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.
I recall not long after the iPod was released in the early 00’s that peeps were clamoring for an Apple phone. It took seven years before Apple fans got their wish. IPhone landed in the world of Nokia, Blackberry, Motorola. All juggernauts in the mobile phone industry.
Just not the same scenario and game plan. Brilliant design is one thing, but Apple has landed at the intersection of Hardware & Software in a developed field. Right? Steve Jobs pulled back from running OS on clone hardware, because Apple’s winning scenario was to do both to make great designed products.
At 3k+ this is classic early adopter scenario. Maybe there are enough people with stupid money who will work out issues for the later ~1k version…provided another company doesn’t sweep in and eat Apple’s lunch
The first iphone let you have a real web browser anywhere you had cell coverage. This lets you have a web browser floating at home. Its not the same (and I love VR)
I didn’t get one until the 3G came out, but I have a very clear memory of the “wow!” feeling: right after buying the phone, I went down the street to a coffee shop and started browsing the web while waiting in line. I was instantly cured of my prior skepticism that it could actually be a major improvement over my flip phone + iPod.
Also GPS maps with that shiny glass dot. You bought a phone, and you got a GPS navigator for free.
I had a friend who had just bought a high end Nokia. We arranged to meet for lunch. She got hopelessly lost because Nokia's GPS and mapping were crap.
Apple's just worked. Same with the App Store.
I'd guess this is going to have some kind of VApp Store. But I suspect what it really needs is plain old MacOS running everything as usual, with slightly customised support for virtual displays.
I don't have much to add except for a "back in my day" story:
I still remember when the only option for GPS directions was buying a dedicated Garmin, or paying your cell carrier for an extremely crappy and very expensive service that was hard to use because phone screens were too small. Everyone I knew used printed map quest for directions.
GPS being standard on smart phones is just so flipping good compared to what we had before and am positive is still the killer app that pushes people to get smart phones.
It’s worth remembering the original iPhone did not have GPS at all. It had google maps for calling up information like you would with map quest, but no turn by turn/live navigation
Cellular triangulation worked really well on the classic iPhone - if you were in a very crowded place. In more rural areas, you could be off by many kilometers. I’m not sure if they had Wi-Fi SSID location back then.
Not sure what maps your friend was using, Nokia S60 series has Google Maps, it’s not bad compared to original iPhone. I could use keyboard to zoom in and out, after log in all the layered map stuff works.
In comparison, iPhone’s Google Maps didn’t have turn by turn navigation till a while later.
Yep I actually remember standing on the sidewalk on my lunch break outside of a cafe, and I pulled up the Reddit website.
It sounds so incredibly unrelatable in 2023, but you have to put yourself in that time. Web browsing was just something you did at work, or at home. Period. Visiting that website while on the sidewalk was really one of the major game-changers in my life.
In Spring 2008 I got my first iPhone as a hand me down from my brother. He didn’t like it at all, since iPhone OS 1 was very limited and went back to Windows Mobile. However, I became a very spoiled kid with access to Wikipedia at the age of 14 in a classroom, at least 3 years before smartphones became mainstream. It most certainly didn‘t improve my character to have such an expensive phone at that age.
Holy sht. Can people really* stop comparing launch of VR and with Iphone?
I have been reading tons of comments here and only to see the OP, and folks with similar post here to be proven wrong. Again after again, proven wrong!
The fundamentals question is where is the killer app! Like original poster, this shouldn't be hard for a three trillion dollar company!
Only if there was a way to filter out post that go along the lines of
Lmao, but the first iPhone was a major improvement over other phones at the time and offered a form of consistence/stability versus the often very experimental models other companies had.
The difference here is of course that VR/AR has been thriving already. Apple is late to the game as they are most of the time, but the reactions I have seen so far in YT/Twit comments are the amazed reactions of the tech illiterate general public, they don't care what it does, but it does have an Apple logo!
Apple is not bringing anything new to the table. No virtual objects, no 3d anything, just 2d planes showing video/photos which non-Apple VR/AR has had for the longest time.
This is just from the briefest search: https://www.vrdesktop.net/. Already exists and looks more fully featured than Apple's stuff.
Apple is a 1T company, the "richest and most technologically advanced company in the world", so why don't they act like it?
They do seem to have an impressive resolution on the thing, but only Apple can ask for 3.5k, no other headset bothers to have as high a resolution atm because they know consumers will balk at such a high price...
Apple's press release shows it as if some rando people are using the thing at home as if it's not going to be art studios, etc that buy the headset and a couple of hardcore Apple fans. No regular person is buying a 3.5k VR/AR set to look at a crappy 2d photo gallery app.
Other VR/AR software for existing headsets like the Vive/Oculus etc already do actual virtual objects/interaction as baseline and Apple couldn't even be bothered to include something like that for their press release. Because they don't need to, I suppose. People will eat it up anyway.
This device looks to be a monumental improvement over any current consumer AR/VR headset. From the user reviews that've come out so far, they've talked about the very forgiving hand-tracking, the high-fidelity screens, the nearly imperceptible delay from the cameras, how comfortable it is to wear, etc.
For your point about the no virtual objects, what would you want Apple to do? Create an entirely new OS requiring developers to build everything in a purely 3D environment? It'd be DOA if they did that. They have to highlight how EASY it is to port their current apps to VisionOS. Hell, they released Rosetta years before the M1 came out and there's STILL some apps that don't support M1 Macs. They have to make it easy, and allow the developers to decide to flex their muscle on this thing.
iOS apps in the first year or two of the app store looked god awful because no one really knew what to DO with the thing, but now we do. I think VR like this is going to be the same way.
From what they showcased and the initial reviews out right now, this does look to be the most technologically advanced mixed reality headset. But obviously the most technology advanced headset is going to be eyewateringly expensive.
Apple back in the day was always, the customer doesn't know what they want, you have to show it to them. This is going to light a fire under every other headset makers ass that they can't push out headsets with shit camera delays, poor screens, and shody controls anymore and expect to make money.
And you're right, people will eat it up because it's Apple and only they can get away with it. I'm not buying it, I have to afford groceries somehow. But the rich finance bros buying it to show off their wealth bankrolling Apple's R&D for the next few years to make a more consumer-friendly one? Yeah, knock yourself out. I'll buy refurbished one in 2026.
For sure this thing is much better than something like the Meta Quest 3, but is it _seven times_ as good?
Let's look at the actual improvements here over the quest, roughly in order from what I consider best to worst:
1) higher resolution screens. This requires more powerful onboard processing and more expensive screens and is an obvious win.
2) better pass through. Again requires better onboard processing and cameras on the front of the device. This is nice to have but I don't think it's a game changer.
3) hand tracking by default. No controllers is in some ways nice but also limits the number of inputs you can have (unless you have virtual controllers, but I can see a lot of accidental button presses with that). It also doesn't preclude adding controllers later but they haven't shown any sign of even considering this.
4) displaying your eyes on the front when talking to people. This is by far the most dubious feature, it looks ridiculous and requires them to add a high definition curved screen to the front of the device. How much does this add to the cost? I think it could be easily cut, just take the damn thing off when talking to people.
The actual value this brings over something like the meta quest is probably, to me at least, a 2x improvement. I might be proven wrong (or they might come out with a real killer app) but as it is I can't see the point.
1) Agree with you on the higher resolution screens. Yeah it's gonna be a resource hog but from what I've heard it looks downright gorgeous.
2) I'm okay with the better passthrough, from what the initial impressions have said, it really does help alleviate the headaches or nausea from the delay in lower-end systems. I get serious motion sickness and nausea in the PSVR2 headset, if this can solve that problem I'm all for it.
3) I know they highlighted PS5 and XBox controller support for games, so I'm holding out hope for third party motion controller support for when you need finer control.
4) I hate the eyes on the front feature, I agree it looks gimmicky, added too much to the cost, and I don't see it lasting long in future releases.
It's definitely not for me, but I feel like I'm getting their vision for the future of this product line and I'm gonna go conspiracy theorist for a minute here.
1) The clips of people wearing them in from of their kids or doing laundry, etc just screams that we want to get people used to having a screen in front of them, and cameras on their face. Make this the "norm" or at least some form of socially acceptable to do what Google Glass tried and failed to do in 2013.
2) The heavy focus on hand-tracking, eye-tracking, voice controls, and built-in speakers makes me think they want this to be used without needing to carry anything additional with you, obviously. No AirPods, no iPhone, no Mac needed.
I find this product to be an introduction to tackle these societal issues so that when they release a pair of regular-looking glasses that have this type of tech, people aren't going to be afraid of cameras looking at them all the time, or feel disconnected from the person wearing them. And be able to control it all with just their hands.
To me, this product was released way before it should have (frankly I believe it needs 5 more years), but as a lot of companies are pushing AR/VR and it's kinda floundering around right now, Apple had to release something that could keep interest in the product group alive long enough that they can release their proper vision.
1 & 2 are essential for one of the main functions of this thing for now, which is to replace or extend a laptop. I am buying it simply for this purpose. I hate working at my desktop and my Air doesn’t have enough screen estate for efficient dev work on the couch or bed lol.
Proper, well integrated passthrough that seamlessly works with my laptop is crucial for this to work and judging by the marketing material it seems to be extremely well implemented. I simply can’t work with even the quest pro, because the clarity (resolution) simply isn’t there and all the implementations are cumbersome (yea I’ve tried all apps including metas own).
All the other features like 3D video recording are gimmicks to me, but it doesn’t matter.
They did show 3D objects in the key note, someone sent one through messenger that the user pulled out from the message and interacted with it. Then they showed a 3D heart which could be taken apart in to sections. Next they showed a life size 3D formula 1 car with the aerodynamics.
Presumably this will be a thing since they support on the iPhone and tries making a pretty big deal from by showing virtual legos and other stuff in a keynote a year or two ago.
The ARKit seems to have been designed for this thing since it wasn’t ever a very good experience on the iPhone.
Spurious enough comparison given there were phones, a developed phone market which was 150m+ globally even at that stage, and demonstrated clear use cases for an iphone (an ipod, a phone and an internet browser combined).
Yep it iterated and yep app store really rocket charged it beyond where it was envisaged on day one. But it was also an existing market, albeit one that was at the foothills of its potential.
AR/VR too is at the foothills of its potential. But the fundamental problem is: even when its potential is realised, it'll still just be relatively niche and relatively fringe. This stuff simply is not going to be mainstream in a serious way. And without being mainstream, there is no real revenue stream of utility for a company of Apple's size.
I have no idea why people are doing such backflips to come up with potential use cases but most of them just aren't runners. This will sell to an extent for Apple but it'll be a rounding error on their balance sheet at best - even in future versions - though I imagine a lot of the tech will end up elsewhere, so it won't be a complete lost cause for Apple.
The potential is to replace computers. In its current version, it is basically an iPad on your face. Look a little forward and it is a laptop on your face. Imagine that the price came down to $1500-2000 in a couple years, now you can buy an Apple Vision instead of a laptop. And you wouldn't need to buy a TV either. So this does have device consolidation potential like the iPhone did and it can tap into an existing market like the iPhone tapped into the phone markets.
I think previous AR/VR devices didn't quite have the right sweetspot of hardware features (too low resolution, tied to one spot, extra controllers), but this one looks like it might just do it. What it doesn't have is a low enough cost, so it will be a slow start. I'm also still curious if there will be a "killer app" that encourages people to get into it, but the long-term vision of spatial computing is itself enough of a killer feature. I just wonder how long that will take.
> Imagine that the price came down to $1500-2000 in a couple years, now you can buy an Apple Vision instead of a laptop. And you wouldn't need to buy a TV either.
I can compile code on my laptop - can I do that on a vision?
I can plug a xbox on my TV, or watch it with 4 people. Can I do that with a vision?
I think this replacing TVs is a really hard sell, except in remarkably niche people. Sitting on the couch together playing Nintendo just can’t be replaced, and apple surely doesn’t want to allow third party inputs, they want an internal app ecosystem, which Nintendo and PlayStation won’t ever do. (Xbox maybe). Laptop replacement, I can buy though. But only some fraction of those, nothing large, and certainly no larger than iPhone market share percentages.
First iphone had this WOW effect, before there were clunky crappy Microsoft-OS powered boxes with pens and crappy slow imprecise displays. I recall, I had one, it was a massive shift and basically a new type of device.
This... judging by extremely careful wording of a web which needs to play very very nice with vendors to get these early access peeks, seems to not have it. More like nicely polished hammer looking for nails everywhere. Yes, many aspects fine tuned above competition, but competition is not asleep and the gap is not that big. In some aspects, it will be objectively worse (constant powerbank cable which lasts barely 2 hours, realistically a bit above 1 hour breaks immersion very effectively compared to ie Quest, plus you want to have 4 powerbanks and furiously swapping over one longer evening? Not even going into sharing ultra expensive device with rest of household).
Phones are absolute must in modern world, they were already 90% there when first iphone arrived. VR/AR goggles are still considered idiotic by majority of population, maybe Apple can change that but it will take few years at least.
A large multitouch display was a pretty big deal. I watched movies on my iPod classic but it wasn’t a very nice experience and the scroll wheel is not exactly the most flexible input method..
The first iphone was the first time most people could actually use the internet on something they could carry around, even if it was just with wifi. It did everything phones did but much better since it was all touch. Interfaces to alarms, the calculator, the camera etc was entirely different. Anyone who used it knew that everyone else would either copy it or go out of business.
Windows Mobile and Symbian devices were a thing for years and had functioning browsers. The iPhone was an improvement (as long as you had wifi) but it took a couple of years before it actually become widespread
Exactly, you’d use the to do the same thing more or less but the iPhone had way better UX. The idea of browsing the web on your phone wasn’t something new or revolutionary, it was all about the implementation.
No, it wasn't the same. Before people would only be able to use special mobile pages and scroll through a few options at a time. Looking at a general site like reddit was basically impossible. Reading a news article on a normal site was basically impossible. It was a total game changer and most people went from never using the mobile internet to using it frequently.
You seem to have forgotten Blackberrys were incredibly popular. Most people in the business world browsed and did emails on them. Windows phone, LG Prada, Hiptop - all of these had non WAP browsers well before the iPhone. You've missed the 2-4 year gap between WAP only phones and first iPhone.
And how did you navigate them? With a scroll ball? Even some phones that were single touch with pressure were slightly better but most people wanted nothing to do with that until the iphone.
It had some must have killer features for the time. Blackberry and feature phones had some pathetic "mobile web" while the original iPhone would load real websites.
As people below have pointed out, arguable it was crappy. Sure, lacked 3G, lacked apps, but the utter ease of connecting to wifi and flicking through Safari…
…anyways, arguable. What’s inarguable is that the iPhone 4, which came along only 3 years later, was a damned miracle. Beautiful design, Retina screen, something approaching a “real” camera—just remarkable progress in that time.
I’m unsure if Apple is going to be able to pull off that hyperspeed progression this time. The Vision Pro seems to have truly wild capabilities, but for a lot of money and with very little battery life. Are we going to have a big leap in price/performance soon? I dunno.
The lack of 3G was barely an issue back then, I used my iPhone on the go with text messengers and web browsing without too many issues. Edge/2G+ wasn’t too horrible, since the web was so much lighter back then (especially since flash didn’t load).
The first iPhone was fantastic. The instant people saw it they wanted it and when they laid hands on it they needed it. The Apple Vision on the other hand is.. a screen strapped to your face.
Exactly this. It's taken 14 iterations to get the iPhone to where it is. Apple Watch has taken 8 or so. Apple has taking a long time iterating to get to where we are today on this platforms. Baby steps really. Each version introduced things we totally take for granted today. I remember just getting the Retina screen on the iPhone 4 was a massively big deal.
Just think what Vision will be after 10 iterations and a decade of time.
To add to the appeal of iPhone's original release; do not forget the iPod Touch. Released in late 2007, it was available far more broadly and was a great entry point into the world of those crazy new iPhones.
It was my first iOS device and I even paid the 14.99$ for the update to get mail, calendar and contacts. I played way more games back then than I do now since I was often without a Wi-Fi network.
The first iPhone was the first phone with a proper touch screen.
The Vision is about the 50th VR device, in a market that's already quite busy with the Vives, Indexes and Quests. It brings nothing new, and is just one more high resolution VR device (which existed before for cheaper).
Yeah, people forget that the iPhone was actually considered a flop when it first launched; it was too expensive so despite the interest in the product relatively few people were actually willing to pay for it.
The true genius was getting AT&T to subsidize the handsets and pay for the marketing, which gave Apple a lifeline worth billions and essentially created the market.
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.