$3500 to... look at a floating web browser? Surely they can come up with something. Give me UV/IR vision, let me see the pipes under the ground, show me how to assemble the furniture I'm looking at, give me a template to paint by numbers of a real canvas -- why is this basic concept of "a $3500 novelty device should enable me to do something _new_" so hard for a 3 trillion dollar company to grasp?
Are they just hoping someone comes up with all the above in the next 6 months? If they did, would anyone care? $3500 is relatively a lot of money if you're already giving them iPhone and Macbook money. The supermajority of the world doesn't make more then 60k a year, pre-tax. Actually, the supermajority makes vastly less than that.
I guess I'll wait and watch and see if they prove me wrong, but I suspect no matter how good it is, it'll flop.
The first iPhone was pretty crappy. No apps. 2G only. Poor battery life. Limited global distribution - not even Canada could get it. But it captivated people who didn’t own it yet, and it proved out some essential ideas like multitouch. And when the iPhone 3G came out, improving on some of the original device’s shortcomings, it was wildly popular. The rest is history.
There is no doubt that AR will eventually get good enough that the devices are paper thin, weigh nothing, and have no external battery (of course). Everyone wants _that_ device, but you have to start somewhere. Apple can afford to be patient in this space and their considerable moat of intellectual property will allow them to carve out the high end of the AR market and then work down as they did with iPhone.
It would not surprise me if they are earning 90% of the gross margins in the AR device space within three years.
Because no one will really do the stuff you suggest. All the things you describe just take too much effort to make
Assembling furniture
- 1d written description : 1 person half a day
- 2d illustration : ~2 people and a 3 days
- 3d animation : ~3 people and 2 weeks
- 3d interactive thing : a small team and a month.. At least ?
Is it really going to yield a ton more sales?
You can see it in other media. Zillions of creative people write books, a lot fewer shoot movies, and fewer still make interactive narrative video games
All the 3D experiences you end up having are quite simplistic bc no one wants to invest in it. Could you make an Avatar level narrative in VR? It'd be super tricky, but maybe with enough money you could. (arguably there aren't enough people at the moment who know how to make compelling 3d interactive experiences). Will it be worth the extra cost ? Unlikely. It's hard to imagine it being more than marginally better at best
Maybe AI will somehow help speed up the process substantially (and lower the costs), but I'm a bit skeptical it'll help enough
The only thing I can think of where VR would make a huge difference is maybe horror. I'm not into horror, but I could see VR being a huge step up in terms of spookyness
Counterpoint, there's always been a desire to have a virtual environment as first shown in 80's sci-fi films like Hackers, Johnny Mnemonic, etc; immerse yourself in a system, have it become like a natural extension of yourself.
There was someone on here some time ago who showed and talked about his setup, he had been doing his job as a software developer reclined in VR for years at that point.
Here's the thing though: smartphones didn't have "a" killer app per sè I don't think, but they became part of everyone's daily lives in a really short timeframe. PCs and laptops didn't have "a" killer app, but pretty much everyone here has it as their day job.
I don't think it's about whether it has a killer app or not, I think it's whether it can become normalized and mainstream, and be listed alongside the TV, PC, smartphone, the car, etc; something everyone will have in one way or another.
That said, I'm cynical myself; modern-day VR and AR has been tried for a decade now or thereabouts; Google wasted billions on Google Glass, Facebook bet their whole company on the metaverse / AR / VR and has had to backtrack, Magic Leap was a mystery company that raised billions and failed to deliver, Oculus and Vive have their place now as a somewhat niche and pricey gaming implement - popular as arcade / events (I went to one for a birthday party this weekend) and middle class households that have the money and space for it.
So there's a market, mostly in gaming, but it's not become as mainstream yet as e.g. the smartphone. I don't personally believe it will, but if anyone can take an existing concept, iterate on it and make it mainstream, it's Apple.
This was a reported rumour prior to the reveal yesterday: no significant use case. This is a significant departure from Apple's usual MO: find a USP and NAIL the implementation. They're using a scattergun approach here and it's risky. They better be sending these headsets free of charge to thousands of studios in the hopes that some of them develop THE killer app, because this is the only way I see this succeeding. Especially because this is a first gen product from Apple with a maximum of two hours of battery life, a wire hanging off the headset, and no controllers. I'd be much more confident about the future of this device if it weren't $3,500 + tax. At this price I don't understand who will be buying it.
This is what's concerning. A team that just spent years creating revolutionary hardware that is leaps and bounds ahead of the competition, who by far have the most context to come up with a killer app, could not come up with one. The best they could offer is reading articles in safari an enhancing the viewing experience of movies/shows/live sports.
They should be bursting at the seams with out of this world ideas that this amazing hardware could support. And yet, nothing.
Looking for a killer app you are looking at this to be a traditional VR or even AR device, that is not what this is.
This is about having a screen anywhere, multiple screens and turning anything into a screen and any environment into one, hence the name Vision Pro, that is how Apple are trying to sell it.
If you watched the keynote I think that was clear, everyone else seems to missing the point and comparing this to traditional headsets.
The fact when they showed gaming, it wasn't a VR or AR game, it was a traditional game on an AR screen says it all.
To me, it wasn't that I could use Safari that was killer app, but the fact I can use it as a monitor that impresses me. I don't think most VR setups allow you to read text as easily as on a monitor and that is what Apple is claiming. (First impressions seem to support). The second part is not requiring a controller. If I can control this with my eyes, hand and voice. That means I can use a keyboard with it. I assume they'll have some virtual version too. With those two things, a whole lot more use cases open up around it. I don't plan on getting one right away or anything, but an actual usable computer is far more interesting than something that plays games, moves some models around in space and does video conferencing with avatars.
It could have had a killer app: games. Most VR headsets suck in one way or another, Apple could make one that's actually nice to use.
Sadly, for some bizarre reason Apple still don't understand games. They even have pretty good GPUs now and they're still not making an Apple TV Pro to compete with the PS5.
Even just the Vision could've been announced along with a couple exclusives, but instead they have an offhand mention of Arcade.
> I don't understand why there is no AR or VR killer app for this thing.
Because if you go outside wearing this you're going to get instantly mugged. If they were to release something like Pokemon Go before the price comes down, that would likely just result in a bunch of kids getting murdered on the subway or whatever. Much better to drive down the costs by first selling it to people who are excited to use it for coding or whatever.
Because it requires greater integration. For VR the whole environment has to participate. At least if we’re talking about VR glasses that you can wear outside, every store, road, building block and what not should provide information. Who would create all that info, and for what purpose. Adoption is non-existent. There is no platform to submit your data. All we have is the interface. If you’re to wear them only inside then all you can do is the things you already do with a slightly modified UI. Which defies the purpose. I don’t want a virtual keyboard because I get no feedback from it. Virtual screens might be good if I’m in a hotel room, but then again I’ll have my laptop which has better interface. Text reading is an interesting use case but what happens with eye strain if you look at those screens for prolonged time periods. And by the way, what happens if you're wearing eyeglasses? Will they fit?
Perhaps they can find application is e-commerce. Sites could start building virtual stores and you get a feeling that you’re browsing wardrobes. I don’t know if that’s a thing but it kind of makes sense as a use case.
You can draw users with a killer app but you can also draw developers with a killer user base. I believe they're leaning on iPhone/iPad app compatibility and Mac screen display to launch it as a peripheral first with existing third party apps, then establish it as a place your customers are waiting for you.
Early adopters first, of course. Maybe it really is too early? Depends on the response.
When they seriously started designing this thing 2+ years ago they probably assumed Facebook's metaverse play would be a smashing success and get VR (and apps like its horizon metaverse) into the mainstream.
Two large screens in a hotel room - so sold (plus on a plane, if that's not socially annoying)
Being able to stand side by side with people to work on something rather than broadcast my face into their face. It's just... so much more natural. All of the social cues like concentration, wandering away to think, nodding your head along with a group conversation you stumble upon and are now actively engaged in. If I can bring my data/apps in but keep them private - sold
Interacting digitally with the environment - this is a new one but I think it's going to be huge. Anything involving maps or layouts, you can plan it prior, and then overlay it on the day when you get on site. AR on a phone is meh because you have to hold it up, but when it's just a gesture I think it's going to open up whole new use cases that were just out of reach (pun intended)
Apple is IMO attempting to brute-force create a market here. Facebook/Meta couldn't do the job - for one, Zuck has no idea what he's doing other than chasing buzzwords, for other, they have destroyed a lot of user trust over the past years. And I'm not sure if the stock could take more billions sunk.
Apple in contrast? They deliver a whole different game in terms of quality and capability, and now others will take up developing stuff for the platform, just like it happened with every new class of device Apple pushed out. And financially, Apple doesn't have to take care of anything, they have more cash on hand than the GDP of entire countries (165 billion $ [1], more than Kuwait, Ukraine or Venezuela [2]).
And even if there don't appear any VR apps - movie addicts will love it.
There's no killer app specific to this headset because this is just a supercomplicated me-too product, and also because there is no point in half baking a potential killer.
But it's okay, I think. It has the browser, Unity integration, okay visual passthrough, etc. Ticks all boxes.
Does it need one at launch? The Apple Watch wasn't specifically a health-tracker at launch, but that's what they've really leaned into now. When they launched the iPhone, one of the most vaunted features was "Visual Voicemail", which I'm not even sure still exists?
It's a platform. It'll get cheaper, it'll get better, and developers and the market will do the rest. There's a lot of time between now and "early next year" for 3rd party devs to come up with a lot of apps and ideas.
As someone else said, this is the first release of something that'll end up the size and weight as a pair of sunglasses; at that point, I think it will be as ubiquitous as iPhones are.
The killer app is replacing my giant monitor with this device.
When I travel this is a game changer for me. Right now I lug a small second screen so I can work. I will happily drop $5k to fix this problem and just travel with this plus a small laptop.
None of the Apple apps they showed for the VisionPro had any substantial photogrammetry mapping. They didn’t paste virtual TVs to the walls, or place furniture into an empty room. All the Apple apps were contained to virtual floating screens, even the keyboard (instead of placing in on a surface).
They did show a few third party apps interacting with real world objects (the train moving on a table) but I wonder what amount of that was concept and what was real.
Connecting the virtual objects to those in the real world I feel is a killer feature that will open up a huge set of opportunities. If this doesn’t have that yet, it’s still more VR than AR in my book.
I worked for a digital creative agency that partnered with a few AR/VR companies including the big ones creating demos and POCs for conferences or events. We spent so much time brainstorming and testing with some really bright people and never really came up with more than diverting bits of motion art. We made one pretty decent mini game. Nothing substantive.
And think about the mainstream industry. It's been years and the peak of AR is still Pokemon Go and VR is Beat Saber. Apple Vision looks to be twice as good as the Meta Quest for 10x the price.
What killer app did laptops have that made them the success they are today? Does new technology necessarily need a killer app if the ergonomics end up being more desirable to a broad range of users?
I don't necessarily know the answer here, but my gut feeling is that defining this device based on a "killer app" is like trying to define the original iPhone as needing a "killer app". It didn't necessarily have such a thing but it did end up being pretty big.
I think this will be one of those “iPod, less storage than a Nomad, lame” comments in a few years, but I guess we'll see.
I'd love to work comfortably lying in a hammock, couch or bed. The monitor part is solved, it seems, I just need one of those split keyboards where each half attaches to one hand.
I'd also love to feel like I'm in a colossal movie theater without all the viruses, noise and popcorn from other people.
Walk into a physical store and stand in an aisle. How many products can you see in a 360 field of vision?
Visit any webstore. How many products can you see on your screen at once?
To me this is the completely obvious application for VR. But in order for it to be actually useful you would need an online shopping experience that worked with it. At the very least you would have to 3D model every product.
Isn't the actual killer app for Advertisers? "Glue this thing to peoples faces and you now have the most effective most intrusive way to slam ads in front of people ever created!" Don't see why any consumer would buy this for 3500 though.
> Namely, 5,000 patents filed over the past few years and an enormous base of talent and capital to work with.
It was mentionned in the keynote as well...should Apple really brag about their patent minefield in a field that is in need of more players and more efforts to push it forward ?
> In many cases it literally hurt to do so. Not with the Apple Vision Pro – text is super crisp and legible at all sizes and at far “distances” within your space.
That's the part I was most intrigued with, and on one size given the 4K resolution per eye, text being readable was expected, but I can't wait to have more details on how "crisp and legible at all sizes" it is. I have no idea of what's M.Panzerino's threshold is for "crisp", hope it's better than just Full HD level.
I think I’m noticing what people do all the time with Apple launches, not listen to the marketing. They told you exactly where they’re positioning this. Spatial computing. Not quite tvOS not quite iPadOS. If they’re lucky this is the watch all over again. If they’re truly lucky, this the new iPlatform. I’m just excited they’ve now confirmed this will be a market for at least another decade. I am bummed to see though that it is a queued release and not a global preorder.
24 million pixels across the two panels, orders of magnitude more than any headsets most consumers have come in contact with
The Quest 2 has about 4 million, which is undoubtedly more than 0.24 million. Has "order of magnitude" joined "exponential" as another math expression stolen as a synonym for "rilly rilly rilly"?
All these optimistic articles without showing a single AR application - is Apple allowing access to devices only to pre-vetted publishers that would never criticize their products? 4k per eye sounds good but if it's only used for displaying 2D stuff it's kinda pointless as the resolution is still too low for that and the GPU is too weak for 3D stuff at that resolution (that would need like a minimized 5090 to make it work).
It could be that in 3-5 years a mass market emerges from this. Or it could be like apple's newton handheld computer, released in the early 1990s and discontinued without successor. The smartphone eventually arrived but a good decade later.
It’s quite obvious that this will effectively duplicate 1440p monitors since the much lower resolution Quest Pro is (mostly) able to do so with 1080p. Hopefully it can do even better than 1440p, but honestly that might be “good enough” when comboed with multiple virtual displays. Multiple effectively-1080p virtual displays don’t really cut it on the QP, but it’s annoyingly close.
My bigger concern is comfort. Ski mask style HMDs went the way of the dinosaur for a good reason: they’re nightmarishly awful to use for extended periods of time. I did see an image of an attachable side-to-side head strap, which implies Apple is aware of the problem but prioritized aesthetics.
Also for anyone interested in FoV: this guy on Twitter mentioned that it’s similar to the Quest Pro [1]. Lower than I’d like for that price, especially with an enclosed face gasket.
I'm sure it's good enough with that resolution and other high tech stuff. But can you work in it for extended periods of time?
I never wear wristwatches or smart watches unless I have to (hiking, running etc) because I dislike any trinkets that touch the skin 24/7, regardless of the material. This thing is almost like a diving mask, just not airtight. How about wearing it several hours straight?
Same pattern over and over, futuristic hardware, closed source software. This looks boring to me. I don't expect anything ground breaking from it. It's gonna be an iphone sticked to your eyes. Those big tech companies remove all the fun and excitement we used to have with new hardware. We know how it's gonna behave and it's limitation before it's released to the public.
>I was HIGHLY doubtful that Apple could pull off a workable digital avatar based off of just a scan of your face using the Vision Pro headset itself. Doubt crushed [...] It’s not totally perfect, but they got skin tension and muscle work right,[...] and the brief interactions I had with a live person on a call [...] did not feel creepy or odd. It worked.
One of the things that shocked me most from the keynote, was the Persona avatar demo. Meta has demoed what they call codec avatars[1] which are super impressive, but still very much in development and not anywhere on the horizon yet.
To see Apple demonstrate realistic avatars was honestly super impressive and will be imo one of the features that you just need experience to truly realize the world of a difference it makes to talk to someone on a flat video screen or feel like you're in the same space together thanks to these avatars and spatial audio.
Immersion is so powerful in VR, I can't wait to hang out with friends and family abroad, play tabletop games, watch a show together, or just shoot the sht.
The fact that Tim Cook didn’t wear the display once during the demo is all I needed to create my opinion on the device. They also didn’t show any developers using the device - why? Probably because this is a glorified iPad and Apple continues to artificially lock down their Apple Silicon on some devices to not cannibalize the lower-tier MacBook offerings.
What remains to be seen is whether this is the greatest product in a product category with mainstream appeal, or whether this is the greatest product in a niche category that many people feel no need to be a part of.
Most of Apple’s other successful products are part of the former. Music players were a proven market. Headphones were a proven market. Cell phones were a proven market. Watches, fitness trackers, and jewelry were a proven market.
VR and AR are really not that. That market has sold an impressive amount of units mostly on the back of a cheap $300 device that its owners consider to be a toy, but the volume is nothing compared to all the other devices I mentioned.
This could very easily be the next HomePod (1st generation): an over-engineered niche product with a price that is too high to be palatable.
One thing is certain: people are getting fired over at Meta.
I'm curious if anyone's tried using the Varjo VR-3 as a monitor replacement? The Vision Pro seems like it might be in the same league. It's got this unique setup where the central focus area (27° x 27°) is a uOLED display with 70ppd and 1920 x 1920 px per eye, while the rest of the view is over 30ppd on an LCD display with 2880 x 2720 px per eye.
While they're not directly competing (given that the Varjo is entirely wired and lacks the key attraction of Apple's software and ecosystem), they do seem to be somewhat comparable in terms of price and resolution.
Is anything known about health risks? I could imagine that if the eye no longer has to focus on distance, that this could lead to refractive errors more quickly with excessive use.
[+] [-] PostOnce|2 years ago|reply
Their sales pitch was "it makes it amazing to read articles in safari"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYkq9Rgoj8E&t=5410s
$3500 to... look at a floating web browser? Surely they can come up with something. Give me UV/IR vision, let me see the pipes under the ground, show me how to assemble the furniture I'm looking at, give me a template to paint by numbers of a real canvas -- why is this basic concept of "a $3500 novelty device should enable me to do something _new_" so hard for a 3 trillion dollar company to grasp?
Are they just hoping someone comes up with all the above in the next 6 months? If they did, would anyone care? $3500 is relatively a lot of money if you're already giving them iPhone and Macbook money. The supermajority of the world doesn't make more then 60k a year, pre-tax. Actually, the supermajority makes vastly less than that.
I guess I'll wait and watch and see if they prove me wrong, but I suspect no matter how good it is, it'll flop.
[+] [-] ttul|2 years ago|reply
There is no doubt that AR will eventually get good enough that the devices are paper thin, weigh nothing, and have no external battery (of course). Everyone wants _that_ device, but you have to start somewhere. Apple can afford to be patient in this space and their considerable moat of intellectual property will allow them to carve out the high end of the AR market and then work down as they did with iPhone.
It would not surprise me if they are earning 90% of the gross margins in the AR device space within three years.
[+] [-] contrarian1234|2 years ago|reply
Assembling furniture
- 1d written description : 1 person half a day
- 2d illustration : ~2 people and a 3 days
- 3d animation : ~3 people and 2 weeks
- 3d interactive thing : a small team and a month.. At least ?
Is it really going to yield a ton more sales?
You can see it in other media. Zillions of creative people write books, a lot fewer shoot movies, and fewer still make interactive narrative video games
All the 3D experiences you end up having are quite simplistic bc no one wants to invest in it. Could you make an Avatar level narrative in VR? It'd be super tricky, but maybe with enough money you could. (arguably there aren't enough people at the moment who know how to make compelling 3d interactive experiences). Will it be worth the extra cost ? Unlikely. It's hard to imagine it being more than marginally better at best
Maybe AI will somehow help speed up the process substantially (and lower the costs), but I'm a bit skeptical it'll help enough
The only thing I can think of where VR would make a huge difference is maybe horror. I'm not into horror, but I could see VR being a huge step up in terms of spookyness
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|2 years ago|reply
There was someone on here some time ago who showed and talked about his setup, he had been doing his job as a software developer reclined in VR for years at that point.
Here's the thing though: smartphones didn't have "a" killer app per sè I don't think, but they became part of everyone's daily lives in a really short timeframe. PCs and laptops didn't have "a" killer app, but pretty much everyone here has it as their day job.
I don't think it's about whether it has a killer app or not, I think it's whether it can become normalized and mainstream, and be listed alongside the TV, PC, smartphone, the car, etc; something everyone will have in one way or another.
That said, I'm cynical myself; modern-day VR and AR has been tried for a decade now or thereabouts; Google wasted billions on Google Glass, Facebook bet their whole company on the metaverse / AR / VR and has had to backtrack, Magic Leap was a mystery company that raised billions and failed to deliver, Oculus and Vive have their place now as a somewhat niche and pricey gaming implement - popular as arcade / events (I went to one for a birthday party this weekend) and middle class households that have the money and space for it.
So there's a market, mostly in gaming, but it's not become as mainstream yet as e.g. the smartphone. I don't personally believe it will, but if anyone can take an existing concept, iterate on it and make it mainstream, it's Apple.
[+] [-] Gareth321|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lijok|2 years ago|reply
They should be bursting at the seams with out of this world ideas that this amazing hardware could support. And yet, nothing.
[+] [-] ChildOfChaos|2 years ago|reply
Looking for a killer app you are looking at this to be a traditional VR or even AR device, that is not what this is.
This is about having a screen anywhere, multiple screens and turning anything into a screen and any environment into one, hence the name Vision Pro, that is how Apple are trying to sell it.
If you watched the keynote I think that was clear, everyone else seems to missing the point and comparing this to traditional headsets.
The fact when they showed gaming, it wasn't a VR or AR game, it was a traditional game on an AR screen says it all.
[+] [-] cjlacz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dontlaugh|2 years ago|reply
It could have had a killer app: games. Most VR headsets suck in one way or another, Apple could make one that's actually nice to use.
Sadly, for some bizarre reason Apple still don't understand games. They even have pretty good GPUs now and they're still not making an Apple TV Pro to compete with the PS5.
Even just the Vision could've been announced along with a couple exclusives, but instead they have an offhand mention of Arcade.
[+] [-] Alex3917|2 years ago|reply
Because if you go outside wearing this you're going to get instantly mugged. If they were to release something like Pokemon Go before the price comes down, that would likely just result in a bunch of kids getting murdered on the subway or whatever. Much better to drive down the costs by first selling it to people who are excited to use it for coding or whatever.
[+] [-] elorant|2 years ago|reply
Perhaps they can find application is e-commerce. Sites could start building virtual stores and you get a feeling that you’re browsing wardrobes. I don’t know if that’s a thing but it kind of makes sense as a use case.
[+] [-] easeout|2 years ago|reply
Early adopters first, of course. Maybe it really is too early? Depends on the response.
[+] [-] qbasic_forever|2 years ago|reply
Oops.
[+] [-] wildpeaks|2 years ago|reply
At this point, floating pages and waypoints are the "Hello World" of AR platforms.
[+] [-] ENGNR|2 years ago|reply
Being able to stand side by side with people to work on something rather than broadcast my face into their face. It's just... so much more natural. All of the social cues like concentration, wandering away to think, nodding your head along with a group conversation you stumble upon and are now actively engaged in. If I can bring my data/apps in but keep them private - sold
Interacting digitally with the environment - this is a new one but I think it's going to be huge. Anything involving maps or layouts, you can plan it prior, and then overlay it on the day when you get on site. AR on a phone is meh because you have to hold it up, but when it's just a gesture I think it's going to open up whole new use cases that were just out of reach (pun intended)
[+] [-] gehsty|2 years ago|reply
This is a general purpose computing device, so seeing it have a great browser setup is a big deal.
[+] [-] mschuster91|2 years ago|reply
Apple in contrast? They deliver a whole different game in terms of quality and capability, and now others will take up developing stuff for the platform, just like it happened with every new class of device Apple pushed out. And financially, Apple doesn't have to take care of anything, they have more cash on hand than the GDP of entire countries (165 billion $ [1], more than Kuwait, Ukraine or Venezuela [2]).
And even if there don't appear any VR apps - movie addicts will love it.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/05/how-markets-biggest-companie...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] numpad0|2 years ago|reply
But it's okay, I think. It has the browser, Unity integration, okay visual passthrough, etc. Ticks all boxes.
[+] [-] petesergeant|2 years ago|reply
It's a platform. It'll get cheaper, it'll get better, and developers and the market will do the rest. There's a lot of time between now and "early next year" for 3rd party devs to come up with a lot of apps and ideas.
As someone else said, this is the first release of something that'll end up the size and weight as a pair of sunglasses; at that point, I think it will be as ubiquitous as iPhones are.
[+] [-] bwb|2 years ago|reply
When I travel this is a game changer for me. Right now I lug a small second screen so I can work. I will happily drop $5k to fix this problem and just travel with this plus a small laptop.
[+] [-] mickdarling|2 years ago|reply
They did show a few third party apps interacting with real world objects (the train moving on a table) but I wonder what amount of that was concept and what was real.
Connecting the virtual objects to those in the real world I feel is a killer feature that will open up a huge set of opportunities. If this doesn’t have that yet, it’s still more VR than AR in my book.
[+] [-] tootie|2 years ago|reply
And think about the mainstream industry. It's been years and the peak of AR is still Pokemon Go and VR is Beat Saber. Apple Vision looks to be twice as good as the Meta Quest for 10x the price.
[+] [-] King-Aaron|2 years ago|reply
I don't necessarily know the answer here, but my gut feeling is that defining this device based on a "killer app" is like trying to define the original iPhone as needing a "killer app". It didn't necessarily have such a thing but it did end up being pretty big.
[+] [-] tambourine_man|2 years ago|reply
I'd love to work comfortably lying in a hammock, couch or bed. The monitor part is solved, it seems, I just need one of those split keyboards where each half attaches to one hand.
I'd also love to feel like I'm in a colossal movie theater without all the viruses, noise and popcorn from other people.
I'll pay good money for either.
[+] [-] AndyMcConachie|2 years ago|reply
Walk into a physical store and stand in an aisle. How many products can you see in a 360 field of vision?
Visit any webstore. How many products can you see on your screen at once?
To me this is the completely obvious application for VR. But in order for it to be actually useful you would need an online shopping experience that worked with it. At the very least you would have to 3D model every product.
[+] [-] johlits|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] analog31|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamsmith143|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnAaronNelson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rchaud|2 years ago|reply
This has no killer app and is being sold at full price.
[+] [-] makeitdouble|2 years ago|reply
It was mentionned in the keynote as well...should Apple really brag about their patent minefield in a field that is in need of more players and more efforts to push it forward ?
> In many cases it literally hurt to do so. Not with the Apple Vision Pro – text is super crisp and legible at all sizes and at far “distances” within your space.
That's the part I was most intrigued with, and on one size given the 4K resolution per eye, text being readable was expected, but I can't wait to have more details on how "crisp and legible at all sizes" it is. I have no idea of what's M.Panzerino's threshold is for "crisp", hope it's better than just Full HD level.
[+] [-] theklr|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sowbug|2 years ago|reply
The Quest 2 has about 4 million, which is undoubtedly more than 0.24 million. Has "order of magnitude" joined "exponential" as another math expression stolen as a synonym for "rilly rilly rilly"?
[+] [-] jve|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] treprinum|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joak|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dreamcompiler|2 years ago|reply
1. Seems quite cool in the demo but dorky in the real world.
2. Solves a problem no one really has.
3. Costs 10x more than most people are willing to spend.
4. Actual use case: Mall cops and tourists.
5. Some rich fanboy will buy out the entire inventory, use it outdoors, and fall off a cliff.
[+] [-] trafficante|2 years ago|reply
My bigger concern is comfort. Ski mask style HMDs went the way of the dinosaur for a good reason: they’re nightmarishly awful to use for extended periods of time. I did see an image of an attachable side-to-side head strap, which implies Apple is aware of the problem but prioritized aesthetics.
Also for anyone interested in FoV: this guy on Twitter mentioned that it’s similar to the Quest Pro [1]. Lower than I’d like for that price, especially with an enclosed face gasket.
1. https://twitter.com/benz145/status/1665894522658910213?s=20
[+] [-] orbital-decay|2 years ago|reply
I never wear wristwatches or smart watches unless I have to (hiking, running etc) because I dislike any trinkets that touch the skin 24/7, regardless of the material. This thing is almost like a diving mask, just not airtight. How about wearing it several hours straight?
[+] [-] andrewstuart|2 years ago|reply
And who will develop software for something with such a small user base?
[+] [-] nbittich|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmlkrx|2 years ago|reply
One of the things that shocked me most from the keynote, was the Persona avatar demo. Meta has demoed what they call codec avatars[1] which are super impressive, but still very much in development and not anywhere on the horizon yet.
To see Apple demonstrate realistic avatars was honestly super impressive and will be imo one of the features that you just need experience to truly realize the world of a difference it makes to talk to someone on a flat video screen or feel like you're in the same space together thanks to these avatars and spatial audio.
Immersion is so powerful in VR, I can't wait to hang out with friends and family abroad, play tabletop games, watch a show together, or just shoot the sht.
[1]: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=SDxMZ9zjqMs
[+] [-] thatsso1999|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kaicianflone|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jojobas|2 years ago|reply
This makes for some ~800x600 resolution for a focus area such a page of text in the middle of the field. How can it be sharp enough?
Does it use some sort of uneven pixel distribution?
[+] [-] dangus|2 years ago|reply
Most of Apple’s other successful products are part of the former. Music players were a proven market. Headphones were a proven market. Cell phones were a proven market. Watches, fitness trackers, and jewelry were a proven market.
VR and AR are really not that. That market has sold an impressive amount of units mostly on the back of a cheap $300 device that its owners consider to be a toy, but the volume is nothing compared to all the other devices I mentioned.
This could very easily be the next HomePod (1st generation): an over-engineered niche product with a price that is too high to be palatable.
One thing is certain: people are getting fired over at Meta.
[+] [-] 7e|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] machdiamonds|2 years ago|reply
While they're not directly competing (given that the Varjo is entirely wired and lacks the key attraction of Apple's software and ecosystem), they do seem to be somewhat comparable in terms of price and resolution.
https://varjo.com/products/vr-3/
[+] [-] sazz|2 years ago|reply
Or did I miss here something?