The display tech looks really cool. The eye pass through thing on the front of the device looks goofy as hell, it looks okay but viewed from an angle it looked weird because it didn't match up exactly with the face beneath.
Overall though, I think if it's anywhere near as good as those CG demos showed it to be, it could be the start of something new. But it reminds me of when Microsoft showed off HoloLens, the demonstrations of that made it look amazing, but supposedly the real device wasn't as impressive. The fact that Vision Pro is actually a full VR headset with cameras for pass through should make the whole AR experience 1000x better. I'm interested in what the battery life will be like too. It needs at least 4-6 hours to be usable for work or leisure. Anything less than that and there's no point.
Price wise, it's actually way cheaper than I thought. I fully expected this to be an Apple enthusiast device targeting at least $4999. But $3499 is cheap enough that someone could reasonably save to afford it and those with good disposable income could buy them. It's still expensive, don't get me wrong. But that's the price of a high end TV or a high end desktop.
Those googles will be too awkward and uncomfortable to wear for more than two hours at a time anyway. This is a tool to focus on very specific tasks for a limited period, and then put it away. Developers will come up with some creative uses for data visualization, 3D product design, architecture, etc.
This is cool and all but the like "Disney+ support will be available from the start and Apple arcade" made me less excited. Like oooo more locked in crap that will only have the same massive companies serving me things. I mean, I don't expect much different from a large company but still this could be such a cool tech but I'm so tired of just seeing the same names everywhere.
It feels similar to ChatGPT plugins. Access to them and developing them was limited except it was released with Expedia and other large companies that just wanted a way to rope you into paying for their services.
Also can't help but gag a little at that price tag. Woo $3500 to watch Disney+ in the woods
It's not lock-in; it's just a lack of standardization because there's literally nobody else who will sell you something with any device APIs that have anything to do with the ones this device supports.
One big tech company going first in a space, and getting the big third-party media companies to pay attention, is exactly how you get other big tech companies interested in developing devices that support similar APIs (in order to steal market-share from that first company.) Which leads to those media companies growing out tools and standards that export to these systems, so that they don't have to do everything twice; which in turn leads to these systems then being targetable by smaller teams.
(They already mentioned that you can run Unity apps on the thing. Presumably there'll be more of that.)
Also, mentioning that this thing can play "games from Apple Arcade" and nothing else, is pretty much just down to pre-launch secrecy. Apple Arcade games are simply the games Apple already have access to; so Apple can make those games work on their new devices, without telling the games' creators they're doing that. They couldn't really tip their hand and show this thing to outside game studios — it'd have leaked all over the place. Real game development for the platform begins ~now; in a year, there'll probably be tons more third-party games on the "Apple Vision App Store" [bleugh] than there ever were on the macOS App Store.
Sure but something like Disney+ feels like the wrong direction. "Ah good more 2d content to watch in a fake theater while I'm sitting in front of my TV" I guess just isn't my jam when it comes to VR/AR. I want experiences and interesting uses not just another way to watch TV.
> Apple CEO Bob Iger came out to demonstrate a number of customized Vision Pro experiences, from Disney+ support to ESPN sports broadcasts with a wide array of stats filling your room to a virtual Mickey Mouse that walks around your space.
I know that these articles are written quickly, but for an article about Apple's announcement it's kind of embarassing for this error to slip through.
This is part of the problem with human text generation. Humans frequently hallucinate things because they're mostly just trying to parrot things they see without really understanding.
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.
You're forgetting that any number of people can watch one TV. My coworker can also walk in and look at my monitors. For this to replace either, everyone is going to need one. For a family of 4, that will be $14,000 - far more than almost anyone is spending on displays for their home. For work, the situation gets even worse.
Seems slightly more refined and seamless compared to other headsets.
Not sure exactly what I think to be honest... It's pricey, but looks good in theory.
I'll be interested if text really is as sharp as they claim it to be and if the latency is noticeably better than the Quest.
Also how they adjust for different IPD is extremely important, but I'm not sure they mentioned that at all? The Quest 2 has 3 three fixed IPD positions you can select from, but none of them are quite perfect for me and that makes the depth experience tiring and a little blurry.
For anyone who's used Quest 2 the idea that you would use it has a productivity device is absurd because although you can create virtual work spaces the resolution isn't even close to a high-res monitor and the whole experience gets tiring to the eye after a while. If Apple has solved this then it's 100% worth the price imo, but I think this is something I'd need to try before I buy because I'd personally not be spending this amount of money without knowing it's a significant step up from what Meta is offering for a much much cheaper price point with the Quest 3.
There's nothing that revolutionary here in my opinion. It just looks like a more refined Quest 3. Which isn't to say it's bad. I mean there's a reason I'm writing this on a Macbook.
> There's nothing that revolutionary here in my opinion. It just looks like a more refined Quest 3
Pretty much the same story as the iphone and apple watch, both of which have been massive hits. If they can actually execute on a standalone headset good enough to replace physical displays without significant compromise, I think people will be lining up to pay $3500 for it. My only reservation would be the lack of a "real" operating system.
I wanted both when they were announced. This looks looks like a thousand dollar aluminum monitor stand to me…basically something for Apple elitists with more money than good sense to buy to show off.
Watching the announcement video, Apple is claiming that the rendering is sharp enough to display text sharply, implying that Vision Pro will be useful for productivity applications (using Excel or chat in VR without any monitors).
Here's to hoping that they'll allow us to replace our monitors with unlimited arbitrarily sized VR displays.
EDIT: Whoa, at a price of $3500, I guess they've got the price room to embed all kinds of crazy optics; that's a pretty eye-watering price.
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
Readit News
Overall though, I think if it's anywhere near as good as those CG demos showed it to be, it could be the start of something new. But it reminds me of when Microsoft showed off HoloLens, the demonstrations of that made it look amazing, but supposedly the real device wasn't as impressive. The fact that Vision Pro is actually a full VR headset with cameras for pass through should make the whole AR experience 1000x better. I'm interested in what the battery life will be like too. It needs at least 4-6 hours to be usable for work or leisure. Anything less than that and there's no point.
Price wise, it's actually way cheaper than I thought. I fully expected this to be an Apple enthusiast device targeting at least $4999. But $3499 is cheap enough that someone could reasonably save to afford it and those with good disposable income could buy them. It's still expensive, don't get me wrong. But that's the price of a high end TV or a high end desktop.
It feels similar to ChatGPT plugins. Access to them and developing them was limited except it was released with Expedia and other large companies that just wanted a way to rope you into paying for their services.
Also can't help but gag a little at that price tag. Woo $3500 to watch Disney+ in the woods
One big tech company going first in a space, and getting the big third-party media companies to pay attention, is exactly how you get other big tech companies interested in developing devices that support similar APIs (in order to steal market-share from that first company.) Which leads to those media companies growing out tools and standards that export to these systems, so that they don't have to do everything twice; which in turn leads to these systems then being targetable by smaller teams.
(They already mentioned that you can run Unity apps on the thing. Presumably there'll be more of that.)
Also, mentioning that this thing can play "games from Apple Arcade" and nothing else, is pretty much just down to pre-launch secrecy. Apple Arcade games are simply the games Apple already have access to; so Apple can make those games work on their new devices, without telling the games' creators they're doing that. They couldn't really tip their hand and show this thing to outside game studios — it'd have leaked all over the place. Real game development for the platform begins ~now; in a year, there'll probably be tons more third-party games on the "Apple Vision App Store" [bleugh] than there ever were on the macOS App Store.
How can someone supporting a platform make you less excited?
Don't we need applications to make the head set have any value?
I know that these articles are written quickly, but for an article about Apple's announcement it's kind of embarassing for this error to slip through.
I don't know, to me that seems like a selling point to not have people peer over your shoulder.
Also if I'm out in public maybe privacy for working is helpful, too.
For a family TV experience it's not great, but anything business a oriented 99% of the time privacy is worth more than sharing.
Also, this explains why companies are doing so many layoffs. They need the money to buy Apple headsets for all their remaining employees.
Not without a display input port.
Because you can glance down at it without strapping it to your face?
Not sure exactly what I think to be honest... It's pricey, but looks good in theory.
I'll be interested if text really is as sharp as they claim it to be and if the latency is noticeably better than the Quest.
Also how they adjust for different IPD is extremely important, but I'm not sure they mentioned that at all? The Quest 2 has 3 three fixed IPD positions you can select from, but none of them are quite perfect for me and that makes the depth experience tiring and a little blurry.
For anyone who's used Quest 2 the idea that you would use it has a productivity device is absurd because although you can create virtual work spaces the resolution isn't even close to a high-res monitor and the whole experience gets tiring to the eye after a while. If Apple has solved this then it's 100% worth the price imo, but I think this is something I'd need to try before I buy because I'd personally not be spending this amount of money without knowing it's a significant step up from what Meta is offering for a much much cheaper price point with the Quest 3.
There's nothing that revolutionary here in my opinion. It just looks like a more refined Quest 3. Which isn't to say it's bad. I mean there's a reason I'm writing this on a Macbook.
Pretty much the same story as the iphone and apple watch, both of which have been massive hits. If they can actually execute on a standalone headset good enough to replace physical displays without significant compromise, I think people will be lining up to pay $3500 for it. My only reservation would be the lack of a "real" operating system.
I wanted both when they were announced. This looks looks like a thousand dollar aluminum monitor stand to me…basically something for Apple elitists with more money than good sense to buy to show off.
Here's to hoping that they'll allow us to replace our monitors with unlimited arbitrarily sized VR displays.
EDIT: Whoa, at a price of $3500, I guess they've got the price room to embed all kinds of crazy optics; that's a pretty eye-watering price.
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