What we need is a cheap, “dumb” headset which simply mirrors screens from the computer (including virtual ones), with low latency and in crisp resolution. No standalone apps, no gesture controls, etc. Just plug it into your computer and start streaming the screen contents in VR space. Right now the only contender in this niche is the upcoming Visor from Immersed [0], which is a proprietary, value extraction, user-hostile nightmare, with compulsory online activation + monthly subscription + jailed OS and probably overpriced. But at least they’re proving that the form factor is already possible.
You need to pair the headset screens with something better than a keyboard. I want to lay in bed with my glasses on, all my screens open, let my brain party and let my body rot like in wall-e.
Meta is working on a wristband that let's you do gestures without a camera seeing your hands. But typing really needs to be tactile I think.
Someone needs to put straps on one of those broken-in-half keyboards so I can sit in a sensory deprivation tank with just Vim and Firefox. And cereal and a piss jug. My idea of heaven.
There are a bunch of options right now, Xreal and Rokid are the two most common.
They currently only do effective 1080p, but I suspect 4k is around the corner. The devices are rather unremarkable in of themselves. They're essentially just a Sony micro-screen with lens systems.
I would hardly call the Xreals and Rokids as having "crisp resolution".
I could live with having to move my eyes and not my head to see the corners but everything is blurry, especially around the edges, getting much worse on the corners. Even the centre is not so crisp!
These glasses are fine for entertainment, watching videos, playing games. Working on them for a short time in the lack of something better is ok. I would never want to use them for hours of work though.
Unfortunately these two don’t track head movement. An essential feature is being able to position (and size) an arbitrary number of virtual screens in 3D space around you. Otherwise it’s pointless, just a normal screen in front of your eyes.
I would say that mine is just plain better for solo movie watching than any display I've ever had. If the hardware was less cumbersome, I'd give serious thought to never buying a bigger TV again and maybe actively downsizing the one I have.
On a similar note, it's almost but not quite good enough to replace the displays of my working/gaming desk setup, and a version 2 or 3 with a slightly denser display - if it was actually comfortable enough to wear sitting up for more than an hour or two - would be a serious contender to replace several high-end monitors plus my audio setup.
To sum it all up, I think the 'killer app' here is the one that's so simple it seems kind of self-referential - having a display on your face instead of in the world. The UX and the display quality are already 75-100% of the way to filling that role. The basic problem is that the hardware is just too heavy and uncomfortable, so the value prop vanishes because you can't actually use it comfortably for 8-16 hours a day.
With how much that headset costs I will be buying a home theater that will rip the paint off the walls every time a bass hits, to make my solo movie experience "plain better".
> To sum it all up, I think the 'killer app' here is the one that's so simple it seems kind of self-referential - having a display on your face instead of in the world.
The problem is that, at the end of the day, that's just a feature, not a benefit.
It reminds my of the ongoing push for speech interfaces. Supposedly they are "more natural" but in reality, even when you have a screen, the keyboard is still significantly better (even if it's virtual like on a phone)
Great way of putting it. It’s the shiny new iThing that nobody asked for. Feels more like a poor excuse to fill their quota of releasing something as significant as the iPhone. Especially considering everything else is just a rehash of iPhone technology.
Not really. Even on Apple Vision Pro, the text quality is lower than native pixels and less comfortable to read.
In addition, it turns out that five screens isn’t as useful when there’s only one you, who can do only one thing at a time. It saves a few clicks for most, not much more; and certainly not enough convenience to wear a brick on your head.
If people found multiple screens so useful that it’s worth lugging an extra bag around, external 13” monitors should be bestsellers.
Is it really bringing 5 screens? Most of the apps I've seen tend to be gimicky apps that I wouldn't commit to a single screen. Some of which I wouldn't even have maximized to access via Cmd+Tab. Even if they're all useful, most users typically never use beyond 2-3 screens, and you typically don't look at more than 2 via AR anyways. Instead of virtual desktops, you put apps in spaces where you have to redirect your attention.
I think the moment when vr/ar becomes really popular amongst regular people is when the size of the device is the same as a pair of sunglasses. Maybe just slightly more bulky. But till that time its not becoming a successful story. People feel akward wearing the thing. Its uncomfortable and a bit of a gimmick without a real purpose. When the thing could replace my raybands. It looks awesome and contains software that enhances the real world I see with information, it might become something.
I know a Google exec that was put on the Google Glass project early on, when the scope was for it to be a full AR/VR device (not like the very scaled-back thing Google Glass rolled-out as). Even he knew many years ago that it would be impossible within the foreseeable future with the state of available tech or even near future available tech to fit that experience into the size of a pair of sunglasses. That person is now involved with Google's quantum computing efforts which seems like a more solvable problem than fitting a full AR/VR experience into a something close to a standard size pair of sunglasses.
I've got a Quest headset and the thing causes a lot of pressure on my sinuses, making it unwearable for more than about 15 minutes at a time. There are no AR/VR headsets that I'd be willing to strap on to my face for more than about 10 or 15 minutes.
For the Quest, take a look at BOBOVR headstraps (https://www.bobovr.com). They replace the "clamp to your face" style that companies keep idiotically insisting on with a much more comfortable welding mask/hard hat style arrangement where the weight sits around the crown of your head.
There's an anime from 2007 called "Denno Coil" that focuses on AR compute with devices that look like normal glasses and integrated with everyday life. This is the piece of culture I'd compare against, and use as a barometer to compare where this type of interface can reach a critical mass.
That's interesting, Dennou Coil is actually the first thing I thought of (and rewatched) when the Apple Vision Pro was announced. I thought that if it lived up to the hype and I wanted to build something for it, then it would be good to have some sci-fi use cases fresh in my mind.
It seems like there are several high technological barriers to surmount though. I don't expect to see that kind of AR for decades.
These are a start.. taking the opposite approach of the Apple device and limiting functionality to what will actually fit in a reasonable form factor right now.
Though to avoid any confusion for other readers, these aren't "AR" at all. They're a voice assistant and camera that happens to be attached to the same body part that AR goggles would be.
No visual display included, because that would require a clunkier form factor still.
Considering how long Apple supports its other products, I'd take a chance on Vision Pro before a Google product. My nine-year-old iPhone 6S got a software update a couple of weeks ago.
Still, before I'd drop that kind of money on a device, I'd like to see an Apple Graveyard website, like the Google Graveyard site, to reassure myself.
I'm less worried about them supporting it with drivers/security, and more with them supporting it with new software. It will take compelling experiences for adoption to take off, and if they don't keep adding experiences....
Disappointed with the article. I was expecting a bit more depth since the title claimed "after 6 months". Especially because the article claims -
The Apple Vision Pro debuted six months ago. I was hesitant to provide any detailed thoughts on the device and its implications until I (and others) had a few months to use it. Here are my eight takeaways on the Apple Vision Pro after six months.
Takeaway #1: Apple Did Not (and Does Not) Want to Manage Expectations for the Vision Pro
-- Talks about keynote and marketing quotes from the day of the launch
-- Revolutionary company believes their product is revolutionary.
Takeaway #2: The Vision Pro Probably Cost Tens of Billions to Develop
-- Company spent truckload of money making a new product
Takeaway #3: The Vision Pro Is Not Really From The Future
-- Talks about what Zuckerberg thinks. This isnt really a "takeaway", nor a "personal experience"
Takeaway #4: EyeSight is An Expensive Feature —and Not Worth It
-- First true experience, and interesting to read
Takeaway #5: The Vision Pro is, Today, Mostly a VR device (Even Though Apple Claims Otherwise)
-- Good. VR headset is being used as a VR headset.
Takeaway #6: The Benefits of Using a Vision Pro Fall Significantly Short of its Drawbacks
-- The product isnt as revolutionary as we thought folks.
Takeaway #7: Developer Adoption Remains a Problem
-- Not really a personal experience, but an observation.
Takeaway #8: Apple has Promptly Reshaped Terminology, Customer Perceptions, and Competitor Plans
-- Has it though?
So many words to say Vision Pro is a disappointing mess. Of the 8 takeaways, only 2 takeaways were made based on experience. Others were either fluff, or repeating news articles or mere observations.
The article's claim that Apple "priced the device quite reasonably, given the devices it could replace" is dubious at best. Yes, if you buy a high end TV, surround sound system, a computer with multiple displays, and so on, you'd spend more than the Vision Pro costs, but the difference is that all of those devices are individually much better at doing what they do than the Vision Pro is. In fact, one of the devices mentioned (a computer with multiple high-definition displays) is simply not possible to replicate at all on the Vision Pro, as you're limited to one Mac display. Similarly, there's no way that the spatial audio tech built into the headset, as impressive as it is, would actually rival a true multi-speaker home theater setup.
So you're spending $3500, a serious chunk of change to most people, to get a somewhat passable facsimile of the devices the headset replaces. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Not it's biggest problem and before you think it's lack of killer app I would say it's form factor. Get that right and people wearing it more often and naturally the applications will come. Yea Meta onto this now with Rayban tie-up
The difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is about a billion dollars. The difference between Meta 'smart' sunglasses and an AR headset is an AR headset. How are they 'onto' anything by selling sunglasses with a sneaky phone camera strapped to them? People wear them like sunglasses, because they are?
Curious what the problem what the form factor is? I wear it several hours a day every day and have had no complaints.
(I will say I use the double-loop strap instead of the adjustable head-band you see in the ads all the time. The top loop seems to take enough weight off of your cheeks where it's comfortable enough for all-day wear)
I'd love to try one, but their price in my country (Australia) is absolutely bonkers. For the same money I could literally buy a perfectly usable secondhand car.
If it was at most, the same cost as a Macbook Pro or ideally a Macbook Air I might think about getting one.
Readit News
[0] https://www.visor.com/
Meta is working on a wristband that let's you do gestures without a camera seeing your hands. But typing really needs to be tactile I think.
Someone needs to put straps on one of those broken-in-half keyboards so I can sit in a sensory deprivation tank with just Vim and Firefox. And cereal and a piss jug. My idea of heaven.
They currently only do effective 1080p, but I suspect 4k is around the corner. The devices are rather unremarkable in of themselves. They're essentially just a Sony micro-screen with lens systems.
https://www.sony-semicon.com/en/products/microdisplay/oled.h...
I could live with having to move my eyes and not my head to see the corners but everything is blurry, especially around the edges, getting much worse on the corners. Even the centre is not so crisp!
These glasses are fine for entertainment, watching videos, playing games. Working on them for a short time in the lack of something better is ok. I would never want to use them for hours of work though.
- Awesome technology.
- Strong “wow” moment.
- Doesn’t do anything particularly better than the devices you already have.
It’s technology in search of a problem. There are legitimate problems it solves, but they are always elusively niche.
On a similar note, it's almost but not quite good enough to replace the displays of my working/gaming desk setup, and a version 2 or 3 with a slightly denser display - if it was actually comfortable enough to wear sitting up for more than an hour or two - would be a serious contender to replace several high-end monitors plus my audio setup.
To sum it all up, I think the 'killer app' here is the one that's so simple it seems kind of self-referential - having a display on your face instead of in the world. The UX and the display quality are already 75-100% of the way to filling that role. The basic problem is that the hardware is just too heavy and uncomfortable, so the value prop vanishes because you can't actually use it comfortably for 8-16 hours a day.
The problem is that, at the end of the day, that's just a feature, not a benefit.
It reminds my of the ongoing push for speech interfaces. Supposedly they are "more natural" but in reality, even when you have a screen, the keyboard is still significantly better (even if it's virtual like on a phone)
Is it the same rhythm & movement games like first-gen VR (slicing fruits, hitting beats, etc.) or is there something new and better these days?
Great way of putting it. It’s the shiny new iThing that nobody asked for. Feels more like a poor excuse to fill their quota of releasing something as significant as the iPhone. Especially considering everything else is just a rehash of iPhone technology.
In addition, it turns out that five screens isn’t as useful when there’s only one you, who can do only one thing at a time. It saves a few clicks for most, not much more; and certainly not enough convenience to wear a brick on your head.
If people found multiple screens so useful that it’s worth lugging an extra bag around, external 13” monitors should be bestsellers.
I've got a Quest headset and the thing causes a lot of pressure on my sinuses, making it unwearable for more than about 15 minutes at a time. There are no AR/VR headsets that I'd be willing to strap on to my face for more than about 10 or 15 minutes.
It seems like there are several high technological barriers to surmount though. I don't expect to see that kind of AR for decades.
These are a start.. taking the opposite approach of the Apple device and limiting functionality to what will actually fit in a reasonable form factor right now.
No visual display included, because that would require a clunkier form factor still.
Today's products, even AVP, are way, WAY too big and inconvenient in 50 different little ways to be seriously used for anything.
Deleted Comment
It's a cool device, but does Apple have the balls to stick with it, and built it into the platform they believe it can be?
My magic 8-ball says: Doubtful
Which Apple device has Apple abandoned recently?
Considering how long Apple supports its other products, I'd take a chance on Vision Pro before a Google product. My nine-year-old iPhone 6S got a software update a couple of weeks ago.
Still, before I'd drop that kind of money on a device, I'd like to see an Apple Graveyard website, like the Google Graveyard site, to reassure myself.
It isn't Apple v Google, it's Apple v the ecosystem it needs other people to build for this to take off.
The iPhone took off because the web browser + Youtube app on it had all the content anybody needed at the time.
The Apple Vision Pro debuted six months ago. I was hesitant to provide any detailed thoughts on the device and its implications until I (and others) had a few months to use it. Here are my eight takeaways on the Apple Vision Pro after six months.
Takeaway #1: Apple Did Not (and Does Not) Want to Manage Expectations for the Vision Pro
-- Talks about keynote and marketing quotes from the day of the launch
-- Revolutionary company believes their product is revolutionary.
Takeaway #2: The Vision Pro Probably Cost Tens of Billions to Develop
-- Company spent truckload of money making a new product
Takeaway #3: The Vision Pro Is Not Really From The Future
-- Talks about what Zuckerberg thinks. This isnt really a "takeaway", nor a "personal experience"
Takeaway #4: EyeSight is An Expensive Feature —and Not Worth It
-- First true experience, and interesting to read
Takeaway #5: The Vision Pro is, Today, Mostly a VR device (Even Though Apple Claims Otherwise)
-- Good. VR headset is being used as a VR headset.
Takeaway #6: The Benefits of Using a Vision Pro Fall Significantly Short of its Drawbacks
-- The product isnt as revolutionary as we thought folks.
Takeaway #7: Developer Adoption Remains a Problem
-- Not really a personal experience, but an observation.
Takeaway #8: Apple has Promptly Reshaped Terminology, Customer Perceptions, and Competitor Plans
-- Has it though?
So many words to say Vision Pro is a disappointing mess. Of the 8 takeaways, only 2 takeaways were made based on experience. Others were either fluff, or repeating news articles or mere observations.
So you're spending $3500, a serious chunk of change to most people, to get a somewhat passable facsimile of the devices the headset replaces. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.
(I will say I use the double-loop strap instead of the adjustable head-band you see in the ads all the time. The top loop seems to take enough weight off of your cheeks where it's comfortable enough for all-day wear)
If it was at most, the same cost as a Macbook Pro or ideally a Macbook Air I might think about getting one.