd probably rather scrap the whole product than bring it back.

prawn19• 3 years ago

I agree! What they should do is launch this at a developer event and provide some information and tooling, then get out of the way so that developers can release games through a proven distribution method with free/freemium/paid/subscription options...

usea• 3 years ago

Apple's reality distortion field could be the secret sauce that gets people to overcome many of the issues you described, and to purchase a VR product even if they don't make any sense to use.

nirav72• 3 years ago

Yeah, maybe for other non-VR. But at $3500,the Vision Pro is DOA for the most consumers. At $3500, it's going to take several iteration before they can price one that your average consumer that's normally willing to spends $500-1500 for a ipad/iphone/MBP would be willing to buy. I wonder what they'll leave out to get to that price.

gehsty2• 3 years ago

The reality distortion field schtik is getting pretty old - Mac’s, iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches and AirPods are clearly class leading products that people buy a lot of. HomePods are not and people do not buy a lot of them.

If this is good people will buy it if not they won’t.

narag• 3 years ago

By far the most compelling things you can do in VR are games.

What about porn?

radicaldreamer• 3 years ago

There's a reason Kojima was on stage and it isn't just to announce Death Stranding is coming to the Mac. The key part was future games for Apple platforms...

marcosdumay• 3 years ago

Hum, AFAIK VR started off as aimless experimental tech, was repurposed for data visualization first, and only after a reasonable amount of success there it was pushed for gamers.

And then gamers unanimously rejected it, but it found a quite cozy niche in CAD.

That's just to say that it has probably a lot of other serious uses. But yeah, as soon as it's actually good, games will probably be most popular one. Anyway, I agree, the serious uses will almost certainly not include pretending you are in a circle with your coworkers' avatars.

KuriousCat2• 3 years ago

It sounds like companies are trying to bring work to a playground and at the same time can't make compelling games that can beat Beat saber...

gcanyon• 3 years ago

I'm curious what you think of https://moonrider.xyz ?

I just use it for virtual workouts, so I use the "punch" not the "saber" mode, but it works great for that.

baron816• 3 years ago

I think immersive experiences is the way to go. Imagine being able to experience a bunch of (idealized) historical events—celebrating Allied victory in WWII, walking through a market in Ancient Rome up to the Colosseum to watch a match, walking around your city before people settled it, etc.

The tech isn’t quite there yet, but we may not be that far off of some aspects of it with generative AI. Those experiences would certainly be boosted if you could walk up to anyone and they’d have a unique personality and would be able to have a full conversation with you.

r3trohack3r• 3 years ago

I find it pretty hilarious that VR started off as a product for gamers, designed by gamers, and funded by gamers. By far the most compelling things you can do in VR are games.

Going to have to disagree with you there. The most compelling use case for VR is porn. The most compelling cover story for buying a device for porn will be games.

AFAICT the most prolific and reliably deployed cardboard (previous gen VR) experiences ended up being porn.

blacksmith_tb• 3 years ago

However Apple has been hostile to that particular content so I wouldn't expect it to be marketed with that in mind...

cpncrunch2• 3 years ago

Porn will never work. See the Dara Obriain skit for a hilarious explanation why.

swyx• 3 years ago

i just have stock Beat Saber and am interested in modding. what mods do you recommend?

IAmGraydon5• 3 years ago

I just want to experience Tribes:Ascend on a good VR headset without a tethered computer. Is that too much to ask?

Melatonic3• 3 years ago

Seriously - VR gaming was awesome years ago if you had the hardware and continues to be awesome.

retrocryptid8• 3 years ago

VR was invented by and for gamers? News to me.

I mean sure, if you say history started in 1995 and ignore all the VPL and CAVE stuff from the 80s, then sure... it was gamers all the way down.

charcircuit• 3 years ago

VR Chat (a moddable

It has never allowed mods and on PC enforces it with an anticheat.

meghan_rain2• 3 years ago

Don’t forget porn!

gehsty2• 3 years ago

It’s a computing device like a phone or a laptop, anyone can make any game they want available for it. in the key note they mentioned gaming specifically and had time on a partnership with unreal.

What makes you think this is not for gaming?

jayd169• 3 years ago

I really think this is a bad take, at least as far as the analysis of Meta goes.

If anything, they've focused on games too deeply and have kicked the can on building an _app_ ecosystem with the multitasking UX needed for a personal computer. This is understandable from a hardware constraint perspective...

However, Apple has done the legwork to build a framework that supports concurrent app usage in a mixed reality way from the ground up instead of deeply focusing on immersive game experiences like Meta has. On top of that, Apple seems to have put in more work to onboard app devs than game devs. That said, the reason Apple can ignore games is because they can leave that to Meta and Unity and they'll still get ports.

The input story for the Apple headset is real bad, though. You seem to think Meta doesn't care about games but at least they ship game controllers. Just wait until you try to play something with a pinch gesture and no haptics.

pazimzadeh2• 3 years ago

Seems strange to make a point about myopia being caused by screens being too close to your face minutes before announcing this.

peplee• 3 years ago

Does this help or hurt someone like Magic Leap?

m3kw98• 3 years ago

Hurt because if I buy this, I won’t buy the other.

d_burfoot• 3 years ago

Feels like the marketing department at Apple has gone down hill: is "Apple Vision Pro" really the best name they could come up with? How about something like "iView" or "iWorld" or "iSight"?

codq4• 3 years ago

iSight was the name they used for their webcam a decade ago, and when was the last time they used the ‘iDevice’ naming convention? Seems they’ve been getting away from that for a long time.

dangus2• 3 years ago

Okay since you just stepped out of the time machine, I can get you up to speed. A global viral pandemic happened, America elected a Black president, and Taylor Swift replaced Britney Spears as the most popular female pop star. Also, Apple stopped putting "i" before every product name and that whole thing isn't cool anymore.

coolandsmartrr10• 3 years ago

Apple seems to have been shifting from the i-prefix since Apple TV. The i-prefix trademark is very easy for competitors to mimic; there's no trademark protection.

"Apple X" scheme is better suited to capitalize on and enhance the Apple brand. No competitor can mimic that, as "Apple" name is a monopoly under trademark protection.

shrimpx2• 3 years ago

I could see this being revolutionary for in-computer music production, because currently that space is heavily modal and arcane to use with a mouse and tons of deeply buried UIs.

Imagine organizing digital instruments spatially in your office and composing music with a spatial feel similar to using a hardware setup. Then you can flip between various setups. For example you might bring up the mixing environment when you're ready to mix, which fills your office with a mixing board, amps, compressors and whatnot instead of synths and drum machines.

Could make digital modular synthesis a lot of fun, too, as you could move digital wires around in physical space.

codq4• 3 years ago

I feel like announcing/releasing Logic Pro X for iPad just prior to the Apple Vision announcement was not a coincidence.

rockmeamedee• 3 years ago

Like a non-toy version of this: https://artsandculture.google.com/story/ar-synth/7AUBadCIL5T...

shrimpx2• 3 years ago

That’s awesome, thanks for the pointer.

luis_cho• 3 years ago

All the other people that are attending the facetime call should also be using the glasses and why not an apple headphone. That way instead of talking to my brother I could talk to a Daft Punk member.

We could change the name of the app to robottime.

wg0• 3 years ago

Seems like another collector's item. Something later to be looked at "Why X didn't take off?" sort of.

ripvanwinkle3• 3 years ago

IMO what makes Apple different and more likely to succeed than Meta is that they are pursuing more concrete scenarios like viewing content in a more immersive environment or spinning up a large viewing surface where you may have none .

Meta's problem is this focus around social interactions which just isn't taking hold apart from a niche audience of enthusiasts. Having tried the Quest Pro, if Meta pursued the remote office collaboration scenario more vigorously which is really quite promising and multiple desktop monitor replacement they would do a lot better

The obvious drawback with the Apple device is price and it's going to have challenges with traction. The enterprise would be a good place to start but that doesn't seem to be Apple's forte

dangus2• 3 years ago

No matter what they try, Meta can't really implement a vision of an enterprise collaboration OS because they don't make a widely adopted desktop OS.

More generally, the whole "productivity computer" market will also have to convince thrifty companies that they should spend thousands of dollars per employee on a headset for remote work when they already spent thousands per employee on a laptop that has a webcam.

Nobody's going to be able to demonstrate ROI on these devices for making employees more productive. Buying your employees two or three $150 monitors has the same effect.

This is why Apple's strategy of marketing directly to the consumer can work. It forced companies to support the iPhone on corporate networks, because everyone wanted an iPhone. It didn't matter that all these companies were Microsoft shops with Blackberry phones.

Apple's still not going to get far with this thing until they can bring the price down to three digits.

jusonchan81• 3 years ago

I use Meta Quest 2 on an average around an hour a day - workouts, Netflix, Youtube etc. I am really excited but Vision Pro, but $3500 is a bit too high for me.

I am now eagerly waiting for what Meta Quest 3 has in store for us. I'll just upgrade to that for now and will wait for Vision Pro cost to come down.

collenjones• 3 years ago

Yep. I’m planning the same thing.

ripvanwinkle3• 3 years ago

The obvious drawback with the Apple device is price and it's going to have challenges with traction. The enterprise would be a good place to start but that doesn't seem to be Apple's forte

cwkoss• 3 years ago

Meta just isn't very good at building software that users want. They've been optimizing for advertisers and stockholders instead for the past decade.

Really a shame that Oculus got acquired by them.

cjohnson3185• 3 years ago

Yeah, I haven't bought/used any AR/VR devices before, but I'm excited about a device that will offer seamless interaction with the rest of my Apple devices.

pursuing more concrete scenarios like viewing content in a more immersive environment

100%. I'm not into playing video games or watching TV, so their focus on real world things really appealed to me.

It's a huuuge price tag, but I'm psyched.

RandallBrown6• 3 years ago

This was maybe my biggest complaint about the Quest 2. I would get a text message or notification on my phone. I could feel it vibrate in my pocket or on my wrist, but I couldn't actually see it unless I took the headset off.

76SlashDolphin2• 3 years ago

On the other hand, Meta are very very good at acquiring key companies for their ambitions. My Quest 2 is a Beat Saber machine and everything else that comes with it is icing on the cake.

oezi7• 3 years ago

I think you are absolutely right. The Vision Pro presentation was the first time that I could consider watching a movie or sports in VR. Making that screen really big but also embedding you into an environment focused on the show was great to see. Dimming the room or giving it a Star Wars theme is very nice.

It shows that they really considered what you can do with the device more than all the others.

rektide15• 3 years ago

I have a hard time imagining either company creating a good ecosystem here.

There will be some stunning experiences on both, absolutely (Disney/Marvel has entered the chat) but they'll be narrow niches. Neither company WI be anywhere near creating a more platform where experiences across systems work well.

Or maybe possibly one can. Apple only added widgets a couple years ago, & they're doing a great job across their platforms with widget like things (stacks on watch). The new iOS always-on Standby mode is starting to really leverage this, in a way Google is nowhere near doing (widgets on Android are so often ill maintained afterthoughts).

Metaverse requires a couple interesting features. Prepackaged monoliths just won't cut it, aren't dynamic enough. The space has to be a host not just to users but to a sea of mini experiences, sharing the space together, that users can seamlessly move across & interwork. Neither company has the genetics here to actually tackle these computing challenges: both are authoritarian in nature & unlikely to plant the right seeds for success.

jnsie• 3 years ago

or spinning up a large viewing surface where you may have none .

There are a bunch of apps for Quest that do just this. Perhaps Meta's marketing is just terrible...

jayd169• 3 years ago

The Oculus has had virtual video exactly like what was shown for a long time. Showing a VR video is not new or unique.

The innovation that apple has brought is from their holistic OS and UX design. If meta has a problem, it's that they focused heavily on full immersive experiences and let the concept of multitasking languish.

I don't personality think they focused too heavily on social at all... But I do think they failed to imagine (or at least position) their system as a proper personal computing platform.

rumori• 3 years ago

I feel this is the point where they have to heavily rely on the developers and possibly give out devices to developers to experiment like they did with the Apple TV. It’s a huge risk for an indie dev to buy and bet on, it will be really interesting to see how they approach this.

marricks4• 3 years ago

So many technologies Apple has launched in the past 5 years seemed nifty & weird but were all being built to lead up to this:

- Spatial Audio - Is any one a huge fan of this? It doesn't matter a ton outside of AR but matters greatly within it

- Side Car - mirroring to a local apple device. It's useful as a second monitor but... mirroring your iPad or MacBook into VR and typing on it. Super useful.

- FaceID - is it really better than using your finger to unlock? I think it is now but it wasn't initially... This face scanning tech is an entry point into the whole "face as an avatar" integration into their ecosystem. Also keeping a secure local image of your face on device.

- Separating a subject from scene used live in iPhone "portrait" view and in photos to clip out w/ neural engine - sure that's fun, but in AR this is a lot more useful for presenter view they showed.

That's off the top of my head. This totally could fail but piece by piece Apple has been building and trying out the tech for this in their ecosystem. If it fails, it won't be because of a buggy ecosystem.

Actually, I still find side car buggy so it definitely could/will be buggy, but, it is a broad integration and feature set they've been working towards for a while.

mft_2• 3 years ago

Maybe add the 3D scanner on the back of the Pro iPhones (and some iPads?) to your list? It’s cool, but I never understood why they bothered, especially as they barely supported it with their own software.

kylehotchkiss2• 3 years ago

I can't wait for more 3D photography - I bet an iPhone in the near future is going to support stereocameras somehow so that even pictures you take off the headset will be 3d. And I bet they're going to have more ways to view them without the headset.

okwubodu• 3 years ago

I made a similar comment almost a year ago and it seems like it's panning out nicely:

"Apple has been testing overengineered features that are suspiciously well suited for AR in broad daylight for a few years now. If they can't pull it off, I don't think anyone can."

They've reached a stage where outpacing the field is just a matter of reaching into their grab bag of miscellaneous technologies.

kabirgoel• 3 years ago

Ha, that turned out to be a pretty good prediction. Wonder what else can be gleaned from features in standard products.

LegitShady10• 3 years ago

I've never heard such breathless praise of nonsense before. every vr headset has had spatial audio. mirroring a desktop to vr has been doable on vive or oculus for years and years. faceid literally has nothing to do with this vr headset. etc etc.

marricks4• 3 years ago

Oh I am definitely not saying they came up with any of that. I'm just saying they were laying the groundwork for their own ecosystem.

And sure, desktop mirroring is in every headset but sidecar isn't "plug a cable in and mirror your screen" it's project your screen to another device you own without any cables. That's more attractive for someone with a few apple devices.

Also not saying others haven't done that, but it's an ecosystem and having the talent for a thing.

crazygringo15• 3 years ago

Spatial Audio - Is any one a huge fan of this?

Gigantic fan. Listening to music or movies/TV on headphones without it seems almost painful now -- I sound like I'm exaggerating but I'm not.

Once you get used to audio always sounding like it's coming from outside of your head, going back to non-spatial audio that seems like it's emanating from inside of your head is jarring and positively claustrophobic.

And nobody's as surprised as me to find myself typing something like that. I always imagined it would just be a gimmick, but at least on the AirPods it's anything but. And it wasn't until the "Spatialize Stereo" toggle appeared recently that it worked with everthing, like regular tracks on Spotify.

shepherdjerred• 3 years ago

I switched from Spotify just for spatial audio

code_witch_sam• 3 years ago

the fact that the latest 100 gecs album has a spatial master was a big tell for me. spatial is definitely going to stick

even just their boiler room set in spatial sounded more realistic than any other live thing i've ever listened to. hearing the crowd around you is surreal

tpmoney8• 3 years ago

Spatial Audio - Is any one a huge fan of this? It doesn't matter a ton outside of AR but matters greatly within it

Not the thing with airpod head tracking, but I am always blown away by how effective the fake surround sound is with the M1 Air's speakers.

the_reformation• 3 years ago

I think Apple TV+ may even be a part of this. On its own, its a below average streaming service. But as a proprietary production studio that can bootstrap a VR content library by force of will...?

fastball6• 3 years ago

Is Apple TV+ below average? I've liked all the original content I've watched on it, which is something I can't say for... literally any other streaming service.

fomine314• 3 years ago

Yeah. Apple tech portfolio is serious great for this. You miss Apple Silicon chip. Its performance(/watt) is now a bit overpowered for iPhone/iPad, but it's critical for AR headset.

parentheses8• 3 years ago

sidecar in particular is useful for using an apple tv as a second display. i used to do this a lot when my kid was first born

face id is better than the fingerprint since you leave your key on the reader with the touch id

i do appreciate your perspective though. i didn't initially see how they were gearing up for this at the level you did.

rgovostes• 3 years ago

The very first paper published by Apple's machine learning group, in 2016, was about using GANs to generate synthetic training data sets. The examples they used were eyes and hands.

isaak• 3 years ago

Add the ones which are introduced with this product: most notably for me the eye and finger tracking UI

pzo11• 3 years ago

Other things that come to my head:

- truedepth 3d camera and lidar

- 3d scene reconstruction

- arkit framework

- wifi 6 for higher bandwidth

- Uwb sensor with Proximity and orientation detection

- high fps motion sensors

- game controllers support for dualshock and joycons

- ultra low latency audio on iOS (since like forever - android improved but still behind)

datatrashfire• 3 years ago

Too expensive. It's giant and obtrusive. This will be a niche product for the Apple die hards. It will not reach mainstream acceptance.

rTX5CMRXIfFG• 3 years ago

There’s a lot of impressive technology in the device but I’m not convinced that it’s going to be as popular as the iPhone. Even the Watch has a smaller market than the iPhone—I think this one is even smaller than the Watch.

Perhaps if they made a lighter version that people could take outdoors and quickly take photos/videos with for sharing in social media (i.e. something to compete with Snap’s Spectacles), then it’d be easier to see more popular adoption. They wouldn’t really be innovating, though, and I’m not even excited by the idea of being surrounded by people who wear such glasses whenever I am outdoors.

gowld• 3 years ago

This could be the new Nexus Q.

sinemetu11• 3 years ago

So it's a big screen?

The tech looks impressive, and I'm sure many people will buy it. I'm guessing they'll also shortly after find it as exciting as their phones...

elfrinjo• 3 years ago

Well, we have seen something like this failing about six years ago. Let's see whether - there is a new killer-use-case or - technology has advanced enough to make it less cumbersome or - Apple can generate enough hype around it to make it work on its own.

rednerrus• 3 years ago

This has iPhone 1 feel. Killer hardware, killer idea, giant price tag, and no killer app. They were really stretching with the heart and the skyview app.

Eventually they'll get the killer app and it'll take off.

riccardomc• 3 years ago

How do I make a zoom call with this thing?

turndown• 3 years ago

Very interesting and I can’t really blame them on the price point; this is basically the pinnacle of the in-house engineering they’ve been working at since they decided to spin out their own processors. I think it is so early on for these kinds of products that the true “market” isn’t known or formed yet, so nobody really knows if this thing is positioned well or not.

batmenace• 3 years ago

Also presumably the reason for making the first one a 'pro' version -- and beginning the presentation with a focus on work. Easier pitch that way, and once it can establish itself / there is an ecosystem, you can probably get more 'consumer' focussed versions with less compute power or that are plugin only etc

lagrange772• 3 years ago

I'm still curious, how they will enable developers to start developing for the device, before it gets released. A simulator will not be as effective as in the iPhone case.

Maybe by something like the M1 Mac mini developer kit, that you had to return.

TIPSIO• 3 years ago

I could see this reinventing the living room.

Imagine in 5-10 years when this tech is perfected. It's a Saturday night. You, your spouse, and 3 kids each have one of these strapped to their face.

Why watch a movie on the couch facing a wall with a traditional flat TV format?

Certainly Disney or whoever will invent 3D interactive plays/games with stadium type immersive entertainment.

Living rooms will become circles like when people playing a board game.

throwaway106382• 3 years ago

I think what's much more likely:

Parent 1: watching a drama Parent 2: playing a video game Kid 3: zoned out watching a movie/cartoon/playing videogames

See this already with kids that mindlessly consume television while parents just drone out doomscrolling on facebook on their devices.

davem8• 3 years ago

"It's a Saturday night. You, your spouse, and 3 kids each have one of these strapped to their face."

That sound's like a futuristic hellscape to me. I sure I'm not buying 1 never mind 5.

mark_l_watson• 3 years ago

I will probably wait for version 2 in about 2 years, but I am fairly certain I will buy one.

I get a huge amount of value from my Quest 2, so spending money on a new toy is not unreasonable.

I worked in the field of VR about 25 years ago (SAIC, Angel Studios, Disney project). VR and AR as consumer tech will eventually be AWESOME, but I am not holding my breath - it will be a long wait.

samuell• 3 years ago

It seems they waited for the Metaverse to tank before unveiling this?

wiremine• 3 years ago

Random thought: I'll be able to see what I look like in 3D... I'm both dreading it, and am also extremely curious. I'm guessing it will be hearing myself on tape. "I _look like that?" ...

0xr0kk3r2• 3 years ago

Eager to see how it works with +6.00 glasses. That's been a problem with headsets for me.

mjamesaustin2• 3 years ago

They're offering magnetic clip-in prescription lenses to use with the headset. I assume the experience will be pretty good, though obviously it comes with an added price...

ryanianian• 3 years ago

New hardware advancements often prompt us to anticipate corresponding strides in accessibility research.

Navigate visionOS simply by looking at apps, buttons, and text fields. App icons and buttons subtly come to life when you look at them.

I will defer to experts for a more in-depth discussion on accessibility, but this feature does raise a concern for me.

I have a condition that causes my eyes to rapidly move back and forth. My visual processing compensates. I see like normal, but my eyes do not stay still for long even when looking in one spot.

Initially, I assumed that this condition would prove problematic for VR use, but I've found that I can see quite clearly inside current VR headsets, although I've never tried anything that has eye-tracking. The prism component of my prescription does reduce the area of optimal focus. In addition, certain degenerative and congenital conditions cause individuals to rely very heavily on peripheral vision if central vision is impaired.

If visionOS can tailor its visuals to the user's specific visual abilities, it could provide a profoundly useful tool for these users.

wahahah3• 3 years ago

Apple seems to have a good track record for considering this kind of stuff. On the "Learn more about visionOS" section of the site they state this:

Like every Apple product, Vision Pro was designed with accessibility in mind. The flexible input system lets you use your eyes, hands, and voice individually or in any combination with features like Dwell, Voice, and Pointer Control.

evan_2• 3 years ago

Seems obvious there will eventually be a Vision Air that cuts some of the premium fit & finish and drops the price. They wouldn't have launched it with the "Pro" moniker unless they were planning to drop it later.

alden52• 3 years ago

It'll be very interesting what they'll cut though, I have a feeling that any future version will be very similar. There's not much they can cut without making it feel cheep and comparable to a cheeper meta product

ripvanwinkle3• 3 years ago

The obvious drawback with the Apple device is price and it's going to have challenges with traction. The enterprise would be a good place to start but that doesn't seem to be Apple's forte

joewadcan• 3 years ago

Exactly ! The social stuff requires a network effect... hilarious that the makers of Facebook bet their chips on the same bet as their existing products. Apple knows it doesn't need groups of people to use this together, just enough early adopters to help pay for (and more importantly help guide) the user research and material advancement.

wombat-man• 3 years ago

I think the big differentiators are:

1. The avatar and face scanning for video chat 2. Screen quality, pixels shouldn’t be viewable.

Meta could copy both with time but the 2nd just requires more expensive hardware. I never liked the meta avatars and it looks like the apple ones could work with any chat app?

gonehome• 3 years ago

I can at least cash in a called shot for this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27583456

Fun to see the incredulity in replies two years ago for what seems like was inevitably leading to this.

Still really curious what it’ll be like to use in person.

Andrew_nenakhov4• 3 years ago

Long ago in the Avatar (2009) movie there was a scene when a guy was walking with a tablet-like device displaying some info, then grabbed that info with some kind of hand gesture and threw that info on a wall-mounted screen.

This AR demo was the first thing I ever saw that did something comparable by taking the app off mac and opening it in VR. Now, I don't really want an AR glasses, but I absolutely want to grab things from my smartphone and display it on any nearby screen, and not in (clunky) Chromecast / Airplay way, but seamlessly.

ncr10010• 3 years ago

Wearing a personal sensor-net without it being also a VR headset might be nice - to control fixed screens around the room.

rektide15• 3 years ago

Minority Report (2002) had a nice immersive space too.

I've long long long been a fan of wearable & ubiquitous computing. Having great gesture detection to do physical computing with would really be epic.

strictnein• 3 years ago

I really wonder how much that "creepy eyes" tech adds to the cost. It would be great if they had a model without that, because for my use case its completely unnecessary and probably adds ~$500 to the price tag, plus additional weight and battery usage.

drewbeck4• 3 years ago

This made me think that they may have put everything into v1 so they can really learn what is necessary for a successful experience – ie v2 may come with a cheaper version without the external display because they discover that the display isn't necessary for the experiences that prove most successful on the platform.

oatmeal13• 3 years ago

Related: In the full video demo they showed use of the external 3d camera - What appears to be a dad interacting with his kids while wearing the headset and capturing a moment using the 3D camera. Later he watches the 3D video he captured, reliving that moment.

They could just call this feature the "Noncustodial Parent" feature, because absolutely no one is going to wear Apple Ski Goggles TM while interacting with their children, unless they are extremely desperate to draw out a few special moments into a year's worth of memories.

cdme• 3 years ago

This whole product category feels like a solution in search of a problem.

lagrange772• 3 years ago

Are there any further infos on the R1 chip? I guess it will be some kind of DSP, maybe along with some machine learning accelerator HW.

StillBored• 3 years ago

From someone who ignored the iphone because I didn't think it was going to be a big deal and hopefully learned a lesson.

OTOH, 12 milliseconds in the AR mode doesn't sound fast to me. I'm not in this space as other than a past oculus owner, but that is 8 frames of latency at 60hz. I thought that the best devices were much less these days.

modeless• 3 years ago

12ms is 1 frame of latency at 90 Hz.

darzu• 3 years ago

60hz is 16.7ms per frame. How are you getting 8?

simse2• 3 years ago

You get 8 if you think there's 100 milliseconds in a second.

fred256• 3 years ago

Unless I misunderstand, it's less than a frame at 60 Hz (= 16.7 ms per frame).

FinnKuhn• 3 years ago

This seems very promising by being based on already existing experiences (support for iPhone and iPad Apps). Considering all the other features the price of 3499$ doesn't seem to crazy, especially because it can replace all of your monitors, TV and more while also enabling entirely new experiences for basically the same price.

sourcecodeplz• 3 years ago

$3500 and you have to carry a weird battery around. The Oculus is so much better.

Hippocrates3• 3 years ago

3,500 seems SO worth it if this can be used to comfortably replace external displays for long periods of time.

If I don't need external monitors, I don't need my large desk, and I don't need my home office, which adds like 100k to the price of any home I'd consider. I'd just work from a bedroom, a closet, or my deck if I had this.

It would be amazing if I could use this to do more work outside, while benefitting from a larger screen without glare, even though "outside" might be watered down a bit. It would be excellent for nomading or work/entertainment from a hotel room.

This could be a great way to regain some privacy and focus in an open office environment, plus be able to personalize your setup. A digital beach backdrop is better than seeing my coworker scratch his crusty scalp 2 feet in front of me.

The benefits for air travel are obvious. People already swaddle themselves with large noise cancelling headphones and zany neck pillows. I don't think this would be weird plane at all. I'd kill for an immersive 4k display over craning at my phone or relying on flaky seatback entertainment.

Terretta2• 3 years ago

If I don't need external monitors, I don't need my large desk, and I don't need my home office, which adds like 100k to the price of any home I'd consider.

First thing my SO mentioned on seeing this was "wow, we can try more kinds of places to stay when we travel". Lots of VRBO / AirBnB can't work for remote work.

This expands the inventory of WR options for less than the price difference of a week's stay.

fomine314• 3 years ago

Wow, it's a great excuse to buy this expensive one

goolz2• 3 years ago

Thank you for this! While yes, it is expensive and I do think a bit wild I would pay serious, serious money to migrate away from my home office.

Ever since I began remote work I have been cooking up ways to code outside but the glare alone puts me off from it. I am a solo kind of person who enjoys media a ton and am already a huge fan of Apple’s displays.

I guess with all the naysayers here it makes me happy to see someone who understands the potential. This is awesome, and the first VR set I have wanted to purchase. The price is steep and I may even wait a generation. But if I had to bet, this will end up absurdly successful similar to all of their other recent home runs.

paxys10• 3 years ago

What kind of work are you going to do on this without a keyboard, mouse, and a laptop nearby for tethering? And if all those are still a requirement then you're back to being stuck on your desk.

goolz2• 3 years ago

Sure, for now perhaps. Do you really think Apple will not add those features?

sweetjuly• 3 years ago

Stuck at a desk, sure, but as it stands I need a pretty big desk to hold my ultrawide monitor while still having enough room to hold regular physical things like notebooks, test hardware, and other tools. Being able to ditch the monitor and work with just a small 13" laptop would make small desks more practical.

nomel3• 3 years ago

As they demonstrated, Bluetooth accessories like a keyboard and mouse can be used. I basically did this, during the pandemic, with my Quest 2, a TV tray, and my MacBook sitting on the floor, next to me. I used my closet.

rad_gruchalski5• 3 years ago

It supports wireless keyboard and a trackpad. For sure mouse is not a problem.

dev_tty013• 3 years ago

No tethering required (It is an M2 based computer) and it works with bluetooth keyboard and mouse. So, to answer your question, you will do whatever kinds of work you do today.

prawn19• 3 years ago

Your laptop needn't be in front of you. You just need space for a keyboard and mouse/trackpad. That's "Stable Table" size, so works on the couch, dining table, kitchen bench, outside table, etc. Without relocating your external displays. Or your home office desk could be 12" deep rather than 2-3x that.

o_m2• 3 years ago

I think I'll skip the first generation and wait for the resolution to become better. 4k is good for a 22" external monitor, but having 4k cover your field of vision will make have to move your eyes a lot for the text to look good.

ricardobeat3• 3 years ago

It's nearly 5k per eye. The Reverb G2 is only 2160x2160, a bit over 1/3rd of that pixel density and is already quite usable for coding, so I expect the Vision Pro to be well beyond "good enough" territory.

Hippocrates3• 3 years ago

Yeah I am curious to see how well this works in practice. Resolution and screen size is a delicate balance, and the face-mounted aspect of this throws conventional wisdom of what works well out the window.

rimeice• 3 years ago

use this to do more work outside

Can’t wait for the Apple Vision Pro suntan.

js2• 3 years ago

It won't look too different from this:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ski+goggle+tan&iar=images&iax=imag...

1letterunixname3• 3 years ago

Quest Pro does the exact same thing for 1/3 the price. It has all sorts of enterprise features and Microsoft is on-board with it.

cascades42• 3 years ago

I returned my Quest Pro due to annoying and frequent software bugs. It was a great device when it worked, although I'd prefer a slightly higher resolution.

ndesaulniers• 3 years ago

Hell you don't even have to get out of bed! Just lay there all day with this thing on your face and atrophy like in Surrogates.

elcritch• 3 years ago

Ah the dream :P

lph• 3 years ago

3,500 seems SO worth it if this can be used to comfortably replace external displays

Agreed, but that's a huge IF. The ergonomics problems with VR headsets are well documented - has Apple really managed to transcend them? I'm not gambling $3500 for a thing that probably ends up sitting in a drawer because it gives me neck cramps or eye strain or motion sickness.

If Apple wants to drive adoption they need to lower that risk. A way to have a trial period or a one-week rental would help.

lurker919• 3 years ago

I'm pretty sure they would have had extensive trials for comfort and neck strain already.

makeitdouble3• 3 years ago

4~5K per eye feels like a lot, and it's impressive VR technology wise. But mapping a monitor at realistic size (let's say half of the field of view) at this resolution means we're below 2K to display text/images.

We've lived with 2K monitors for decades, so that sure could be workable, but the same way it's a clash to move from a Retina screen to an old 1080p monitor, I think it will clash to move from a current MacBook to this headset as a work monitor.

For games that's not an issue of course, but 3500 for a gaming device makes the calculation pretty different.

allset_• 3 years ago

We've lived with 2K monitors for decades

This is a bit disingenuous. The 2013 MacBook Pro (a single decade ago) was the first mainstream device with a resolution above 1080p and with scaling people effectively still had a 1440x900 screen anyway. 1280x800 was common at the time for 13" devices. High DPI has really only taken off in the last 5 years.

edit: fixed info regarding scaling

prawn19• 3 years ago

Depth of desks could go from 2-3' to 1'. Offices could fit more desks.

But I think we'll see people using these with virtual displays, and then co-workers' personas bleeding in from the periphery. Companies will go from requiring in-office workers to being OK with staff WFH if they have a device like this. $3500 is going to be cheap when compared with office space per person.

lannisterstark4• 3 years ago

I don't need my large desk, and I don't need my home office

Idk man, I'd always prefer having a dedicated work space. I even have a separate 'tinkering' space in my garage purely so I have a frame of mind of 'what' I am working on.

vonnik• 3 years ago

Looking at the demo through the link, the next step here is to translate whatever the dog is thinking into natural language. Would much rather get enriched reality than a 3D theater for my 2D screens. I'm sure that's coming eventually, maybe through an app store.

coryaf• 3 years ago

Can we tell if it will be possible to develop with anything other than Swift?

For reference, Apple says that it will have "familiar tools and frameworks like Xcode, SwiftUI, RealityKit, and ARKit, as well as support for Unity and the new 3D-content preparation app Reality Composer Pro"

My guess is that since we can use other frameworks like react native on iOS that you could eventually do things with something like Python or JS, but someone will need to create some frameworks to interface with their APIs. Any thoughts?

ThinkBeat• 3 years ago

pR00000n.

If the Apps are restricted in the samme manner other Appple devices it will be a bit more difficult. but this will create a whole new level of porn for the world. Combined with the rather impressive advances made in teledildonics one can get a lot closer to "being there".

Various mostly shitty "VR" enabled ways to watch porn have been developed but have been disappointing in use.

This may kick off a whole new frenzy. Some folks will make a lot of money. Esp if they manage to combine it with the independent "Content creators"

In fact, getting out early and opening in a studio making recordings for people would be sustainable for a good while. If you are in the right location.

ChrisArchitect• 3 years ago

So if I get this thing I don't need to return to the office right? /s

AHOHA• 3 years ago

For the facetime part, you are seeing people WITHOUT the VR headset, what will they/you see if all is using it!?

rallyforthesun5• 3 years ago

they will see an avatar of you with some kind of facial expression and eyetracking, but with a different name (not avatar) of course. But they wont see a videostream of you, what is kind of akward imho.

slushh• 3 years ago

The front screen is brilliant. If you commute by train it will be socially acceptable to wear the headset. Apart from frequent flyers, millions of people will by the headset for the illusion of private space.

jeppester• 3 years ago

VR screens eliminate the eyes' ability to focus naturally. Unless this devices solves that problem, I find it hard to believe it will be comfortable to wear for many hours per day.

And if the device is not comfortable to wear for longer durations, then it doesn't make sense that it's priced as premium work equipment.

lukko3• 3 years ago

This is the first time I have been excited about XR - it feels right. Seeing it makes me feel like how I saw technology as a kid, sort of like a magic parallel world.

I think a spatial UI will sit much better with people, our brain obviously evolved to manipulate stuff in 3-dimensions. It's very exciting to see where this will go.

xnx• 3 years ago

The product looks really good. Hope someone also starts selling a "dumb" version (no cameras, sensors, speakers, external display, etc.) with the same quality internal display. It would be great to have a large high-quality display that can be used in a reclined position.

activitypea4• 3 years ago

How do you sell this without the cameras and sensors?

adelarsq• 3 years ago

Its safe for people that uses glasses like me? How this works?

the_watcher• 3 years ago

It would very obviously be useful for work if you can actually get high res, effectively unlimited monitor space. Maybe not for everyone, but people already spend $3500+ on monitor setups somewhat regularly (and employers definitely do this). Apple themselves sell a single monitor that costs $2300 when fully spec'd out (5k, but the point is that they know what people spend on monitors). I can't figure out why that wasn't the highlight of the demo, since that's just very clearly the easiest way to sell a $3500 device with this specific set of features.

The recording video of a kid's birthday was one of the most ridiculous thing's I've ever seen. I'd maybe record my kid with something like this every once in a while, but I certainly wouldn't be wearing ski goggles while he blows out candles.

ray__• 3 years ago

Yes, I agree with this. I'll only be buying one of these if it means I can replace my work displays with it–I'd happily pay the exorbitant price if it meant being able to have the equivalent of an unlimited high-res display anywhere, at any time. The lack of sub-pixel rendering on macOS means that I'm already forced to buy an expensive 5K display for every place that I plan to do work; a headset like this is a bargain in comparison. Obviously this means that the headset will have to be comfortable enough to use for long periods of time and have high enough resolution to compete with a hiDPI display. I doubt that this device will be able to deliver on both of those fronts.

dwhitney• 3 years ago

Yeah that was silly, but aren't all of the new iPhone cameras 3D cameras? People take photos/videos all of the time. Now you can immerse yourself in them. I think it's pretty cool

bredren4• 3 years ago

Presumably the current and next iPhone Pros can capture 3D video.

I don’t know why this wouldn’t have been ridiculous, because it really is ridiculous to suggest this would be worn by a parent during a young child’s happy birthday singing and blowing out the candles.

This idea seemed like way too much of a stretch for this intro. They had to know this, so I am very curious what the reasoning was for why they included it.

coryfklein• 3 years ago

This "unlimited monitor space" is a complete non-selling point for me.

Being a wealthy software engineer, my monitor space is not bottlenecked by my budget or desk space, but by my literal neck. Constantly rotating my head back and forth from one monitor to another is, quite literally, a pain.

For me the sweet spot is a single curved monitor right in front of me. If I need more "desktop space" I add another Space with Mission Control. And with keyboard shortcuts I can move between Spaces nearly as fast as I can rotate my head around.

So what am I going to do with a VR headset if I ever got one? Put the active app straight in front of me just like I do with my normal monitor. I'm not going to put my terminal at some odd angle 25° above my head and crane my head back when I want to run a command in it. I won't put the Weather app 90° to my right, obscuring what is currently a nice picture window looking out on my yard.

For me, VR needs that "killer app" to justify the high pricing and inconvenience of use, and I just don't see one yet. I don't expect one any time soon either; if VR was going to get a killer app, it would have shown up by now.

threeseed7• 3 years ago

Most developers don't have mobility issues. They have 2 / 3 large monitors (or laptop + monitor).

And so in this case they have the ability to access them anywhere, anytime.

qup2• 3 years ago

Not only swiveling your head around, but doing it with a couple pounds strapped to it. People's necks are going to be swole.

That being said, I've always wanted a wearable monitor so I can lay in bed (or stand, or lay in my hammock, or just have some variety). The chair is bad, and I've spent way too many years (literally) in it. I need options.

I'm a terminal nerd, though, so I don't care too much about all the 4k etc.

zmmmmm15• 3 years ago

Aren't you a case in point then?

the sweet spot is a single curved monitor right in front of me

So you can have that. Exactly the right monitor size, curvature, location - in every room of the house, on the train, at work, in the cafe etc. People with ergonomic challenges are, I would have thought, a perfect market for this.

_ea1k• 3 years ago

I just think you are thinking of the monitors in an overly literal way.

Imagine a calendar on the wall, but with your meetings and everything dynamic instead of just a static calendar. And it adjusts to show your next meeting extra large as it approaches. No you see useful information in your periphery.

Or perhaps you have application monitoring dashboards on another wall. You don't look at them all the time, but a dedicated space wouldn't be a bad thing.

I see a lot of potential here in the future.

specialist2• 3 years ago

Perhaps someone will invent a way to virtually move around within a virtual space. Seems far fetched, I know. But we can still dream.

86J8oyZv• 3 years ago

Also being a wealthy software engineer, there still isn’t a better multi-monitor mobile solution than this at any price point. If you’re only working from home sure, but I like to cowork with friends in a variety of places.

thelittleone• 3 years ago

But its very handy if you're a wealthy nomadic software engineer. I don't want to take monitors with me and I'd like to travel more while working. I'd like to do that with my 12" Macbook air.

derefr11• 3 years ago

You sound like someone who has a very stable and spacious office. Have you considered that "having more desk space than there is space in the room" is the killer app for many (wealthy!) people who either 1. travel a lot, or 2. live in countries like Hong Kong where space is at a premium?

delecti• 3 years ago

Even beyond my neck, the limitation for me is my ability to keep track of the spatial location of that many things, and need to have them all displayed simultaneously. I've really just found the sweet spot to be two displays (with the cost sweet spot for me currently being 1440p, but I imagine 2x4k would be an improvement). Even a third monitor really doesn't improve my ability to do things, so I can't imagine "infinite" impressing either.

For me, the main appeal of VR is its potential for gaming, with a distant second place being more broadly "interacting with things in 3d" (such as 3d sculpting/modeling, or something like VR chat).

samstave• 3 years ago

When I worked at Intel in 1997 we bought one of the first 42" plasma screens on the market to put in our game lab - and I put it on my desk and attempted to play Quake and Descent and other games on it and I couldnt handle it so close to me - it had ghosting and bad lag and poor angular visibility and it was $14,999.00

We turned it into a wall piece that rarely got used.

in 2016 I got a monitor for one of my OPs guys that was 4k and was ~34" and that was still to big to sit in front of - and my OPs guy gave it to me, I hated it and gave it to an eng, and he loved it.

Big screens are for certain people. I have a 70" screen in the living room that I never turn on, my brother uses it exclusively, and I use a 15" laptop as my personal screen.

brookst4• 3 years ago

Why wouldn't you use gestures to move the right monitor to be directly in front if you, maintaining some concept on what's on adjacent ones from UI hints?

Really the whole concept of "monitors" feels skeumorphic here. Shouldn't it just be a sphere where you're looking at a concave part with your current app, and can rotate as needed to pull other apps into view?

dumbfounder4• 3 years ago

No one will create the killer app because they won't have enough people to buy it. They aren't going to sell 100 million of these things. They will sell 1 million to prosumers. But you can't make a killer high-end game on a completely new system with completely new features with such a limited market, they would need to sell it everyone to make money. That's the real problem with AR/VR. You need critical mass in the number of users to justify people building mass-market appeal games and apps. The goggles need to not have a cord, be 1/3 as heavy, and 1/4 the price, and then we will get mass adoption. My gut says we are 3 generations away. But it will happen.

abujazar2• 3 years ago

The first question that pops into my head is why you’d work on a curved monitor (of which there still doesn’t exist a high resolution model) as a software engineer. Do you find the workspace on a single curved display sufficient?

My primary concern with the Apple headset is the relatively low resolution of 23M pixels. Our eyes can perceive so much more detail, and I’m afraid the low resolution will reintroduce pixellation as is commonly seen on low end and curved displays.

dustingetz• 3 years ago

putting it in 3D is also an opportunity to fix window management

dclowd9901• 3 years ago

The killer app imo is AR instruction. That is:

- you’re looking at some kind of physical thing in the real world you’re “working on” (whatever it may be) - your goggles are pointing out important aspects, telling you what to do next, etc etc.

I always thought something like this for auto repair would be really cool. Of course we need the software to catch up in this regard, since it would have to recognize and overlay fairly complex visual spaces.

2muchcoffeeman3• 3 years ago

Real estate costs more than this head set. I am a VR skeptic. But if someone truly solves the problems, a virtual desktop has obvious advantages even for the rich. I could literally clear out one room and shrink the remaining desk to fit a closed laptop, keyboard and coffee mug. And now my entire workstation is portable and exactly the way I want it where ever I go.

FpUser2• 3 years ago

"Constantly rotating my head back and forth from one monitor to another is, quite literally, a pain."

60+yo fart here. Same problem as well. After dicking with 3 32" 4K monitor setup a good while ago I am now down to a single monitor. It is still 32" 4K at 100% scale and feels comfy enough.

hogu• 3 years ago

What if the mapping between your neck angle and screen angle wasn’t 1-1?

veidr2• 3 years ago

I use 4 monitors arranged on arms to form a shape roughly like a curved 15360x 4320 display.

I also don't see how VR will come close to replicating the productivity I have in my home office, on any foreseeable timeline.

But when I go somewhere and just use my laptop screen, it's almost laughable how inefficient and annoying it is. The screen is tiny, I am constantly switching apps / virtual desktops, and there is no way to even see my debugger, documentation, and my app running at the same time.

To me, that's what I want VR to fix. The portable workspace. For us spoiled rich engineers sitting in our spacious home offices, the constraints that make VR (theoretically) appealing just don't exist.

(I'm skeptical there are enough people who want this badly enough to pay $3500 for it to fund an entire product category, though... I expected them to come out talking about fitness and health.)

rubicon332• 3 years ago

Turning your head causes you pain? You need to go to the gym, get in shape, or figure out what the hell is causing a natural motion to induce pain and discomfort.

choppaface• 3 years ago

You don’t need to turn your neck tho, you can turn the environment. And nothing goes off screen, just out of foveal focus.

mrinterweb• 3 years ago

Agreed about the non-selling point. I've only ever been able to get my eyes to focus on one thing at a time. So I prefer one monitor. CMD/Alt+tab works for me. If I need to have things side-by-side for some reason I use a window manager and some key combos to quickly rearrange windows. There are very few times that I wish I had another monitor.

sspiff• 3 years ago

As someone who used to have a cheap-ish 3x27" monitor setup, I can confirm neck strain on big triple monitor setups is most definitely a thing. Imagine combining this with carrying the weight a pair of technogoggles like these,and I think it could get tiresome really quickly.

mruniverse• 3 years ago

I can see it being nice if it's like Minority Report, where you can swipe small screens away, etc. Talk and it types. Glance to the left to see how the builds are going, etc. It could also be a nice virtual whiteboard. Usually it's hard to know how nice hardware can be without the apps. And you don't have to be in your office.

Grieverheart• 3 years ago

This. I used to be a multi monitor type of person but when desktop switching became good (I first experienced this in Linux) I started using a single larger monitor and never looked back.

jamesrcole2• 3 years ago

you, or someone in a situation like yours, might at times find it valuable to have like a giant whiteboard in front of you, that you can walk around in front of, and on which you could spatially arrange a bunch of details

netman21• 3 years ago

It's called Beat Saber. :-)

cultofmetatron2• 3 years ago

I'm a digital nomad. I miss having a spacious multimonitor setup. tried making it work with an occulus quest and immersed VR but the results were disappointing. If they can make it seamless and match the resolution so my eyes don't hurt after a minuite of actually reading code, Its going to be an immediate shutup and take my money moment.

yowzadave2• 3 years ago

The tech on this thing is so cool and so useless! People will buy them, try them out, and then a month later realize they didn't actually use it at all and return them to the store.

keymon-o• 3 years ago

Most people buy products because they are usable, not useful. There is crazy amount of tech available today, and people strive to own most of them. The decision to purchase is usually based on wheter we can afford it and wether we will find some use for it.

The mere fact that goggles will enable users to communicate and consume media just as they can with devices they already own, will be the key argument to purchase this expensive headset.

But this incremental improvement we get after purchase of each-time-more-polished device finacnces future inventions and innovations, and then after some number iteration we get something that is truly useful. At least that's the trend I noticed regarding every tech breakthrough and hype in this century.

bredren4• 3 years ago

I am OP on the XDR Pro Display owner’s thread over in the Macrumors Forums.

Last week I asked XDR owners about their thoughts for possibly replacing their high end XDR monitor(s) with virtual displays in the Apple Vision Pro (I called it Apple Reality)

The question and replies cover some of the considerations around this replacement and there are ongoing replies now that some of the specs are known:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/pro-display-xdr-owners-...

deergomoo• 3 years ago

It would very obviously be useful for work if you can actually get high res

Is it even that high res for detailed monitor work? 4K per eye yes, but for your entire field of view. Does that meet Apple’s definition of a “retina display”?

I currently sit a few feet away from a 5K display, that’s way more pixels per degree of FoV.

Same goes for movie and TV watching. I sit maybe 8 feet away from a 4K 55” TV and I can absolutely tell the difference between 1080p and 4K. Surely the equivalent “projected” display on this thing is gonna be 1080 or lower?

Of course, as one of those 30% of people with myopia they referenced earlier in the video, I dread to think how much extra it would cost to be able to see anything at all through this thing.

TimTheTinker• 3 years ago

Keep in mind that the display processor utilizes a foveated rendering pipeline, which appears to concentrate the highest resolution rendering where your eyes are focusing.

That doesn't speak to the overall resolution of the per-eye screens, however.

automatic61312• 3 years ago

4K per eye yes

I think what's missed here, in the absence of any better specs, is that they're saying "better than 4K per eye!" without mentioning that 4k refers to 3840x2160, and that it's the vertical dimension that they've exceeded. So > 2160x2160 per eye. Pretty good but not even close to good enough for a floating screen of text

sizzle2• 3 years ago

Yeah the kids playing scene felt like a clip from Black Mirror. I would never want to relive memories like that when I can just go hug my kid, and if they weren’t alive it would destroy my mental health to see them in that high fidelity without being able to hug them.

What a strange demo.

cjbprime• 3 years ago

It felt like strong "I am recently divorced, and also a parent of young children" vibes throughout. There was the value comparison to a large TV and surround sound system, which is only valid if both your home theater and AR device have the same audience size (to divide the cost by) of one person.

sooheon• 3 years ago

The vast majority of families are multi-city, and many are multinational. I don't see anything wrong with trying to improve on FaceTime, since millions of people already use that every day.

foobiekr2• 3 years ago

Most VR goggles eventually cause pretty significant eyestrain due to vergence-accommodation conflict [1] and other issues all of which get significantly worse the closer to the user the virtual objects are.

Apple's display is, I guess, in best-of-class, but they have no special sauce at all on this, and no physical IPD adjustment at all, and so this device as previewed is basically only useful for media consumption and maybe something like a telepresence meeting, albeit not long duration. Without controllers it's unlikely to even work well for most games.

Basically this is the best of a huge crowd of not very good VR helmets with probably industry-leading AR camera-based passthrough.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflic...

MacsHeadroom5• 3 years ago

The Vision Pro demo clearly showed physical IPD adjustment multiple times.

baby2• 3 years ago

You mean like screens already cause issues to our eyes?

bigthymer• 3 years ago

I can see how that would be a popular application. I imagine a software engineer that was forcefully returned back to the office would love the ability to have unlimited computer screens hidden from the prying eyes of busybodies around the office.

crossroadsguy• 3 years ago

I am not a fan of even the look of this thing but I am not sure why people are just talking about room and work. I think people will just buy it and watch films when lying down on their beds or sideways, when on the commode, or when commuting on a bus seat (assuming power delivery is sorted - and yeah if everything needed for it is portable enough).

rchaud2• 3 years ago

They'll do it on a $400 tablet, not something that costs 2 months' rent.

agumonkey• 3 years ago

I feel the same, like glass, it has some real work (or peculiar situations) value, where augmenting the information at hand for important tasks would be a massive leverage. Electrical work, repair, medicine..

ramblenode• 3 years ago

It would very obviously be useful for work if you can actually get high res, effectively unlimited monitor space.

Very big "if".

I already notice visual artifacting in REPLs on 1080p displays at 60FPS. That's nothing compared to the aliasing issues facing stereoscopic virtual displays. I can't imagine wanting to do hours of focused work staring at objects in an aliased virtual world.

Could still be a useful for travel.

eterevsky• 3 years ago

That would be a valid use case, but it's hard to imagine that this headset is miles ahead of all existing ones in resolution and clarity. In all present-day headset even simple tasks involving text are a challenge. They just can't legibly render more than ~10 lines of text in your field of view. To compete with monitors for day-to-day tasks, the perceived resolution has to improve by an order of magnitude.

bufferoverflow2• 3 years ago

but people already spend $3500+ on monitor setups somewhat regularly

I don't know a single person who has such an expensive monitor (or a set of monitors). And none of my employers, current or past, would ever agree to spend that much on a monitor setup.

You can buy a 4K OLED monitor for a fraction of that.

alexalx666• 3 years ago

Pro Display XDR costs around 7000 euros in Germany

Andrew_nenakhov4• 3 years ago

The catch is, they might have an impressive display of unlimited size, but it is still likely to be tied to locked down iOS (or whatever they call it on Vision devices), so the selection of productivity apps and their capabilities will probably be very limited.

mihaaly3• 3 years ago

Except when they find a way mirroring the Mac's desktop in this environment on a nice way. Straight up 'external display' mode (more like external 3D space), but with less constraints on how to position the windows and the taskbar ... and consequently more trouble on navigating among those. Desktop icons might be a burden too, also wonder what to do with fullscreen mode.

Anyway, if one app was used on its OS for mirroring the Mac environment on a nice way, that could be enough for me.

mnky9800n• 3 years ago

the second I want to show any of my colleagues what I'm working on to get a question answered I need a headset for each of them. That kind of kills the whole idea of VR goggles in general.

antigirl• 3 years ago

4k monitor at 27 inches costs less than 400 dollars. Unless its 10 bit with 1ms response time for gaming. Who is spending $3500 on monitor setups besides gamers?

reaperducer• 3 years ago

The same people who spend $50,000 on home theater gear, or buy a house based on the size of the "man cave."

I've met sports gamblers who have a dozen or more flat screens on a wall so they can fully indulge in their addiction^w hobby.

pelorat3• 3 years ago

My 27" $500 monitor smokes anything Apple has ever produced in the monitor space.

jen729w2• 3 years ago

2007: ‘There’s no way I’d watch my kid’s entire school play through a 4” screen just so that I could get a recording of it.’

2023: ‘I certainly wouldn't be wearing ski goggles while he blows out candles.’

We — perhaps not you, but humans — have shown a remarkable preference for watching the live event through a tiny screen so that we can have a recording of it for later.

ric2b• 3 years ago

When I record something that I also want live I don't watch it through the screen, I just glance at the screen occasionally to make sure it's still pointed correctly.

TheAceOfHearts2• 3 years ago

Just commenting to leave my footprint for when people look back on the discussion a few years from now.

The high price seems like it'll be a barrier to adoption, which will limit the amount of developers willing to invest time in developing for a closed platform.

It'll probably take off in the furry / kink scene. The real killer app will have something to do with sex or porn, and Apple will try to kill it off or refuse to acknowledge it.

On release day some couple will record a first-person POV sex video and upload it to a major porn site. If the spatial video recording experience is really good it might take off in the porn space.

activitypea4• 3 years ago

You thought about leaving a comment for people 10 years from now, and decided to open with "this will be big for furries"?

TheAceOfHearts2• 3 years ago

Furries have a lot of money and are often technologically proficient. It probably won't take long after release before it's possible to transpose an avatar or fursona over someone, a mix of VR Chat and IRL.

oatmeal13• 3 years ago

If you're going to write something that's going to be seen in 10 years, it's good for it to be right!

Apocryphon13• 3 years ago

Leaving a ten year time capsule comment to reference a currently fifteen year old movie which repeats an evergreen point about the two things that drive technological adoption and innovation:

https://youtu.be/V5TqHKB_RDM

drvdevd• 3 years ago

Gonna leave my footprint on this one too. Here’s my take since my favorite app on my Meta Quest 2 is actually Immersed (for virtual desktop / multi monitor setups): I’m less interested in either Apple or Meta here because I think Apples Vision Pro ideas just reinforce what we’re being told repeatedly: the industry wants to move away from screens, and the future is not screens. We have two big things on the near horizon now: AR/VR and AI. The industry as a whole will push these technologies until they are the norm. Smartphones, PCs, tablets and laptops (maybe even TVs?) will become legacy technology, but they will of course live on in emulated forms (a “window”). Conversational and ubiquitous computing will be the future, like it or not.

bwv8485• 3 years ago

Actually, this makes sense. Existing VR porn is not well produced. The resolution is far from sufficient, and the scaling is downright bizarre. If Apple can solve these issues using their '3D camera' and provide the audience with a unified standard, then it is likely that we will see high-quality homemade VR porn being posted on platforms like OnlyFans and Pornhub.

bwv8485• 3 years ago

Apple showed off 180-degree 3D videos with spatial audio in something called the Apple Immersive Video Format, which the company apparently shot with proprietary cameras it may or may not release. (They looked like the 3D videos we’ve been seeing in VR demos forever.) https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/5/23750003/apple-vision-pro-...

Let's see how this will pan out

dandongus• 3 years ago

For those of us who can't be bothered to watch through the whole announcement to find where they say it, what's the refresh rate of this thing?

denysvitali• 3 years ago

I think they mentioned 12ms (~ 83fps?), but don't quote me on that.

zamadatix8• 3 years ago

12ms was the passthrough latency. Screen refresh rate is likely faster.

b_d982• 3 years ago

I really

jakobdabo• 3 years ago

I think wearing such a massive thing on your head is a dead end. It may become a niche product for professionals (as the price and "Pro" in the name suggest), but it's not practical for everyday casual use.

Is it still out of the reach from the current state of art in technology for a thin client, not much heaver than sunglasses - just the visual component and some simple circuit to receive the signal from an iPhone?

koromak• 3 years ago

If the virtual screens feel as good as my 4K external monitors, then I'm in 100%.

Theres a good chance they won't though.

rallyforthesun5• 3 years ago

if the resolution per eye is 4k, that would mean that you need to scale the screen to the whole fov of the hmd and stop moving, because that might blur the content on the virtual screen. i think, apple has put a lot of effort to get around the bluriness but there wont be more pixel available than there are on the little screens. So, its probably a downgrade in resolution for you

mupuff1234• 3 years ago

Doesn't even come with a controller, which I assume will eventually come out and will cost 100$+

nblgbg• 3 years ago

The one unintended effect is that the apps may charge extra for supporting this! For example, Disney+ or the NBA may charge extra $$ for supporting this device!

Also, everyone is assuming that it's powerful enough to run the development environment. We need to wait until Apple releases the specs.

037• 3 years ago

My feeling is that since we sometimes looked away from the phone, they are now sticking it directly to our faces.

vivegi• 3 years ago

This is probably going to be even less successful than the Apple watch in terms of adoption. $3.5k for a personal device -- perhaps it will capture a niche. Genre defining like the iPod or iPhone, this isn't going to be.

krishna0902• 3 years ago

a lot of things started with games :)

botverse• 3 years ago

It’s sad that they had to partner with Unity instead of EPIC… So no Unreal engine for this because of the store dispute, great loss for both parties

jablongo• 3 years ago

The tech is amazing, but also ridiculous. Think about how much time and cost went into developing these features: - Creepy Eyes fake transparency (a work around for the fact that you look dumb wearing ski goggles on your face) - The realistic 3d facetime avatar (a work around for the fact that you look dumb wearing ski goggles on your face, creepy eyes isn't a good enough work around for facetime, and you need an external camera to do facetime).

None of the use cases seemed to compellingly improve productivity or well being, they just close the gap between the digital and physical w/ no benefit. I'd have been more convinced if it was depicted helping a mechanic assemble an engine with AI annotations and advice, but instead almost all of the demos seemed dystopian.

The eye tracking technology involves shining infrared light at your eyes at all times - not an expert but I can't help but wonder if that is going to have long term effects. https://ehs.lbl.gov/resource/documents/radiation-protection/.... It is ironic that Apple Health is launching an eye-health initiative which reminds kids to keep their device far enough from their face to prevent eye damage, and then is releasing another device that is covering your entire field of vision at like 2 centimeters away from your eyeballs (Edit: this last part is a non issue because the focal point is not so close due to the lenses).

activitypea4• 3 years ago

Creepy Eyes fake transparency (a work around for the fact that you look dumb wearing ski goggles on your face) - The realistic 3d facetime avatar (a work around for the fact that you look dumb wearing ski goggles on your face, creepy eyes isn't a good enough work around for facetime, and you need an external camera to do facetime).

And transparency mode on modern headphones is a waste of time since you can just take them off. I agree both the demoed features suck and I don't want them in my conference calls, but stuff like that is a necessary bridge for a new product category. Hard to call that wasted effort.

simse2• 3 years ago

And transparency mode on modern headphones is a waste of time since you can just take them off.

Unless you want to continue listening to what's playing through the headphones. I enjoy listening to both the nature and quiet music when I go on walks.

scotty79• 3 years ago

Couldn't headphone transparency limit earshattering noises like infant scream down to reasonable level?

sebzim45008• 3 years ago

It is ironic that Apple Health is launching an eye-health initiative which reminds kids to keep their device far enough from their face to prevent eye damage, and then is releasing another device that is covering your entire field of vision at like 2 centimeters away from your eyeballs.

That's not how this works though. VR goggles have the focal point at least 20 feet from your eyes, it's way better for you than having a phone in front of your face.

cryptoegorophy• 3 years ago

You can actually make an app that will help train vision by making you focus on a closest point and on the furthest point and keeping on switching between those in VR/AR

ozten2• 3 years ago

Human eyes need to focus at 4 - 6 feet away, is how some popular headsets work today.

asdff12• 3 years ago

What kind of sucks about tech is you start realizing people mainly just do the same stuff they did 25 years ago with it. Only today, the hardware has to be 1000x as powerful to run all the shitty bloaty software that's still just serving email, rendering spreadsheets, chat, images, videos, news, online shopping, etc, as its ever been. It's like we've been in this arms race for sexier and more resource demanding window dressing, versus something that I actually couldn't do before, and there has been absolutely no letting up.

Firmwarrior2• 3 years ago

Man, I was trying to think of examples of cool stuff we can do now that we couldn't in the 90s, and came up pretty short.. It's quicker and easier to load up bite-sized games in the web browser nowadays, but that comes with a whole mess of really awful dystopian shit and a lot of 100x code speed de-improvements thanks to JavaScript, Design Patterns, etc.

xattt5• 3 years ago

rendering spreadsheets

I am dying to know what the next paradigm for spreadsheets will be. Is it some sort of "walk-through" spreadsheet?

lnrd2• 3 years ago

25 years ago we were in Windows 98 times.

UX and general day to day quality of life has been improved dramatically in the last 25 years for 'regular' consumer things. I would take everyday a 'shitty bloaty' modern operating system if the alternative is to run something from that era. Especially for mundane things like the ones you mentioned. I can open a spreadsheet on my computer and instantly have it in all my devices or shared with anyone in the world. I can have 4k video and max res pictures backed up everywhere. Maybe you don't remember how clunky were computers 25 years ago and how low resolution everything was.

For 'professional' things (Coding, Game Development, Video Editing, Design, Photoediting, Architectural work) today technology simply allow things that were not possible even 5 years ago, 25 years ago are ancient times. I don't know what you do with computers, but there are plenty of things that you couldn't do just a short time ago.

bogtog• 3 years ago

The eye tracking technology involves shining infrared light at your eyes at all times - not an expert but I can't help but wonder if that is going to have long term effects.

For what it's worth, infrared beams and cameras is standard for psychology research using eye-tracking. Psychological studies are only 30-minutes long, but I've never heard anybody mention risks of this, and IRBs do not require mentioning anything like that in consent forms.

KerrAvon4• 3 years ago

The presence tracking technology in Face ID iPhones uses infrared beams (not sure if it's the same as what's in the Vision Pro), and some people's eyes are in fact sensitive to this, resulting in eyestrain when used over a long period of time.

You can turn this feature off to get standard idle lock screen timeout behavior, and still continue to use Face ID; I don't know if there's a workaround on the Vision Pro)

rcarr11• 3 years ago

Personally I think it's going to be super awesome when you can join an online TTRPG and you can change your animation to match your character, as well as having all your character sheets, maps and a battle map in front of you all at once.

Imagine seeing the characters of Critical Role brought to life in real time!

willis936• 3 years ago

You likely get a lot more infrared in your eyes by going outside, and also a much higher amount of UV which is what actually causes damage.

As long as it's just a gentle/diffuse flood there is no cause for concern. When they start introducing scanning lasers then it's time to sit up in the seat.

wahahah3• 3 years ago

Maybe we can mod it for anime eyes

mrsmee89• 3 years ago

This is spectacular. What a great achievement. I have a few questions.

1. Will the battery pack be an additional charge?

2. What will be the defining factor for higher priced models (memory, larger battery, cellular etc)?

3. What effect on the body will this have for long term daily use?

4. Will content creators be able to price their content differently for this device?

5. How will Apple display the demo in store?

6. Is there a feature that allows multiple users?

7. Will this function as a real computer like a Mac or more like an iPad?

8. Is there a feature to prevent social awkwardness?

themagician• 3 years ago

I think there is a possibility that this device actually looks the way it does in the promo.

Every VR device that's come to market so far show a promo that's completely disconnected from the actual experience. They show these crisp, high resolution images. But when you get the headset on you've got this really soft image, with damn near abysmal edge sharpness, and a display riddled with fun new unique artifacts like mura and screen door.

londons_explore2• 3 years ago

Early next year

Wow - It's 8 months till you can even buy one of these!

dottjt• 3 years ago

I think a big limitation with VR headsets in general, is that if you have a morning facial routine (moisturiser, sunscreen etc.), it smears all of the headset. In fact, it's probably the primary reason why I stopped using my Quest 2.

It's like, I used to use it religiously, and then the moment I started a facial routine I stopped using it immediately.

nlitened3• 3 years ago

You don’t need facial routine for your digital avatar

mathgorges• 3 years ago

No, but many physical avatar do. Especially if the avatar is fair skinned and/or experiences a lot of sun light ;-)

mindvirus• 3 years ago

Assuming that test is crisp and usable, and it's more of a Mac than an iPad, this looks very promising. If pass through works well, I could see this replacing a laptop for a bunch of use cases.

b_d982• 3 years ago

This seems like incredible hardware from apple, but I'm really hoping for root access to be more prevalent in the mixed-reality space. I really don't want to see another ios and android walled garden with so much creative potential on these devices, especially considering Meta seems to be taking the android position in the space.

ncr10010• 3 years ago

it may serve in the same way the ipad / tablet adoption did - though this is more limited as it's single-user & ipads can be shared easily multi-user

siva7• 3 years ago

Loneliness Accelerating Device is what i would call that thing. Hope i will be proven wrong.

dougb5• 3 years ago

Did they intend to make their 50+ demographic nostalgic for "Apple-Vision", the BASIC demo program that shipped with the Apple II? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqPe7pE_5uQ, https://apple.fandom.com/wiki/Apple-Vision). Boy, that takes me back.

ftio• 3 years ago

The current price of this first-gen product will make it a niche, early-adopter kind of thing — just like the original iPhone — but the Vision Pro is going to absolutely slay over the next five years. Which isn't to say that this won't sell out.

It's going to get a lot smaller, lighter, more comfortable, and more capable (with better battery life) and be years ahead of the next best competitor.

They're also setting this up as the "Pro" version, which means a lower-priced model is already planned, maybe in two years.

In ten years, these'll be regular ole glasses, maybe even a contact lens.

Amazing launch.

wb14123• 3 years ago

I don't see lots of AR/VR techs in the intro: there is no interaction with real world, there is no 3D object other than virtual screen and virtual controls. It seems to be just a traditional portable computer with bigger screens. I can see the potential of it. But at the current stage, it's hard to justify the price.

gnicholas11• 3 years ago

It would be amazing if the downward-facing cameras could be used for 'typing' on a phantom keyboard. It would be weird to do so without tactile feedback, but it would make it possible to be productive anywhere, without having to bring a keyboard along. I'm sure that someone will come up with some sort of alternate text input method, given that Siri is not great at speech-to-text, and speaking out loud is terrible for privacy.

nkotov• 3 years ago

I'm not exactly sure what the "aha moment" is for this compared to the iPhone launch. Don't get me wrong, it looks incredibly exciting and I love new shiny tech but the demo videos felt incredibly lonely and I can't really picture myself using this on a daily basis for hours. I have a Quest 2 that gets used once, perhaps twice a month for VR Chat or to entertain family/friends with Beatsaber. Once you played enough VR, you kind of get over it.

It's like the iPad for me. When I want to get serious work done, I use a MacBook. For quick stuff, the iPhone is sufficient. The iPad then ends up being an entertainment device.

coolandsmartrr10• 3 years ago

The iPhone's "aha" seemed to come from making existing workflows so much easier with touch gestures (e.g. scrolling through texts and contacts). It addressed and improved upon a pain point that we all knew from using cellphones.

Once you played enough VR, you kind of get over it.

This, very much. It's one thing to invent in a new device category, it's another to turn it into a habit. The iPhone targeted existing habits, such as checking emails and watching videos, that made it very sticky. I'm not sure if Apple Vision has a sticky application, especially with the obstacle of (1) wearing a headset (2) plugging the battery chord (3) enduring the weight.

keithxm23• 3 years ago

I find it fascinating that Apple is deliberately avoiding the terms VR or virtual. 51 uses of the word "spatial" but only 1 "virtual" which is also not in the context of VR. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/introducing-apple-vis...

kqvamxurcagg• 3 years ago

Very good point - I guess they are trying to redefine the terminology in this category and create unique marketing keywords. I suspect that is too late, VR Goggles just seems to ingrained but perhaps I'm wrong.

nojvek• 3 years ago

If the displays and sensors on the device are as good as they say they are, I'd buy it.

Watch a movie, play a game, workout, code, dance, be fully immersed. Like have multiple screens around my garage walls in 3D where I can walk up to them.

I tried NReal AR glasses, Roku, Quest, Holo lens. They didn't feel right.

If Apple vision pro could really take me to another world, be immersed for multiple hours, $4000 (including tax) is worth the experience.

Sodman• 3 years ago

One use case I'm psyched about for this - shared virtual whiteboarding for remote workers. No traditional apps have been able to reproduce the feeling of being in the room with a small group, collaborating on a shared whiteboard, feels like a huge opportunity!

ncr10010• 3 years ago

I feel collaboration is the 'killer app' for this tech - though it won't achieve that.

Now, how big is that market?? I don't think it's all that big. yet.

Generative AI is making an impact on that world too - perhaps there will be a change in generative AI's presence in creation / media creation, which will require AR / VR.

I think THIS product will be sold as a PC / Monitor replacement, and in 5 years the collaboration killer app will be the "novel" usage.

rektide15• 3 years ago

Agreed. Huge opportunity. Computing always has been about information spaces, and making those implicit informatics explicit & visible is highly interesting.

Apple notably didn't show a single collaborative capability, to my eye, the entire time. Everyone was inside their own pocket space. They went extra far to let people videoconferencing as normal while wearing it, preserving the current norms for shared connectivity.

zmmmmm15• 3 years ago

They'd have to do a lot better than anything I've experienced. There are loads of these whiteboarding apps, including a first party one from Meta and they all suck when you try it.

If you carefully look though you'll see they don't demo shared anything. No people playing games together, watching movies together, literally anything. There's something missing here in the story, I don't know why they would have left that out. I wonder if you really can't do it.

mrdatawolf• 3 years ago

The Apple faithful are going to wake up tomorrow and realize THIS is what they used to make fun of Google and Microsoft for.

It's a pair of REALLY expensive snow goggles. Worse it's goggles with a tiny battery life, a bizarre generated face, it looks goofy and the first time that cable snags on anything...

Imagine Steve Jobs on stage and he says "One more thing..." and puts that on his face, That would NEVER happen.

This is cool in the same way the Newton was! (edited for typo)

mgkimsal• 3 years ago

Was sort of expecting a demo of interacting with a real object in your field of vision. And... maybe 'interacting with' isn't the right phrase. But the idea of looking at a table and being able to call up info about the table, or a dog, or a couch, or mountain, or whatever... I suspect that may come later, but was a little surprised to not see it out of the gate.

JustSomeNobody• 3 years ago

Nope.

I get it, it's Apple and it's great and all that.

I'm just not going to wear that on my face.

I'm not.

Pxtl3• 3 years ago

I always figured Apple would target Glass before going into full AR. I mean, the "smartwatch for your face" accessory for your phone seems more up their alley, something lightweight and fashionable that just sends you notifications and turn-by-turn directions and stuff like that.

Going instead for this huge bulky thing is really surprising, since it's so far outside their normal wheelhouse. It seems like the real things it would bring to the table would be gaming and 3D viewing/modeling applications, which were barely considered in the demo.

browningstreet3• 3 years ago

My two warm takes, as a non-gamer and “never VR” guy who wears glasses and is old enough that I need new prescriptions every year and I don’t see trying to keep up with yet more annual prescription lens purchases:

In 5+ years will it be glasses and we can dump the iPhone? That'd be good (I realize it’ll surely take longer). I might pay $2K for that but I like taking my glasses off and sitting in front of my big 4K TV without anything on my face. So take that use case away unless I’m on a plane.

Mark Zuckerberg must realize how unserious his efforts have been. He probably can't ever do anything this ambitious, coordinated, and platform integration dependent. Even with his Brewsters Billions.

It’s about as refined and impressive and futuristic as I could’ve expected a v1 product to be, but while I enjoy gawking at it I don’t really want to take one home.

No one’s going to say, “Where’d you leave the vision pro’s?” It’ll be goggles or mask or something else. Not well named. Except they won’t be shareable (with lenses in), because they’ll be too personal, like a hat.

I maxed out the new Mac Pro on the Apple Store site and it came to $10K even. With full memory. That’s really blowing my mind.

gtop3• 3 years ago

No one’s going to say, “Where’d you leave the vision pro’s?” It’ll be goggles or mask or something else. Not well named. Except they won’t be shareable (with lenses in), because they’ll be too personal, like a hat.

I could see Vision sticking as a name in colloquial use. Vision Pro is a signal there is room for a lower price headset in the future. No one ever called their iPad an "iPad Pro" in colloquial use. This name is least as good as Quest.

browningstreet3• 3 years ago

Fair. Probably. We’ll grow into it. Vision feels slightly too generic and off product. Kinda like how they spell it “Apple silicon” and not “Apple Silicon”.

gervwyk• 3 years ago

I’m due for a new mac, going to wait it out and give this VR thing a proper try. Remember those first cell phones.. we’ve just past the “dude why would you carry a brick in your pocket” situation.

nunez2• 3 years ago

Is anyone else terrified that this is the beginning of the end of "outside"?

Like, I can see people wearing these full-time, everywhere, to "enhance" life at first with the ultimate goal of these _replacing_ life (i.e. why go outside, where you have to spend money and deal with people, when you can just wear these and be in a world that you control without leaving your couch?)

Or am I just becoming a curmudgeon? If I am, I didn't expect it to happen at 35!

ncr10010• 3 years ago

No - may I still reply to your question?

I think MORE efficient indoor-tech, that allows you to get your stuff done MORE QUICKLY so you can go outside, is a goal we all should seek, as technologists.

Not forcing users outside in order to get their work done . . (not that is what you were saying).

paul_grisham• 3 years ago

Actual delusion

johndhi• 3 years ago

You know why phones are so addictive and VR isn't? Phones make us feel like we have control over how and when we use them. We can just set them down.

With something you strap to your head that illusion of you controlling it goes away. We don't want to strap something to our head because it means admitting we want our life ruled by technology.

rektide15• 3 years ago

I liked your first drift but where I see the real hangups happening is with software control.

People put up with a lot of fussy uneven software they can't really tweak or adjust or make comfortable. Prescripted everything is endurable. But if we have to live inside the software, it seems like all the fixed feature way of doing not-so-soft not-so-personal computing today will be oppressive.

The metaverse idea is interesting most of all to me because it has to be a better computing space, for all kinds of experiences to be hosted & play together somewhat. Right now, it doesn't feel like there's many companies that have open possibility & rich multi-party ecosystems in their genes (especially after G+ turned Google's back on APIs and interoperability). Almost all the prevailing winds in software seem going the other direction, which leaves a lot of new ecosystem resistances for XR/spatial to grow well & flourish.

hyperthesis• 3 years ago

Shadows help ground images (e.g. characters in games seem to float without contact shadows). Seems simple, but requires a 3D model of the room to work properly. LiDAR

Lag between reality and virtual would be noticable side-by-side, no matter how much the "R1" chip reduces lag (12ms)... Ah! they might do the Guitar Hero trick, and delay the reality feed by the same amount, so they are exactly syncronized... see-through AR (like google glasses) can't delay reality.

The outward display of reverse faux-transparency is a nice touch, displaying a fuzzy image of the wearer's eye on the front. (Though not sure what to make of the back-side of the displayed image - could a user ever see it?)

I think this is the first major Apple developmemt without Jobs' involvement?

ncr10010• 3 years ago

"lag" of 12ms is good enough - less than one frame of 60fps. it's 1 frame of 83 per second. should be good enough.

lardo• 3 years ago

A Dyson Sphere for your attention.

uejfiweun• 3 years ago

It looks sweet. I want one, for sure. But I have to say, it's a little concerning that they haven't publicly stated the FOV. FOV is an absolutely CRUCIAL issue in modern XR, and I have a feeling if Apple had actually solved it, they would be bragging about it just like how they're bragging about "23 million pixels" or whatever.

nforgerit• 3 years ago

Finally I got a clue to how the next Ted Lasso season is going to look like: He's going to coach remotely having everyone happily wearing a VP.

Joke aside: It's mind-boggling how Apple uses product placement to hammer pictures in our heads and get us to consider not looking like a jerk anymore when wearing AirPods just because some "icons" are wearing them.

trafficante• 3 years ago

Who else noticed that none of the presenters were actually wearing the device they were unveiling?

Best case scenario is they didn’t want to monkey around awkwardly with fit and adjustment. But even in that case, wasn’t the whole thing pre-recorded anyways?

My hunch (combined with the 2024 release date) is that this thing isn’t fully baked yet.

tabulatouch• 3 years ago

I love the "spatial" term, it was in the air..

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/s-arcade-first-spatial-au...

My bet, or wishful thinking, is that lower-fi spatial augmented experiences can be more fun and engaging when "shared" with our senses. Maybe also cheaper :D

1letterunixname3• 3 years ago

Apple doesn't do enterprise or gaming.

VR headsets is a "flying car" tech category: always around the corner, but unlikely to ever reach widespread adoption.

JumpinJack_Cash• 3 years ago

They got duped into the Metaverse?

thih92• 3 years ago

All this - software demo, hardware demo, and the price - feels like a developer preview.

That’s fine, it’s the wwdc after all.

ChildOfChaos6• 3 years ago

It seems to me that Apple is going for a very different direction than Meta, I see a lot of comments online by people that don't seem to understand this or perhaps didn't see Apple's presentation, they were very clear and careful about how they presented it.

Even when showing gaming, it wasn't VR games, it was a screen in AR playing a traditional game.

It seems to me this is also in the name and the branding, it was heavily rumoured that it would be named Reality Pro, but naming it Vision Pro seems to set what they are aiming for more clearly or at least how they are marketing it, it's about vision and essentially a replacement for screens, not a metaverse or virtual reality.

zmmmmm15• 3 years ago

yes, it's a very interesting reset on the marketing for AR/VR. Quite interested to see how it plays out - it looks very boring to VR enthusiasts (really, you're making a big deal that I can look at a photo?!), but Apple is so good at this - they may very well be laser focused on what they really know will sell.

kelseydh2• 3 years ago

It might also reflect the fact that the device does not have the GPU computing power to deliver impressive gaming.

polishdude20• 3 years ago

Exactly this. Even a 4090 can struggle with the next highest resolution display headset out there. This apple headset has like four times the pixel density or something? What GPU will be able to run this that isn't in some big PC tower on your floor?

jayd169• 3 years ago

Having nothing to show isn't always the same as having a different direction.

ChildOfChaos6• 3 years ago

They had plenty to show though, stuff you wouldn't do in the meta quest, it made that look like a toy.

bgribble• 3 years ago

The Simula One (https://simulavr.com) has been targeting similar productivity use cases for a while. I've been following it from a distance; I have to wear reading glasses for computer work now, and I would love to be able to focus on a virtual screen 2 meters or so away for coding etc. Whether I could stand wearing the headset all day is another question.

The Simula folks think that there's a lower limit of about 30 pixels per degree for something to be useful as a low-eye-fatigue virtual desktop. Their device meets that threshold but really nothing else currently on the market does. I haven't seen PPD info for the Apple device yet but I am interested to see where it falls.

The Simula is at a pretty similar price point ($2700 for the preorder, but it's not shipping yet and has a way to go before it's a reality).

rektide15• 3 years ago

Haskell & Godot engine. Wildly interesting effort, wishing them well.

Currently pretty sparse choices for open source XR computing spaces!

londons_explore2• 3 years ago

Sometimes new and soon to be very popular things have a seriously negative response here in HN initially.

Think of Snapchat. I'm sure everyone in tech would have said 'nah, there is no market for a messaging app where all messages disappear after 15 seconds'.

And yet only a year or so later it was sending more photos than any other platform.

Apples product might be the same.

graypegg7• 3 years ago

That’s the usual refrain isn’t it? You can apply “remember how everyone said X wasn’t useful?” to almost anything.

Honestly I think this will be pretty middle of the road. Apple Watch started off with a general market, and pivoted to health/fitness.

I could totally see them readjusting as time goes on into whatever people start using it for. But it’ll be a niche. I think the “it’s for everyone” marketing from today is a way to gauge who really is their target market, not the market itself.

joexner• 3 years ago

But is it advanced enough?

0xDEF2• 3 years ago

This product will fail among Apple's traditional customer segment of high-income Westerners.

High-income Westerners do not like to engage in activities that make them appear like mindless consumer zombies. In Denmark the highest income households have small cheap TVs they can hide away while low income households have big 4K TVs as the main attraction in their living room. The reason is that the former don't want to appear like passive mindless consumer zombies who watch TV.

It is a very superficial opinion but wearing a VR/AR headset is literally the most 1984 consumer zombie thing you could possibly do.

redbell2• 3 years ago

I'm truly wondering what M. Zuckerburg and the rest of the Quest team are thinking/saying/feeling seeing Apple entering this field with such an impressive device. Will they welcome such a player to give more credibility to the metaverse concept and the VR/AR headset market or they would panic because they may feel unable to compete, who knows?! But surely, the next months would interesting to sit and watch.

cjmcqueen• 3 years ago

Two words, flight simulator.

robotburrito• 3 years ago

I wonder if we will be able to connect this to a PC for use with steam VR. All of the best things in VR happen in the PC realm where you don't have to jump through hoops to get your experiments out to others.

annexrichmond• 3 years ago

It's hard to be excited about a device that will supposedly be released early next year yet had no live demos. How do we know that anything they announced will work as expected?

I recall that with the original iPhone and Apple Watch, they even had live demos 6+ months ahead of their release.

jzombie• 3 years ago

Curious to hear anyone's experience playing non-VR-optimized games on a VR headset, as I have a lot of those types of games and am working on a WebRTC project that streams those types of games.

wankerrific• 3 years ago

What’s up with Apple touting this headset for remote work while they were one of the first to force people back to office.

And now Facebook/meta too.

Marketing hypocrisy.

JakaJancar• 3 years ago

$3500 is perceived as expensive, but a MacBook Pro can easily exceed that.

Both have an M2, and while a MacBook has a display, more RAM, larger SSD, ... it's still a bunch of standard-ish components, while Vision Pro has a ton of really innovative never-seen-before hardware.

magpi3• 3 years ago

This may be an age thing (it is probably an age thing), but the picture of a smiling woman with a VR headset on completely detached from reality looks dystopian as hell to me. And it is being advertised as something I would actually want.

arnaudsm• 3 years ago

Imagine if you could plug this to your desktop dock and use it like a Mac Mini. It would be the ultimate multimodal workstation, and justify its price easily.

zeroEscape2• 3 years ago

My biggest concern with this is how easy it would be to steal. If I'm sitting in a train, someone could just yank it off my head and run away. That's $3,500 bucks down the drain. When using a phone for example, I don't really have to worry about it as long as I'm careful. I wear a shirt long enough to cover my pockets making it hard for a thief to lift up the shirt without me noticing and grab the phone in my pocket. When I use the phone, I keep it close to my body. If I were using the Vision Pro, I'd have a giant screen in front of my face. I wouldn't even see the thief coming. Maybe they could make a strap that you attach around your chin like a helmet and charge $1,000 bucks for it. Or perhaps screws to drill it into your skull.

dandandan• 3 years ago

Given the Optic ID demo, I assume it's locked to authorized users only and not valuable outside of being a source of parts if stolen.

zeroEscape2• 3 years ago

I'm sure an hour after it's released, a YouTube video will appear of someone demonstrating how to hack it.

GravityLabs• 3 years ago

Amazing day for Apple. What an incredible company and what incredible products. So excited to buy one of these next year. Thanks Apple!!!

schaefer3• 3 years ago

I own a Varjo Aero. A comparably priced PC VR headset (after including graphic cards costs) that runs only under windows. I bought this setup for productivity – not gaming.

I want to give a quick reaction to apple vision pro from that perspective. On the Aero, under windows I quickly came to learn that while the screens were clear and legible… The primary drawback was lack of software. Specifically there was no true 3d window manager.

I couldn’t arrange 10 different programs spatially around me, like some cliché virtual hacker’s den. I couldn’t layout a pillar of source code that expanded hundereds of pages above and below my current focus…

I was locked into looking at my 2d windows desktop, projected onto a plane, in a 3d virtual space. I wasn’t in 3d at all. I was still trapped in 2d.

---

The window manager in apple vision is already far better than that! So, here’s my prediction.

Just like when microsoft sat out the race to mobile (iphone v. android), they are decidedly on the sidelines here too. VR productivity seems to be almost exclusively apple’s for the taking. (yes, I’m aware that FB has some offerings in this space, but no way in hell do they get telemetry on my literal eyeballs).

Just as products like the ipad haven’t exactly challenged microsoft windows, they have diminished it’s roll in people’s lives, apple vision seems to be a product with that kind of potential.

–

Last but not least, in the old days, I owned an ipad pro, which I supposedly bought for productivity. It had some weird limitation where I couldn’t run apps side by side in the way that I wanted. Eventually I gave the ipad away. Sooo… this time around apple doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt. I’ll pretty much have to demo one and personally confirm my top use cases before I’d consider buying.

bloggie• 3 years ago

A good 20 years ago there was a bit of software called SphereXP that arranged windows in a 3D sphere around you, I really liked it and I’m glad the tech is coming back!

brundolf• 3 years ago

What's so weird is that Microsoft had the Hololens years ago. It had a similar price, hand-based interaction, entirely self-contained, etc. I used one once, and it was astonishing. A totally magical AR experience

Of course the FOV was narrow and the resolution was probably too small for virtual monitors, and I don't know what the battery life was like. But this was so long ago, and then they just... stopped. I can't remember the last time Microsoft announced anything in mixed-reality. Maybe that Minecraft demo?

I'd love to be a fly on that wall

generalizations• 3 years ago

I with you, productivity is what I really want to use this for. Did you ever find any other VR tools that could do what you're describing? Because that's pretty much exactly what I'm hoping for too.

schaefer3• 3 years ago

TLDR:

I found things, yes. But they weren’t a fit for me.

Things I found:

### SimulaVR [1]

A linux native VR headset with an entire open ecosystem of software. On the plus side: they actually have an open source VR native window manager!!! Cons include: The hardware hasn’t shipped yet. The hardware is already multiple generations behind. (11th gen intel NUC). For productivity – I think video pass-through is essential. Which both this and the Aero lack. Tragically, the software stack for developed by Simula is not compatible with the Aero. Because the Simula Window Manager is linux native, and the Aero is Windows Native… (damn, I bought the wrong hardware.)

### Immersed [2]

This is a software solution that basically lets you remote into a desktop running an appropriate server to sling pixels at your VR headset. It’s heavily oriented towards FB headsets. The Aero isn’t supported. So I’ve never tried it. Also, it’s required that you are serving up actual screen pixels… so If you want to run headless there are wierd display port dongle hacks…

### UltraTerm / CyberGem

There is a developer that has a terminal running in the unreal game engine. In this case you can essentially design a level that is your workspace… It feels weird to even be talking about this, but if you just want linux terminals in VR… this can get you there in a very unique way. I have to say there’s a part of me that’s super into the idea of designing a virtual scene with embedded computing.

### The state of play, as I understand it

In general, you can take it for granted that you can serve up your actual desktop to whatever PC VR solution you get your hands on. Which may be enough for you. But for me, no way! To repeat myself, For VR to be compelling for productivity, I want to be able to arrange my actual application windows in 3d space.

Even the Apple Vision seems to have this “2d desktop” limitation (If you are looking very, very closely). Your desktop share from your macbook seems to be limited to just a 2d desktop. So it appears as if to use the 3d window manager you have to be running Vision native apps only.

I hope I’m wrong on this, but if Ipad is any indication, Vision will never get the heavy hitters. X Code, Visual studio…. Etc.

I have been so used to commodity PC hardware for so long, that when I impulse bought VR hardware during the pandemic, I assumed the software would be there to support it. But as far as I can tell, it’s largely not.

[1] https://simulavr.com/ [2]: https://immersed.com/ [3]: https://twitter.com/ultraterm

fosk• 3 years ago

This looks fantastic. Now do it in a “contact lenses” format and it will change the world like the iPhone did.

maybelsyrup2• 3 years ago

You will get in the pod, you will eat the bugs

mattbrewsbytes• 3 years ago

What I can’t wait for is unbiased hands on reviews, hopefully from MKBHD or someone big enough they can just shell out the money for it and tell us how it actually is to operate.

rickreynoldssf• 3 years ago

This is a proof of concept. It's going to take many more years to get it into a practical form factor for widespread adoption. In the meantime, early adopters including developers will define it. It's basically the same as the Macintosh. That essentially failed to gain mainstream adoption for 15 years. People called it an expensive toy. Same same but different.

celeritascelery• 3 years ago

I found it a little funny that they had a doctor on explaining about their new feature to keep the screen farther from your face to reduce eye strain and myopia, then proceed to release a device where is the screen is right in front of your eyes.

zmmmmm15• 3 years ago

this represent a persistent and common misunderstanding of how VR optics works. VR is good for your eyes because the focal point is actually quite far away. Hence why you still need corrective lenses to use it if you are short sighted. It's a lot better than staring at a close up screen.

anonymousiam• 3 years ago

The facetime video shows the faces of the people she's online with, but they will not be able to see her face while she's wearing the "spacial computer", unless it generates a fake avatar for them.

thomk• 3 years ago

When the iPad came out I thought to myself "Who needs a big iPhone? also, god what a dumb name, 'iPad'. Apple really missed the mark on that one." Welp, I was wrong then. I don't personally see myself using this but that doesn't mean it is not going to be successful. I'll just wait and see.

Melatonic3• 3 years ago

So the hardware looks amazing.......

can we hook it to a PC so I can play some real VR games?!

jspaetzel• 3 years ago

Wait for consumer reviews?

tiedieconderoga• 3 years ago

Too late for anyone to actually see this, but am I the only one who is terribly amused that Apple's silicon lineup now consists of A-series, R-series, and M-series chips, with the R-series handling realtime workloads?

I feel like I've seen that naming convention somewhere before.

wpwpwpw• 3 years ago

and i was all excited thinking they would finally launch the powerbook g5...

alongrinshpoon• 3 years ago

Some quick thoughts:

- Focus is on entertainment, remote work, collaboration, and utility, but their partnership with Unity might mean that gaming is part of the long-term strategy. Gaming is a top use case for VR with Meta devices, so Apple is focusing on AR use cases first.

- Disney is aligned on Apple's AR vision with Disney, Marvel Studios, ESPN 3D content, and more available on launch. This will make more entertainment companies jump into AR/VR!

- Can create a digital persona ("avatar") and make a virtual version of you with face tracking. Interesting move that can affect companies focusing on avatar creation.

- No physical controller - you can use your eyes, hands, and voice. Really interesting approach, and leaves room for haptic companies to shine.

- Comes with an M2 chip and a new R1 chip. Not sure how the R1 (or M2+R1) compares to the leading XR chip, Qualcomm Snapdragon XR2.

- Spatial photos and videos are supported and can be created with the device. Can be competitive with Leia's Lume Pad 2.

- Your Mac screen expands automatically to the VisionPro, which can be competition for companies building "AR laptops" or remote collaboration apps.

- Price is $3499, definitely a "Pro" price, which probably means that a "non-Pro" version is in the works.

- visionOS is Apple's OS for spatial computing. Interesting move that can affect companies building an OS for XR.

- "Spatial Computing" is the notable messaging (vs. "Metaverse").

- Launching early next year. Let's go!

deviation2• 3 years ago

- Price is $3499, definitely a "Pro" price, which probably means that a "non-Pro" version is in the works.

I would perhaps argue the opposite here. They list it on the official page as "starting" at $3499 which gives me the indication that there will be other, higher tiered models to choose from on release.

seanmcdirmid7• 3 years ago

The new Mac Pro starts at $6,999 and can definitely go up from there. Does that mean there are higher tiered models to choose when it is released?

I just configured one for $12,199. Ya, still a pro. Nope, I can’t afford it.

anaganisk4• 3 years ago

Colorful headbands, red version, battery pack etc?

shusaku2• 3 years ago

ESPN 3D content

Seems like it’s be a really compelling use case, though I wonder what they’d have to charge to procure that kind of content live

creativenolo• 3 years ago

Unity's sales play is greater than just games. I wouldn’t say the partnership signals games (but it doesn’t exclude them.)

dang• 3 years ago

All: there are over 2700 comments in this thread - to get to them all, you need to click More at the bottom of each page, or a link like this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36201593&p=2

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36201593&p=3

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36201593&p=4

There are also a bunch of other threads: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

Sorry that our server has been creaking today. Perf improvements are on the way (fingers crossed), but alas not today.

cubefox4• 3 years ago

It's unfortunate that apparently Apple won't include any controllers for this. Just with imprecise gesture controls VR gaming is out of the question. Which is a bummer, as the headset itself appears to be amazing and massive step forward in the tech.

Instead they decided to use it for ... floating virtual screens. An iPhone & iPad replacement.

drojas• 3 years ago

I just want a portable gaming console with apple-level quality that can run Steam games. The VR thing is not very practical in my experience.

kylixz• 3 years ago

I am most intrigued by the use of the 6x Sony IMX418 which seems to be brilliant for daisy-chaining cameras over MIPI lines in such a small package even if the sensor is older. Anyone else have experience with these?

dahwolf3• 3 years ago

I think one telling section of the presentation is the very speedy run-through of a few 3rd party apps for this platform. They all looked crappy, quick and superficial pseudo-3D versions of existing 2D apps. Which is a problem on all VR platforms: to deliver a truly engaging and convincing experience is extraordinarily hard and expensive.

Even Disney couldn't deliver (yet). They showed a lot of imaginary scenarios that are not implemented and concluded with: Disney+ will be available. Which is just a 2D streaming app like any app.

I'm not all negative. I think movie watching in this incredibly immersive way might be stunning. That would be a type of baseline "killer app" to fall back on. Assuming it works well, without it being tiring. There's the prospect of gaming, which is interesting as you pretty much use this device stationary.

Those two solo experiences hold promise if the tech is as good as is suggested.

I'm not sold on the productivity scenarios, because they aren't really re-imagined. If your work consists of zoom calls, messages and email, projecting those into the air doesn't really do much and slightly unsharp Excel still sucks.

There's the usual amusement of hypothetical scenarios that only happen in Apple's imagination where everybody is balls deep into every iOS device, is permanently connected and instantly available on a whim. You decide to "relive" memories by projecting photos on your TV (most people never do or just watch it on their phone) and then spontaneously drag in grandma to have a shared live experience.

That's not real world. Grandma is taking a nap, has none of these devices and wants you to come by and visit instead of fooling around with your toys.

Which is the point I'll end with. I'm very much technically impressed and will readily admit that from a philosophical angle, I hope it will fail. I genuinely believe that technology that isolates you even further and gives you even less reason to interact with actual reality is the last thing we need in an already touchless society where mental health problems are skyrocketing.

I do not want a world where dad has ski goggles to record the kids, the kids looking back at a digital version of his eyes. Dad should stop recording at all and just bloody engage.

hank808• 3 years ago

https://venturebeat.com/mobile/heres-robert-scoble-showering...

_trackno5• 3 years ago

Man, if this was available today I would be preordering right now.

Just the the big monitor use case is enough for me. I live in a tiny apartment and don't have the space for multiple / large monitors or TV.

If I could use this to play on my ps5 and work on my MacBook, it would be perfect.

6510• 3 years ago

When the flat icons came up in the middle of the users vision I was impressed by how bad it looked.

PetitPrince• 3 years ago

I am curious about the recording functionality of this product.

This tech demo from a few years ago [1](https://store.steampowered.com/app/771310/Welcome_to_Light_F...) and a more recent one[2] were one of the most jaw-dropping experience I had in VR. It's basically VR photo and VR video; you can actually move you head as if you were here.

[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/771310/Welcome_to_Light_F...

[2] https://augmentedperception.github.io/deepviewvideo/

If they can manage to compute similar light field with their camera and depth sensor (and perhaps a sprinkle of NeRF ? [3]) within a reasonable time, they could have an effortless killer app.

[3] https://www.matthewtancik.com/nerf

Klonoar2• 3 years ago

I'm gonna just be honest and say that I'm sure it'll be a hit - whether now or in a few years when they get the price down - but I just... don't care?

I'm not entirely sure I want a world where people are wearing things on their head like this, it just feels dystopian and ripe for abuse.

aprentic• 3 years ago

Apple is an interesting company.

They didn't invent computers, mobile phones, mp3 players or tablets. Instead they tend to take products where the whole industry is essentially still in alpha, polish it to a mirror finish and then show the world how those products will make their personal lives better.

Computers don't just have to be for big companies running accounting software; they can unlock the creative potential of writers and artists. Mobile phone aren't just for drug dealers and business executives; they let people share their lives with their friends.

There were a few misses too. The Magic Mouse looked sleek but was mostly annoying and didn't really do anything that other mice didn't already do better.

I'm afraid this headset falls in the same category. This seems to have marginal improvements over the HTC Vive I bought 6 years ago. The resolution is better, it looks lighter and less bulky. It also gives you pass through mode for an AR experience vs just a VR experience. It looks like a good headset.

That's just not enough. Not only does it fail to meet the high innovation standards that we've come to expect from Apple, it fails to meet the standards that we already expect from AR.

Unlike with all the previous hardware innovations, we already know what we want from AR. Everyone who has played modern video games is already used to various forms of HUDs and we've seen many iterations of what works well and what doesn't.

When I put on an AR headset I want all the things I've seen in video games. I want name indicators. I want automatic highlighting of relevant objects. I want to replace my map with floating directional indicators. I want to see my health stats floating off to the side. I want to be able to make all my friends wear silly hats. I want a virtual cat following me around.

drones• 3 years ago

I really hate the overall form factor of these things. The future is more and more powerful devices in smaller and smaller tech. Sleek and subtle, not clunky and ostentatious. I can't believe this is the same society that 10 years ago saw the google glass as a conceptual failure. At most with the google glass you looked a bit like a dork, but with the vision pros you look like a gormless twat.

Wearing a VR headset in public is like wearing a big kick me sign telling to the world "I am suggestible and easy to part with my money, please mug me". A VR headset in private is useless because I already have a desktop at home that can o what it does 10x better (and doesn't cost $3500).

hn_throwawa_100• 3 years ago

This is an unpopular take among the HN crowd, but I haven't seen it posted yet so here it is: this product will either be a huge hit, or it will be a massive failure, or somewhere in between.

Invictus0• 3 years ago

Weren't any of you made fun of as a kid for wearing glasses? This is 10x worse.

treprinum2• 3 years ago

Not a single AR functionality was demoed; all that was shown was a 2D overlay on top of real-world view. No 3D computer vision segmenting objects on the screen, no placing 3D objects on real objects etc. It felt less capable than Hololens a few years back.

rektide15• 3 years ago

Extra stunning because iOS already has some quite fine AR capabilities. This was such a freakish ommission.

At my most charitable, maybe they didn't want to take the risk. They don't know what they would do with those capabilities. AR isn't their thing, as a platform provider. They need developers to go build stuff. By not showing anything, they emphasize what they control, and they show only things they have power over.

In short, the omission keeps the narrative from getting out ahead of the horse.

nlitened3• 3 years ago

What’s the use case for placing 3D objects on real objects?

treprinum2• 3 years ago

For example, tutorial on how to fix/replace things, how do things work internally, playing chess, demo surgery etc.

numpad011• 3 years ago

The focus on Hololens style air tap seemed like an expectation adjustment to me, that it's more or less AppleLens.

zmmmmm15• 3 years ago

Yes. The other standout was no shared space AR. Meta is big into this with shared anchors.

They specifically spell out how they don't want it to be isolating, but every shot of someone using it to do things like watch movies or sports they are entirely by themselves in the experience. It feels like something went seriously wrong with some piece of this and they yanked a large segment of the AR stuff out. I don't believe they didn't try. I wonder what the story is.

garrickvanburen• 3 years ago

No one else in the FaceTime calls was wearing one! How does that work?

cyode• 3 years ago

They explain at 1:52:25 of the keynote.

Callers without Vision Pro show up on calls like normal. Vision Pro wearers are portrayed by a 3D representation of them wihtout the headset on.

This was one of the most difficult challenges we faced in building Apple Vision Pro. There's no video conferencing camera looking at you, and even if there were, you're wearing something over your eyes. Using our most advanced ML techniques, we created a novel solution.
After a quick enrollment process using the front sensors on Vision Pro, the system uses an advanced encoder-decoder neural network, to create your digital Persona. This network was trained on a diverse group of thousands of individuals. It delivers a natural representation which dynamically mathces your facial and hand movement. With your Persona, you can communicate with your a billion FaceTime-capable devices. When viewed by someone in another Vision Pro, your Persona has volume and depth not possible in traditional video.

etempleton4• 3 years ago

This product feels like Tim Cook trying to a will a product into market to leave a lasting impact and legacy. My gut reaction is it will have the opposite effect. I have a lot of respect for Tim Cook for being the CEO after Steve and keeping the company moving forward and operating smoothly. This feels like hubris.

tgtweak• 3 years ago

Don't underestimate Apples ability to make a successful product where many others have tried and failed before. This could be the spark that is needed to spur on AR/VR in a big way. At $3500 it's definitely out there.

Balladeer• 3 years ago

I'm cautiously optimistic here. I have a very specific idea that the Vision Pro might make real. There's a great urban park nearby and I so want to just...walk while I work. Not on a treadmill and not 'to get away from my work'. Just: walk on a safe road / trail and do my computer work at the same time.

I've been exploring the consumer AR space --- I have a Viture One and have been eyeing the Xreal Air, but neither seems to solve the problem of "keep the virtual screen stable while I walk through real space".

If the Vision Pro can do that for several hours at a time, my interest in getting one will skyrocket.

(The whole 'how do you type while walking' issue is a separate problem, but one I feel is far more solvable than the virtual screen stability issue).

larodi• 3 years ago

well it may actually be appealing for winter sports, snowboarders and skiers can appreciate it. but at this pricetag, maybe 5 years later. lets hope we would not have to project the snow bythen...

RhysU• 3 years ago

This product release marks the beginning of the Spacer/Settler divide.

fumeux_fume• 3 years ago

Lol, not even Apple can make VR not seem stupid AF

Aeolun4• 3 years ago

Why would I spend $3500 on a device that seems to essentially have the same specs and abilities as the Quest 2 (with an unsightly battery pack to boot)

throwaway743• 3 years ago

Can this be worn comfortably by people who wear glasses?

rektide15• 3 years ago

There are circular magnetically attached lens inserts. Kind of hard to get started but looks like it could have really good optical performance, much more so than the glasses-capable devices we have today.

It will be very interesting to see how Apple Stores manage to demo these things. A case full of inserts?

rallyforthesun5• 3 years ago

short answer, no you cant wear your glasses, BUT you can order prescription lenses from zeiss and put them in.

winstonprivacy• 3 years ago

Uh, no thanks.

eliseumds• 3 years ago

So unimpressive. The demos were terrible. Who would actually use it the way it was presented?

rektide15• 3 years ago

The demos were verryyy minimal.

I think one of the biggest risks is overselling the product, is creating expectations they can't live up to.

They probably could have gotten some AR iOS apps ported & being neat. But are those things people would really use day in day out? Do they set the right expectation, or are they wow & hype? Apple showed the intended mainline usecases: boring regular everyday stuff. Watching videos, browsing the web. And notably all experiences they & not app devs are in tight tight control over.

So, setting realistic expectations. And remaining in absolute control of the experience.

coolandsmartrr10• 3 years ago

The demos were verryyy minimal.

Certainly not as dramatic as Steve Jobs using an actual device on stage and prank-calling Starbucks.

ehnto7• 3 years ago

The marketing makes it sound like Apple invented all of this, but as usual they have actually just packaged it well. Very unfair to the entire industry that actually got the tech to where it is today. You know people will eat it up as well, and just like the iPhone people will tell us that Apple invented VR/AR all on their lonesome. The iPhone was a great leap though, this headset is not. It is not even current gen tech, the OS is going to be the novel part of it and I look forward to seeing the UX innovations they can pull off. Good product in general, just disingenuous marketing.

mavu• 3 years ago

Spatial computer.

Really Apple?

Is anyone left in that company leadership who is not a bad Jobs cosplayer?

dathinab3• 3 years ago

the world’s first spatial operating system,

no, why do they always reinvent terms and claim they are the first for things they clearly where not the first

jrmyphlmn• 3 years ago

a very expensive television

metadat• 3 years ago

@dang congrats on reaching the 66999!

https://ibb.co/bQGgPtF

royaltheartist• 3 years ago

This strikes me as Google Glass in the form factor of SCUBA goggles

armini• 3 years ago

FaceTime on Apple Vision Pro makes it easy to connect and collaborate. It's just a shame that you can't see their face while wearing apple-vision.

jcrash• 3 years ago

You literally can though, did you watch the presentation?

coolandsmartrr10• 3 years ago

Apple Vision synthesizes a model of your face during Facetime.

jakeinspace• 3 years ago

Personally, I can’t imagine using VR/AR headsets for development because of eventual eye strain and the sweatiness factor. But I’m willing to entertain that there are specific dev activities that could benefit from the enhanced immersion. Maybe a debugger that’s built from the ground up to support gestures and provide all of my breakpoints, watchpoints, stack frames, variables, etc in a visually intuitive AR display. That could be amazing, even a killer app, but would be ridiculously difficult I think to get right. How cool would it be to single step through a function with a snap of the fingers, wave downward to jump to the return, and then jump over to an adjacent thread with a glance to the left?

casey2• 3 years ago

Apple is a full stack trillion-dollar company, they should be inventing many (1000+) multi-million-dollar full VR systems. Just that will make them the world's first quadrillion-dollar company, even if VR never takes off.

daemond• 3 years ago

I am curious if wearing this device for a long time will cause dizziness.

mgh22• 3 years ago

Why is it called Vision Pro instead of just Vision? I predict they will release a lower end version for average consumers so that it can couple with it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_skimming

fomine314• 3 years ago

A missed pros for HMD is that it's very energy efficient. 85 inch TV is quite power hungry while Vision Pro might consume power similar to an iPad Pro.

sour-taste• 3 years ago

Is this the first really big thing to come out under Tim Cook? I guess the homepod and apple watch also came out under him? Still those feel like relatively minor things that were never going to revolutionize the world. The way they're trying to sell this they really think it will. There's no avoiding the Jobs comparisons.

My guess is this is just too expensive for people to actually use in any large numbers, but maybe there will be cheaper versions down the line.

nlitened3• 3 years ago

AirPods have been big, and I love them tbh

mcoliver• 3 years ago

Apple is incredible at a lot of things and no doubt this is impressive. Apple's entire lineup is the best version of things people already have and use. A computer, a laptop, a screen, a phone, a watch, headphones, speakers. The tablet was new but made sense as a replacement for books/newspaper/laptop.

I have been in the vr space since the dk1 and used a bunch of headsets in both consumer and professional settings. It is magical if not a bit gimmicky...in short bursts. It can do wondrous things like give you a sense of scale or transport you to another environment.

But it's not an extension for or replacement of the real world.

The use case is gaming, media consumption on mass transit, and niche professional use cases (eg how to do heart surgery, or fix an engine, or location scout a movie) where 3d visualization adds meaningful context to the process.

It's not billions of people. Or rather if it is, then we are all plugged into ready player one and I think that would be a sad outcome for our species.

Maybe we are already headed that way with the amount of screen time everyone is putting in these days. Time to log off and go for a run.

rifty• 3 years ago

Personally, face emulation isn't there yet for video calls and face pass through is a bit odd giving off a dead eyes stare look. Their focus on a portable interface, but stationary and passive spatial entertainment experiences is the right call for where we are with battery capability and weight. It is also what can be generally 'useful' to the broad market class Apple likes to target.

Hopefully, the field of view experience is really as good as it appears. I think they nailed the execution here and definitively defined the vision of these devices going forward.

kikoreis• 3 years ago

I'm as perplexed as the dog

trogdor2• 3 years ago

I hate that Apple has joined the vaporware trend. It started with the Mac Studio, which was announced before it could be purchased. Now we have another device announced… that will be available for purchase next year.

ryeguy_24• 3 years ago

Will it have the Terminal app so I can code like Minority Report?

alden52• 3 years ago

I fear they'll position it just like they have the ipad, primarily focused towards entertainment with a super locked down environment that's noticeably worse than a mac, if it ends up that way it'll be a deal breaker for me although we'll have to see, they did convince me to buy an ipad for nothing but procreate lol

tempnow9874• 3 years ago

Does anyone track the apple criticism for the ipod, the iphone, the watch etc etc?

Apple takes some risks, not everyone is fan, it costs a lot, but they have the money to burn, I don't get why they aren't allowed to try this stuff out.

klik99• 3 years ago

As a developer I sure would like to make product for people who spend that much, much like I did in early days of iPhone. Crazy expensive for regular consumers sure, but very attractive for conspicuous consumers and developers who want to laser target only conspicuous consumers. Exciting stuff

dmitshur• 3 years ago

Did anyone catch if they said anything about WebXR being available on it? Not seeing it so far, but hopefully eventually…

alexbock• 3 years ago

The single most important and most revealing aspect of this announcement is Apple's framing of the promotional images showing the face display on the front of the headset.

I think the large R&D investments tech companies are making into VR/AR headsets are ultimately centered on the idea that years in the future, an affordable, comfortable, and socially acceptable headset for all-day wear in daily life could hypothetically replace smartphones, tablets, laptops, and screens.

If a future daily wear headset as a phone/computer replacement reached a critical mass of adoption, then control of the platform will provide the owner with a huge profit source in selling virtual goods that can be "worn" or "placed" in the real world and are seen equally by any other person wearing a headset. I won't speculate on exactly what would be popular, but it is conceivable that this could include things like: buying virtual wall posters of licensed characters, virtual landscaping objects placed outside a house, filters that virtually "repaint" the exterior or interior of a house, or personal adornments like virtual clothing or appearance modifiers. That is to say, a digital layer of adjustment on top of the real world where everyone wearing a headset is automatically shown the virtual objects or adjustments that anyone else has made (within the scope of the latter's own appearance and owned spaces - random members of the public could not place publicly visible digital objects in the middle of a NYC street). Note that this virtual economy is a profit motive for a company to build AR, but not the selling point for a headset adopter.

Apple is not trying to sell this headset to consumers for $3500. They're showing off future hardware that they believe represents the bare minimum for what average people might be willing to wear regularly, with the expectation that they will be able to produce essentially this same unit and sell it for perhaps a third of the current price in several years. The way it's presented is also an early form of reputation management for the product space trying to influence public perception of how someone wearing a headset is viewed by others around them.

Standard see-through AR headset designs face fundamental implementation limits with the display technology that generally result in accepting one of two unacceptable limitations: a display that projects an image over the real world but cannot render black or otherwise draw anything darker than the scene behind it, or a liquid crystal light modulator with a polarizer that permanently makes the glass tinted dark like sunglasses even indoors. Apple is instead making a VR headset that is completely enclosed, displaying the world through pass-through cameras and drawing the wearer's eyes on a front display for everyone else to see.

The front lenticular OLED shows how Apple is approaching the social aspect of trying to market the acceptability of wearing a headset in the company of other people. In the long term, establishing a virtual economy for digital world overlays is fundamentally dependent on the social acceptance of wearing an AR device regularly. This announcement seems to be trying to thread that needle in advance of when this technology could eventually be priced and sold as a consumer product. I.e. establish an image of an Apple headset positioned without the kind of negative associations Google Glass quickly garnered.

I have no idea whether AR will succeed in replacing smartphones years from now or fade into obscurity, but what I find interesting about this announcement is that it makes a timeline where AR does take off at least appear conceivable. They've only taken a first and early step into trying to make it happen, but they haven't made a fatal mistake yet.

nuker• 3 years ago

Facetime: "Users wearing Vision Pro during a FaceTime call are reflected as a Persona — a digital representation of themselves created using Apple’s most advanced machine learning techniques — which reflects face and hand movements in real time. "

I want to see it. Can it make me pretty?

ftxbro• 3 years ago

Once it's socially expected to wear these in certain settings, they will start putting ads in them.

parentheses8• 3 years ago

One of my curiosities is "how will they design the buying experience?"

It's something that goes on your face and over your eyes. You breathe into it and may get all your dead skin and oils all over it.

I don't want to try the floor model. That or I'll come in first thing so I can at least ensure it's aired out for a full night :P

andsoitis2• 3 years ago

"Over 5,000 patents!"

andsoitis2• 3 years ago

Parent interacting with small child while wearing the headset is positively and grossly disgusting.

Acrobatic_Road• 3 years ago

A 3000 dollar novelty trick that I couldn't stand to wear for more than 30 minutes. Big no on this.

wly_cdgr2• 3 years ago

This thing is so boring and funny

zwaps• 3 years ago

But there are virtually no games on Mac.

They recommed on their very website to play "Apple Arcade" games. Seriously?

soft_dough• 3 years ago

Dude, college lectures. Having a notepad running to take notes in, have the recording going, be able to look back at the recording and the notes. That would be sick.

ddingus3• 3 years ago

I think wearing that thing will be a sweaty experience. (Because I sweat) That rules it right out.

Will be interesting to see whether Apple has what it takes to get people on board.

GnarlyWhale• 3 years ago

Locking the away the eye data is a big miss for me. With the hololens we were able to get interesting visual confirmation that what you were looking at was indeed focused prior to selecting objects using an air tap. This also limits enterprise use cases quite substantially. I hope in the future they move to a permission system where users can opt-in to their eye data (literally just the pointer location) being available for specific apps.

dainiusse• 3 years ago

I still don't see myself wearing this thing more than a few minutes on my head. However I am open to where it moves in the future. The realistic (and convenient) way would be to get to simple glasses concept, however technology is behind so far

dchftcs• 3 years ago

It looks like the most compelling differentiator is the AR and pass-through experience. I wouldn't say it's a game changer for VR, but it does sweeten the deal.

But if there is ever a perfect AR experience for desk work, if it does seriously allow me to have only a keyboard and a mouse on my work desk, without compromising my productivity like using a single screen laptop does, it could save me some real estate cost in the long run that would be well worth the price - I'd be able to work better in a smaller room or at the dining table.

tmsh• 3 years ago

Need to imagine more in terms of the possibilities before dismissing it.

Were all of the promises of mobile fully realized? No, but about 60% were (uber, increased mobility, notifications, shopping, news, mail, 80% of use cases previously handled by desktop only, etc.).

Consider the use cases of full 3d immersion at crisp, high resolution (not seen until now). If 60% of them are realized we won't want to go back to 2d. These use cases could include: smart-home monitoring but in a doll-house-sized model of your actual house. Infrastructure (AWS/Azure/GCP) monitoring but in a 3d-architecture diagram that you can inspect at a high level. Imagine how much more infrastructure you can manage (similar to Star-Wars-esque zooming in and out of planets). If even 60% of that is realized 2d will never feel the same. And we will evolve use 3d for any type of semi-complex user interface with the need to abstract and still dive deep into data.

The display gives instantly 2-3x horizontal v. vertical resolution. That's insane. But also it gives let's say 2-3x depth resolution. Obviously you can't see more things if you have windows in front of you stacked (the depth pixels aren't as valuable as the x and y plane). But they're still quite valuable and allow for much better management of what's in front of you. And much better modeling of real-world objects; they're a much richer model of the world -- and all software is a model of the world in some ways.

They "re-charge" the 2-3x horizontal and vertical resolution and in total give something like a 5x resolution. That approaching an order of magnitude more resolution. If anything is limited by not being able to see enough on the screen, you now have approaching an order of magnitude more space. That has the power to revolutionize what we can manage and manipulate in terms of analyzing and building things. If you had a monitor/new paradigm that's 5x resolution that you can actually fully use, could you do parts of your job 2x more quickly? Could do you 3x more work in some areas? Can you build unimaginable things that previously with less bandwidth couldn't really be mustered up (e.g., imagine the first extremely small resolution Macintosh SE). That's the potential power.

nprateem2• 3 years ago

Well I'm going to buy Apple today.

This is the display. Next they'll release a tiny, screenless computer that'll work with it (i think they have one already?). Then you'll be able to dump the heavy laptop for basically just a box that sits in your bag/a drawer and a virtual/small keyboard.

misterflibble• 3 years ago

Does it play Half-Life: Alyx? :-D

benreesman• 3 years ago

If anyone can pull this off it’s Tim Cook: make no mistake, you could live a thousand years and never see a nuts and bolts logistics and go-to-market maestro like him.

With that said, as others have commented, the iPhone and iPad and maybe the watch are just the form factors that make sense. Science fiction from Star Trek to the Expanse has…iPads.

I appreciate that the investment community has been waiting for a new iPhone like the USSR was waiting for a second front, but when Carmack says the batteries don’t work for the graphics?

Yeah, I’m wait and see.

shams93• 3 years ago

So why are they not pursuing holographic projection? https://news.mit.edu/2021/3d-holograms-vr-0310

clarge1120• 3 years ago

Until it works as well with Windows, no soup for me.

HellDunkel2• 3 years ago

They managed to demo an AR device without showing anything 3D.

coolandsmartrr10• 3 years ago

It suggests that most of the rich media (text/image/video) we interact with have yet to find a compelling application to be represented in 3D.

HellDunkel2• 3 years ago

I don‘t think there is even a need to translate/represent most of that (text/image/video) to 3d. VR was not invented for that purpose but rather to „present“ 3d media in 3d space. So the ultima ratio now is a device which is a basically a private monitor? While great for spacially confined waiting situations this falls short with the original dream.

nntwozz• 3 years ago

What are the health implications of watching a screen this close for many hours every day?

hydroreadsstuff• 3 years ago

Why did they make the front out of glas? This weigh a lot more than plastic (or aluminium if transparency is not needed), and is probably wuite expensive, too.

amy_seqmedia• 3 years ago

I for one am actually excited for this. (Price tag is admittedly still high.)

When I look at a piece of technology I want to know what problem is it solving. And for me it will solve the biggest one: I want to work on the couch while next to my partner. My current solution involves bringing an extra monitor down and putting it on the coffee table.

Beyond that, the massive increase in screen real estate will be great for working on highly visual projects like Final Cut or Ableton.

account_created• 3 years ago

I've been thinking about this for 12 hours. This product is going to change everything (sales going to skyrocket). The only problem I see if how Apple projected it in the entire demo.

They are projecting this to be like a mobile phone which will always be the part of day-to-day activity, but in reality this is not.

This is a single person device which will be only used when no one is around and mostly for work. Nothing else. You can't expect someone to have this on his head all the time for all the thing.

jrflowers• 3 years ago

I’ll believe that this is groundbreaking when I hear tons of stories about folks using it to watch porn.

lelag• 3 years ago

You are on your death bed surrounded by your children.

You: Help me take this mask off.

Son: But you’ll die.

You: Nothing can stop that now. Just for once, let me look on you with my own eyes.

GenericDev• 3 years ago

I mean... It's not.

Magic Leap[1] did it years ahead of them, and in my opinion better.

I mean - they're doing pass-through AR which is silly. There's all this work being done to emulate people and faces when they could just build lenses.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills watch everyone get so hyped over this, because there's literally better devices already out on the mark. This is effectively a $3500 Oculus device. Like what the heck? I know it's just because Apple made it, but still. This is pretty weird to watch the reaction.

[1]https://www.magicleap.com

pram• 3 years ago

It's not... what? It's not "Apple's first spatial computer"? Did Apple have one before this? Did you even read the title before you typed out your crybaby "less space than a nomad" post lol

somedude895• 3 years ago

Apple presentations have kind of started to give me the creeps. They're speaking is so soothing and the production so polished, it's just kind of off-putting, like an AI generated video telling you "everything's gonna be alright."

mise_en_place• 3 years ago

I could be wrong but I just don’t see it. As a mantle piece and curiosity it’s interesting, but real world use cases are far and few between, especially at this pricing point.

solarized• 3 years ago

I'm terribly sorry. Even the frickin' lightweight gadgets like Google Glass totally bombed a few years back. Like, why the heck did we have to learn the hard way? - RIP steve jobs. RIP Jony Ive.

skc2• 3 years ago

I like that Apple are being so ambitious. They are literally the ONLY company that could possibly make this work as they make and control the stack from top to bottom.

That said, it's still a very tough sell. I don't think having a physical conversation with someone wearing this thing will ever really catch on, it's still taboo to this day to be looking at your phone when someone is talking to you after all.

But if the price comes down I can see this being very successful with the ever growing population of loners out there.

Dave3of5• 3 years ago

3500 hahahahahhahahaha

hahahahahhahahaha

hahahahhahahaha hahahahahaha hahaha

lawrenceyan• 3 years ago

Zuckerberg has the vision/drive to make VR headsets real with the Quest. Don't underestimate the underdog. Apple doesn't have anyone like that on their side.

usrbinbash2• 3 years ago

Yeah, 3,500$ for a device that offers ... what killer app exactly? That I can see floating screens? That I can use a bluetooth keyboard while working on those screens?

Newsflash: I am looking at screens right now. I am using a keyboard right now. And I can do that for much longer than 2 hours, and don't have to wear a ski mask to do so. And my coworkers can see my eyes. And I can sip coffee and eat my breakfast easily. And the entire setup I am using for this, plus the luxurious chair I am sitting on, plus the aforementioned coffee and breakfast, cost less than that. Actually, I'm pretty sure the desk would still fit into the budget.

And it's a large desk.

nomoveno• 3 years ago

I think what would be revolutionary if this this tool could be used for blind people or for people with little sight. It seems a tool for those that can't move.

tibbydudeza• 3 years ago

Reminds me of a 3D TV - glasses did not work then - it will be a niche product.

Now if Neuralink actually figures out how things work and develop a inducer type of headband technology without requiring invasive surgery then it will be the killer product.

sameehsn• 3 years ago

Can't read and argue with all 2300+ comments but I am pretty sure this is best we can get so far in the market and over the next 5 years - it will be improved significantly. Zuck can be the competitor in some way but Apple has this moat so it's very difficult to win.

sentientmachin3• 3 years ago

yet another bs the world did not need, alongside foldable phones.

hinell• 3 years ago

Pure trash. Sorry for telling you. There are all sorts of jokes around it now. Nobody wanted to weark Google's glasses back then, won't do it now either.

dalbasal• 3 years ago

”No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.” - Slashdot's famous 2001 dismissal of ipod.

Apple has a history of high prices, and a history of making it work by pioneering forms and user interface paradigms . The desktop GUI everyone now knows as "computers." Laptops. Click wheel ipods, and their multi-device paradigm. All-screen smartphones.

There's no guarantee of success, but VR is exactly the kind of problem where Apple has a legacy of releasing breakthrough products.

Going with apple's history... and 2000 skeptical comments... it all comes down to content. I'm also skeptical about using a heads up display for 2D stuff... like watching regular movies or using a virtual, 2D monitor. That said who knows.

There are things that I would like to see. VR films could be amazing. Design software could be amazing. Simulators.

Regardless of what content, all content faces user base issues. Can't make a $100m Star Wars film for a <1m person audience.

The $3500 price tag might restrict the number of users, and make profitable content difficult. OTOH, pushing for the best device possible might make new kinds of content work.

goosedragons3• 3 years ago

Maybe. But the iPod was also not 10x the price of the Nomad. The iPod also had essentially the same feature set. Here the Vision Pro is undoubtedly better in ways like the screen but also seems to be lacking support for VR controllers. Right now VR gaming is pretty much the main reason VR exists. Perhaps Apple will change that but something like Beat Saber is a pretty great demo for VR. And without VR controllers more complicated titles like RE8 VR are not going to offer the same experience as other platforms like PS VR2.

scentoni• 3 years ago

I’d rather reduce the weight on my face by combining the computer with the external battery.

holoduke• 3 years ago

Who is gonna pay 3500 for a pair of 90s ski goggles. I have never seen an ugly device from Apple. This is the first one.

sanitycheck2• 3 years ago

Image search "toilet seat ibook" if you'd like to see another.

callamdelaney• 3 years ago

It's a VR headset, not a spatial computer.

globular-toast• 3 years ago

Is anyone able to watch Apple marketing without cringing or feeling uncomfortable? Part of it is the actors' exaggerated enthusiasm and practising what they've learnt at some bullshit, TED-style, influential speaking bootcamp. But it also makes me feel defensive. Like when a religious nutjob or cult leader tries to tell me the "good news" or something. I get the very same feeling as I have done on the few occasions I've attended church.

RektBoy• 3 years ago

Imagine being so dense to drop $3,500 on yet another Golden Cage from Apple.

nikolahorvat• 3 years ago

As a runner and a tech enthusiast, the prospect of incorporating Apple's new gadget into my running routine piques my attention.

RNAlfons• 3 years ago

How is this thing STILL on top here?

quantamental• 3 years ago

The goggle form is at the crux of everyone's criticisms and uncertainties. Its actual features and value propositions are, for the most part, welcomed.

If this product were instead in the form of contact lenses, I'm confident that this would be viewed much more favorably. The psychological friction of appearing disconnected from the world would suddenly dissipate. Capturing a video of your child blowing out the candles on their birthday cake would seem much less dystopian.

Given Apple's ecosystem, influence, and vast wealth, I would be surprised if their venture into this domain ended in failure.

fennecfoxy2• 3 years ago

Other companies have been developing VR along with gamers and whatnot for a long while now, especially with the explosion that Vive/VRChat enabled, etc.

As per usual Apple hops on the bandwagon late, doesn't contribute much to any new tech/software developments, creates a locked down platform with a stupid special name "spatial" "retina" etc.

The VR desktop already exists. There's an entire ecosystem already, and like other ecosystems certain things don't exist or aren't used at the moment because there's no good reason to, or they lack finesse. People don't use virtual desktops because it's annoying to wear a VR headset and interaction with virtual objects isn't as fine-tuned.

We're not waiting for Apple for this, we're waiting for an extremely lightweight, comfortable pair of glasses for VR and some gloves or other interaction device that makes it natural and easy and then we'll see the virtual desktop come to light.

Apple has solved none of these problems. But omg it has an Apple logo on it.

"a revolutionary spatial computer" absolute BS, nothing revolutionary about it.

"“Today marks the beginning of a new era for computing,” said Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO. “Just as the Mac introduced us to personal computing, and iPhone introduced us to mobile computing, Apple Vision Pro introduces us to spatial computing." BS, VR/AR has been around for a long time now, with many offerings that Apple's doesn't really differ from.

Tbh I give up. Their entire press release if full of the regular Apple crap "innovative" "most advanced" "best materials" bla bla bla, I can't believe people eat this stuff up. I'm not even working in the VR/AR space & it irks me, can't imagine how people who've been hard at work progressing a tech only to have charlatan Apple step in must feel.

fennecfoxy2• 3 years ago

And omg, their demo is a "gallery app"...and for their AR/VR showcase, with their "spatial computing" "visionOS" their galley example is a FLAT, 2D APP!

No virtual object photo album, no virtual folder/box of photos that you can reach into. No holding a virtual polaroid "in your hand" as you move it back and forth to look at it and then place it on a surface where it stays and is remember that it's there for your next session.

No being able to decorate your virtual/AR space by placing an art frame up onto the wall and having it stay there.

No demo of 3d (multiple angles reconstruct 3d scene)/360* footage being played "around" the viewer.

No demo of any proper virtual objects at all, hell nothing in 3d or anything with any real depth beyond 2d planes in the whole thing.

mdtrooper• 3 years ago

Well, Apple is doing the same old time, because there is one before it, https://simulavr.com/ .

wslh6• 3 years ago

I am not seeing the pricing comparison with HoloLens 2 pricing [1]: $ 3,500, $ 4,950, $ 5,199.

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy

kumarvvr2• 3 years ago

I wonder if this can correct vision for cross eyed people.

drexlspivey• 3 years ago

There is a calibration step where it highlights UI elements and you have to look at it so I’m guessing yes

ragazzina3• 3 years ago

Since we are leaving comments for the future, let me leave my prediction.

In a couple of years, a new version will come out, with no screen on front, maybe just called Apple Vision, with no M2 on it, just the spatial chip, and no screen on the front. It will need to be tethered to your M2 Mac or iPad, but with no processor and no screen it will cost much less, it will look like a bargain ($999 or $1500) and it will be a huge success.

This way, the version with the eyes will differentiate Pro users from normal users, and in time it will be seen around less and less: by that time, people will be used to wearing a ski mask in public.

amai• 3 years ago

I need to wear glasses. Can I still use it?

alexhayes• 3 years ago

Looking forward to the R2 chip and then pairing that with the D2.

tap-snap-or-nap• 3 years ago

Two possible use cases for me would be integration with drones, RC vehicles and other upcoming robotics and live sports and entertainment.

anentropic• 3 years ago

Apple Vision Pro can transform any space into a personal movie theater with a screen that feels 100 feet wide ... Users can watch movies and TV shows
Apple Vision Pro is designed to sustain high-performance workloads and is capable of running for two hours on a single charge.

So... you can watch a movie on a virtual 100 ft screen, but only when plugged in else you have to take a break to recharge it partway through

cjbreg• 3 years ago

And with support for Magic Keyboard and Magic Trackpad, I like how they don't even mention the Magic mouse

jrcplus• 3 years ago

I worked at Apple during most of the golden Steve Jobs era. Back in the day, Apple was a fraction of its size, but Apple almost singlehandedly set the agenda for the computer industry. It's fascinating and sad to see Apple now chasing after industry trends, and at the same time being too big and heavy to pivot after the AR/VR/XR winds changed.

I can believe Apple Vision Pro will actually sell due to the novelty factor, and then Apple will get quiet about it. It'll take a few years it to find a niche, just like what happened with Apple Watch. shrug

With iPod and iPhone, Steve clearly loved music and hated the MP3 players and feature phones of the day. With Apple Watch, Jony was into luxury watches and fashion, and Tim is a fitness buff. Does anyone at Apple actually love VR goggles? Why the hell are they doing this, besides flexing their "only Apple can" muscles and, more probably, because the bean counters running Apple predict it will be a $B market?

As a friend put it: Apple has become a parody of itself.

jsdeveloper• 3 years ago

Why weren't the CEO and the presenters were wearing it, if its so easy and natural to switch between immersive and real world? I am not impressed so far. Yeah you have better display, but its not something a trend setter AR/VR headset would have looked like.

2muchcoffeeman3• 3 years ago

So, sounds like Apple nailed it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OFvXuyITwBI

penjelly2• 3 years ago

crazy that people bash VR viability until apple releases a 2.5k machine they haven't even tried yet

agentgumshoe5• 3 years ago

I just love how people start making up reasons why "this time it'll probably work" because Apple is doing it.

They've certainly got a devoted flock.

I'm not anti Apple, they make some great hardware, but it just amazes me how much the brand convinces people all by itself.

agentgumshoe5• 3 years ago

I'm certainly going to laugh at anyone I see wearing one not in front of a gaming rig.

jayd169• 3 years ago

They'll be in front of macs, not gaming rigs.

agentgumshoe5• 3 years ago

Then it will be laughter

finikytou• 3 years ago

I keep reading pricepoint is high. it has a M2 and 4k screens... many people spend that much for those.

foxbyte• 3 years ago

Impressive, but the price point seems steep. Curious to see if its unique features will justify the cost.

pharmakom• 3 years ago

Jesus wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer!

Dowwie• 3 years ago

Take the money you were going to spend on this first-generation technology and use it to pay for your parents to go on a holiday

briandear4• 3 years ago

It’s like people read about Vision Pro, ignore the demonstrations in the Keynote presentation, and then comment and criticize as if this was an Occulus. These comments are peak Hacker News. Practically “why would anyone ever want a touchscreen on a phone.” Or “where’s the stylus?” Or “You can make your own Dropbox in just a few hours.”

The intense criticism of a device nobody has even seen in person is astounding. Some guy that codes CRM software complaining that Apple isn’t innovative enough. Or some other person that makes one of hundreds of podcast apps is lamenting that nobody needs Vision Pro. And those from third world countries are whining about how expensive it is. And the Marxists are going on about rich CEOs. Vision Pro apparently has something for everyone to hate — which is why is clearly a world-changing product.

However very few are actually discussing the world changing possibility that Vision Pro is finally going to unlock. People laughed at the 3D birthday party demo.. but can you imagine having conversations with your grandparents and recording those like you are actually there? Or 3D immersive journalism that lets a single reporter take you into the battle, protest, or history making event? What about an app that can take you inside of 1942 Paris.. you walk along down the streets and see it as if you were in occupied France. Imagine the Pokémon-Go level of immersive real world gaming that is unlocked. Imagine the possibilities for rural and remote medical care delivery. VR required lots of specialized programming — Vision Pro can make everyone a creator. This isn’t the f’ing “Metaverse” — this is real life at a whole different level of possibility.

Many of you folks are talking about the boring, whining, pessimistic view of Vision Pro. Where is the optimism? The imagination? What innovation will this inspire? Possibilities are endless. The original TV cameras were huge and obtrusive, but TV changed the world. Now imagine what Vision Pro is going to do.

I miss the times when the tech world was about the (Peter Thiel definined) Definite Optimism. Now it’s as if we have this European-influenced malaise and everyone is indefinitely pessimistic about everything. Everyone is so cynical and lacking in imagination.

However, thanks HN, these comments are going to be legendary in 10 years.

User23• 3 years ago

The accessible implications this could have for the blind could be profound. Persons with some usable vision could have data only projected in their usable field. Just as with prism glasses, the brain will eventually click and suddenly the partially sighted legally blind can see everything.

steele• 3 years ago

Gaze+attention analytics are going to be the data broker treasure chest.

AltruisticGapHN• 3 years ago

It's really awesome but I think what we really want eventually is to be able to project those displays into the space around is without having to wear any goggles. No doubt we'll get there eventually. Until then headsets can become smaller and lighter and also we may be able to get rid of the cables.

2devnull• 3 years ago

People don’t want to wear these it seems. Some do, some don’t, sort of like masks or regular glasses. Those that don’t will mock those who do.

This will never get widespread adoption but that’s fine. It’s a niche product for a relatively small market. Maybe they can get IT departments to purchase them for execs and certain workers, which would help explain the price tag.

I bet Zuckerberg buys one.

jk_tech• 3 years ago

You cannot deny that this is an immense technical feat.

I think the real draw comes, of course, from the integration with their own eco-system. I imagine 3d videos shot on the iPhone being played back, Ironman like interfaces that can integrate with your physical Apple devices, etc.

I have no doubt that it will eventually become smaller and lighter and there will be a tipping point for price and size where this makes complete sense instead of an iPhone or Mac. And if anyone is in it for the long game, I do believe it's Apple.

blondie9x• 3 years ago

What a lonely isolated future to look forward to. It feels like the scene in Minority Report where he is watching a video of his lost son alone. Wish technology had a way to connect us more to reality instead of further removing us from it.

iancmceachern• 3 years ago

Can you play doom on it?

lnauta• 3 years ago

After watching MKBHD talking about how amazing the eye tracking is, my first thought is:

When will apple start selling ads? They can use the eye tracking as feedback to advertisers, allowing apple to ask more money than non-eye tracked ads because they can prove you actually watched the ad.

Next you can track what people are looking at in netflix shows and adjust the shows to make them even more algorithmicly optimized (I dont even want to go there).

Interesting tech, but I think apple has something in mind we'll only realise a few years down the road (like how the app store turned out).

elicash• 3 years ago

In the keynote, they went out of their way to say that they won't give this data to websites, only click data.

This, of course, is different. To the extent they can prevent it, they will. But I'm not sure what data app developers NEED to receive for this to work, and certainly any of that info could get passed to a developer.

Anyway, Apple has an interest in locking that down as much as possible and expressed a desire to do so. We'll see what happens.

frankish• 3 years ago

I feel like there's a missed opportunity to continue with the iDevice trend...

- Apple Eye

- Apple iVision

- Apple iGlass

But this is so awesome to finally have a company like Apple bring products like this to market. Too bad for the Metaverse.

synaesthesisx2• 3 years ago

Again, for those complaining about price - the current (and far less capable) Microsoft HoloLens is also $3500. I've personally used and interacted with the HoloLens and was thoroughly impressed, however the leaps in optics & tracking Apple has pulled off make the Vision Pro quite compelling.

Borrible• 3 years ago

They should raise the price, it's a Veblen good.

Apple Vision Pro: Apple’s first spatial computer

Related Stories