The last time Apple introduced a new general purpose computing device was the iPad, 14 years ago.
This one just doesn’t feel as big. When the iPad was introduced, everyone was shocked by the very low price and the sleek form factor compared to previous Windows tablet devices.
Those are exactly the weak points of the Vision Pro: it’s very expensive and very heavy, according to reports.
The hands-on sessions that Apple gave to journalists earlier this week seemed a bit underwhelming. The reporter for the Verge wrote that it feels like the Quest, but with higher resolution.
That’s a worrying sign! Imagine if the first hands-on of the iPhone had been “it’s like a BlackBerry but with better DPI screen.”
Of course Apple is usually very good at consistently evolving their platforms. Maybe the non-Pro model will be something else.
> Since the iPad's initial introduction back in January, many of us still wonder why we should drop hundreds of dollars for what is termed as a large iPod.
There were also a significant number of jokes about the name, relating it to a feminine hygiene product.
I bought one day 1 and pretty much everyone thought I was nuts and just an Apple zealot. However, as I took it places and used it, people saw it and became much more interested and took it more seriously as a product.
I was definitely in the former camp, and eventually bought one because other people seemed to like it, and so took it more seriously as a product. But.. it was after buying it that I realized the emperor didn't really have any clothes, and it was either mostly an expensive status symbol for people who couldn't care less about the money, or a device with just a few specific and very useful purposes. My grandpa uses it for Planespotting, which seems perfectly appropriate to me. Now it's been 10 years, and I've never really thought about buying another one, because it's just not a general computing device that I've been able to make useful for a breadth of things I use devices for. It's only ever been effective for reading reference books, playing YouTube videos (before the app and browser support went away), reading pocket articles, browsing the web, and maybe a few games. Everything else just didn't prove effective, for me anyway. Even trying to watch regular videos on it is a total pain.
I can agree with a lot of this, depending on the user. I’m pretty similar to you. I got it and used it, because it was new and novel, but over time the usage faded. I tried going back to the iPad mini, since I liked that form factor best, but it’s sitting a few feet from me, powered off, and hasn’t been used in months.
My dad on the other hand, who is one of the people who bought and iPad after seeing mine, uses it all the time. He actually has 2 of them, a 10” and a 12.9”, and he uses both of them regularly enough that he feels they are both justified for his use cases. He still does use his Mac as well, but his iPads get a ton of use for reading the news, email, photography related things, and maybe some other stuff. He’s retired now, so that might be part of it.
Maybe if didn’t work in IT and simply consumed whatever the apps allowed me to consume, I could get by with an iPad as my computer, but I want to do stuff an iPad can’t do. I also pretty much always want a keyboard and mouse, and when that’s always bolted on to an iPad, it might as well be a MacBook. I never found the appeal of touch screen laptops.
Ya I'd agree with those points. People who put iPad pros to good use either don't have any other significant general requirements, or the few things they use it for are either consumption or illustration, where touch, a big screen, and no complexity are the selling factors.
I'm not personally producing intricate illustrations, but I know a tiny number of people who do, and I don't think it's occures to them they'd need anything but that and their phone.
"iPad? Why did they name it after a tampon hahahaha never getting one of those. Similarly priced laptops are more powerful and have a keyboard." TBF the early models weren't as good and didn't have the keyboard and Apple Pencil of today.
They also ran iOS without really much adaptation for the form factor. Now it's called "iPadOS" and has functionality that differentiates it from an iPhone. You can even dual screen the thing if you're a weirdo.
I love using it as a second screen when I’m out at a coffee shop. It works so seamlessly and I can throw Slack on there while I code, without looking like a complete weirdo
If you want, it's possible to wire it up too! I use the included USB-C cable to connect it directly to my MacBook. It's much more reliable that way, especially if you're on a flaky WiFi connection.
Isn't that the rub, though? The majority of iPad users don't use the keyboards or Pencils. They're just using the iPad. That's exactly why the original was so successful.
To a first approximation, that's what it still is all these years later. The software might be called iPadOS now but it's not fooling anyone that it's much different to iOS.
There are some specific use cases like creating digital artwork and certain gaming/video where the difference between an iPhone and and an iPad really is arguably a difference in kind. But, yeah, especially with larger iPhones (even sub-Max) I've come to see an iPad as increasingly optional for most purposes.
Yes, I would agree. I use an iPad Pro for 3D modeling as well as drawing and graphic design. For those applications (especially 3D modeling) the M1 and large screen make a massive difference.
Yeah, but just like I said back then, that's like saying that a bathtub and a swimming pool are the same because they're both masses of contained water. The difference is explicitly in the size.
> ‘I recall lots of people dismissing the iPad as "just a big iPod Touch".’
The interesting point here is that Apple’s competitors at the time didn’t even have a product that could come close to the iPod touch, and yet Apple was already taking the product into a completely new direction.
The iPod touch doesn’t exist anymore. Turns out the paper-like size combined with the simple UI made all the difference. And nobody scaling down from $2k Windows tablets could have figured that out. That’s how Apple created a beautifully designed tablet for only $499 and everybody else was left scrambling.
With the Vision Pro, Apple doesn’t seem to have that kind of advantage. But I’d be very happy if it exceeds my expectations and is also successful in the market. I’ve been waiting for VR all my life. The Quest has come tantalizingly close but still misses the applications that would make it a part of my daily routine.
I'm not sure it's a dismissal, as in "an iPod Touch with a big screen" is quite a good pitch. Like even now, if we ever get 16" iPads it's just an iPad with a massive screen, but I'd be all over it.
I have an older version of one of the big iPads. The thing is that I never got into using it for digital animation/art that I envisioned doing at one point. And for routine travel content consumption stuff it was just bigger and heavier--but otherwise not a better experience.
I use mine (12" M1 Pro) as a portable music studio - touch screen is fantastic for this so I vastly prefer Logic on the iPad to the Mac, but it's mighty cramped even on the 12".
It was a dismissal from people who didn't see the utility of a parallel product that was just bigger. Just because someone sees the utility of a small SUV doesn't mean they will automatically want to also buy an F-150.
There were tear downs showing this tiny little iPod shaped SoC shoved into the case and connected to a massive battery. The SoC was underpowered considering it was running a 1024x768 screen and support was dropped almost immediately.
The iPad 2 teardown showed an SoC which seemed a lot more custom designed for the iPad, and the "big iPod" criticism died around that point.
this is exactly as I remember it as well... it was quite mem'ed on that dimension alone, as to why would you need a giant one of the thing they already had.
They did, but before it was released it was predicted to cost over $1000, often confidently assumed to be well over a kilobuck. Instead it was $499. It was also much thinner and with better battery life than the experts had predicted.
It was more of a shock than the M1 was in recent times.
Not defending Apple here: I do believe the Vision Pro will be a resounding "meh".
> When the iPad was introduced, everyone was shocked by the very low price and the sleek form factor compared to previous Windows tablet devices.
What I remember is everyone making fun of it, including the name¹, for being “just a big iPod Touch”.
Similarly, the iPhone wasn’t taken all that seriously² on launch. The App Store wasn’t even an idea yet, let alone a reality.
That is to say this always happens: people discount a new thing and use as contrast something else which was also discounted at the time but framed as if it had always been perceived by the current lens.
I have no idea if the Vision Pro will “succeed” (however we define that), but we can be reasonably sure that the current version is the worse it will ever be. In other words, it will get better and it’s too soon to judge its impact.
It's not like the criticisms for the iPhone were wrong. The iPhone launched at what would in today's prices be about $2000. ($700 is $1000 today, plus you had to sign a contract that would otherwise have given you a "free" phone worth a similar amount). Plus it didn't have an app store. Both of those would have prevented the iPhone's success, but both were very quickly corrected.
The 2007 iPhone was a limited niche product. The 2008 iPhone was not.
Right. Or in other words: it was too early to say how big the iPhone was going to be, and everyone who said it was going to be a flop had such tunnel vision they were incapable of perceiving the first version is not the last version.
It's hard to appreciate today but, early on for most people, the iPhone wasn't a "OMG, I have to get one of these right now" product. I had bought a Treo in late 2006 I think because I had a foot injury that meant I had to travel super-light. While I did get a 3GS a few years later, I don't recall any pressing urgency and there tons of stories related to carrier coverage etc.
The timing sucked for me, though. In 2007 I was between jobs and after the announcement was ready to jump into making apps but thwarted because it was not possible. By 2008 I was employed again and missed the gold rush.
By that same merit, it’s worth noting that the Apple II in today’s prices was nearly $6300. And the VisionPro is almost undoubtedly going to premier more mature than either the iPhone or the Apple II.
Part of it was that the whole “tablet” idea hadn’t taken off and had been tried a number of times, so the general consensus was “it’s a good value for a nice version of a thing nobody seems to want.”
The iPad and the iPhone were heavily criticized when they came out. While both were pushing some good tech, they were also going against the general wisdom of what made a product in each category.
The things that the iPhone was criticised for - no 3G was the biggest one - were easily fixed in the next iteration.
The problems with the vision pro seem more fundamental, primarily cost. Apple really needs to sell it with zero margin or as a loss leader to build marketshare because $3000 is absurd and will really damage its branding "weird face hugger for rich people"
When the iPhone first came out it's cost (even subsidised) was ridiculed. I'm not sure how it compared to BB at the time but for normal consumers it was high, now all these years later it's almost tripled in price and people still line up to buy it. I agree the AVP is going to suffer from the price but I also think Apple isn't looking for this to be the mass market device, more of a way to get the diehard fans in and using it before they make just a "Apple Vision" (no pro). We will see.
I think they are in part counting on it as a status symbol. iPhone, iPad, and a few others are ubiquitous in the US market. Additonally, they kinda "blend in" amidst competitor devices with similar designs.
But the Vision Pro will be eye- catching and hard to miss, with a large profile and unique design.
Going straight for the high end of the market is risky when you depend on developer ecosystems for value. The iPhone was expensive at launch but didn’t really take off until it added the App Store and came down in price.
If they get a handful of celebrities walking around with these things it may become a status symbol. Or it may become a joke, especially if somebody crashes their Ferrari while wearing one.
You would be surprised [0]. I've watched movies on flights with a VR headset, and I'm excited to do that with the AVP - it should be a much more usable experience.
Yes, same goes for any "first gen" Apple product in a category: The Apple I, 128k Macintosh, iPod, Apple Watch.
The thing all these first-generation products have in common (including the Apple Vision Pro) is that they are eminently skippable and usually followed by more popular, better-spec'd lower-cost models within a year or two.
People were very skeptical about the lack of a keyboard on iPhone, and it was missing a few basic features like copy/paste, but it was incomprehensibly small in person and other phones couldn’t touch the capabilities.
Yea. Remember all the memes of the iPad being 4 iPhones taped together? It was widely criticized and considered to be a flop by some. A pointless device even.
It was kinda that, though, wasn't it? I think Vision Pro might be a similar evolution. IMO this is a tool for professionals and media enthusiasts. After proving out some use cases they'll transition later generations like how the iPad Pro has grown into stuff like graphics editing.
What, the iPhone too? The iPad was called a big iPhone (especially when they showcased on stage that you can run iPhone apps with 2x magnification), but I remember there being a lot of hype for the iPhone.
Maybe for some people. A lot of people, esp. reporters and the like who loved their blackberries were heavily negative towards not having a physical keyboard..
It's kind of hard to imagine that this was the reality, given where we are today.
I'm not sure if BlackBerries were really ever a thing in Europe. All the business-type people had Nokia Communicators here (the last of which was released in 2007).
If memory serves right, after first few versions of iPod Touch was out everyone was wondering why Apple is not cramming in the phone functionality as well.
iPhone maybe was criticized by the likes of Ballmer and Nokia/Blackberry execs from business strategy perspective, but I'm not sure that sentiment was universally shared by consumers.
EDIT:
OK my memory has failed tragically. Will leave this comment here nevertheless.
I wonder how much of that is due to the specific nature of this type of product, and how it compares to those past launches.
With iPhone & iPad, you had products that people could very easily imagine using. The iPhone was the combination of three technologies people were already familiar with, the iPad was the iPhone, but bigger.
It is really difficult to imagine using a VR headset if you haven't used one before -- there simply isn't a frame of reference. And even if you have used an Oculus or a SteamVR headset, an interface built around eye & tracking is still completely novel.
I think a lack of mass-market appeal is something that is inherent to a product like this, which makes it a very different product from a marketing perspective than iPhone or iPad.
It makes sense to me that, rather than trying to copy-paste the iPhone or iPad launch, Apple would instead put out an exclusive halo product early, allow a few years for the public to build familiarity with it and settle on the core use-cases, all while they observe and iterate behind the scenes on a more accessible version for a wider audience.
> The hands-on sessions that Apple gave to journalists earlier this week seemed a bit underwhelming. The reporter for the Verge wrote that it feels like the Quest, but with higher resolution.
That's my #1 issue with the Quest and productivity/work is what I most want out of a VR/AR device at this point in time. Gaming on the quest was fun but it wore off (really shined playing with friends online but people are busy). Being able to work in a virtual space is very exciting for me and I can't wait to try it out.
The Quest 2's resolution was almost there for me--I could even spend a few hours at a time working on code in Immersed before I started to feel the eye strain. The Quest 3 has made it good enough that I could go all day if I wanted to. The only real sticking point now is the discomfort of wearing it on my face for that long.
Lol when the iPhone came out, literally everyone was criticizing it for how expensive it was.
Also, looking at the functionality it had when it first came out, it wouldn't have really been very useful for me (no app store, basically just an iPod + shitty browser + phone).
Anyway, does anyone actually think that VR isn't going to revolutionize computing over the next 10 years?
TBF back then no site was optimized to be viewed on a small screen, only after the iPhone and then Android came along did we get "mobile-friendly" or even "mobile-first" sites...
That's not entirely true. WAP browsing was the norm for most mobile devices. The stuff we call "mobile-friendly" now is light years ahead of what we had then.
Fennec (Mozilla Firefox for Mobile) was already a thing before iPhone was released.
The distortion here is that capacitive touch took on with iPhone release. Which lead to a surge of websites supporting such (albeit usually optimized for iPhone/iOS + Safari).
No mainstream phone launched with Fennec. Safari on iPhone was a game changer when everyone else was used to WAP browsing which was all scaled down, text-based web pages.
Of course, but that doesn't mean Fennec wasn't miles ahead. I mean, the original iPhone didn't even have multitouch zoom. Innovation vs invention. People have rose-tinted glasses about the past. They forget the bad, only remember the good.
Sorry but you're wrong. It doesn't matter if Fennec was miles ahead if there was no device to use it on (unless you knew the magic incantations to get it working on one) and the original iPhone did have multitouch zoom too. Jobs demoed it on-stage.
Absolutely, I don't believe VR will revolutionize computing in the next 10 years. It already has had two chances of doing so. Like 3D screens it has a wow effect but isn't that much better given its very real downsides.
Video conferencing using existing equipment and connections is arguably just about the only more immersive virtual experience that has really taken off. And that was somewhat forced on people and plenty here are still "FU. I'm not turning my camera on" in a work context as it is.
We can conceive of other uses but turns out that you can either get most of the way there for far less money and effort and/or the market for "spare no expense" is tiny.
When the iPhone came out they lowered the price by 1/3rd 3 months later. This brought it in-line with Palm/Windows/Blackberry handsets. The browser was also really incredible compared to other phones/devices at the time.
I think the fundamental problem of the Apple Vision Pro as it stands is that you can't put it in your pocket like the iPhone. It's also a lot more awkward to put in a shoulder bag than the iPad is, and the iPad hasn't exactly revolutionised computing either.
When the iPhone came out, people criticized it for the lack of keyboard and 3G. The price was similar to other premium phones of the time.
VR has always been about to revolutionize computing in the next n years. The technology has been available for decades, but so far nobody has been able to find good mainstream use cases for it.
How has the technology been available for decades? There are many requirements for useful headsets beyond just strapping a low-resolution screen to each eye. Even the Vision Pro at $3500+ isn't quite there yet: it's heavy, external battery with a short battery life, has a limited field of view.
The technology to make VR/AR useful for specialized applications has been available for decades. For example, South African fighter pilots had AR sights in the 70s, and the Soviets copied the idea in the 80s. The technology has improved over the decades, but so far nobody has found good mainstream uses for it.
I do think this is going to be similar to the iPhone launch in 10-20 years. The VR headsets that we have in 2035 will be useful, affordable, and revolutionary.
What? No, they're calling it a spatial computer because they don't want it to be lumped in the same category as the other VR devices. Because... theirs is $3500 while other VR devices are $400.
They literally just built a VR headset... do you seriously not think the Apple Vision Pro is a VR headset?
Your description also fits the Meta Quest 3, which is clearly marketed as VR headset. Granted, the Apple device has far better hardware and seems to be more polished, but the capabilities are very similar from what we've seen so far.
At the very least it's a VR and AR headset so no, it's not just a VR headset. And, considering Apple's track record on stuff like this, it's probably more accurate to call it a spatial computer since spatial awareness while using it can be adjusted on the fly. You can't do that with any VR headset right now.
Remember, the first iPhone shipped with no ability to copy and paste stuff, sort glued hardware inside the case, and no ability to add a microSD card like those of the Nokia phones of the time. If the first iPhone pre-order was posted on HN, it would have received a similar comment… :-)
It is a first gen device. It is not for everybody, and it is going to be severely lacking in feature set. The key is what they are trying to genuinely bring to the table rather than what is missing(or that it is heavier or needs a battery hanging on the side - these are fixable things in the next iterations).
I see this as in the same category as 3D TV. Unless they're really into air combat simulations or use it professionally for some kind of visualisations, I can't see people wanting to sit on their couch with a big headset on. I would be interested to try it, but will wait for a rich friend to buy it first.
3D TV didn't even add much to purchase price. I needed a TV for a new room and bought one with 3D but it wasn't appreciably more expensive than an otherwise equivalent screen.There was never a lot of 3D content though. I bought the handful of discs of the good 3D movies and that was about it.
I'd try it as well but if the addressable market is the gamers who hang on each NVIDIA GPU release I couldn't count on this being very interesting. Even console gaming generally is something of a niche market in the scheme of things.
The DPI is pretty critical here though. A big part of their pitch is that you can use this to work. You can open huge windows all around you full of readable text. Seems like it'd be great for coding. Especially since it has the AR too, so you're not totally isolated while you're doing that.
Main problem could be too much weight for long sessions. But it's 600 grams, fairly close to the face with a very wide headband, and custom-fitted. Seems like it might be reasonably comfortable.
The iPad was arguably rather a pre-1.0 version when it came out.
And I must say I rarely use mine around the house. I'm admittedly not a kid that writes papers on an iPhone and doesn't even want a laptop but it's just much easier to use a laptop for searching/writing/etc.
Doing much less travel than pre-COVID, I'm not even sure I'll replace my iPad when it goes out of support. A MacBook Air and Kindle combo does most things as well or better and weighs only marginally more.
I think I use my devices in pretty much exactly the way Apple planned for their use. My laptop gets used for work. My iPad gets used for reading, email, and light web browsing. My phone is what I take with me when I leave the house. The iPad also doubles for travel for me. I use all 3 nearly an equal amount of time and use Handoff and all that stuff regularly between the 3.
The iPhone was widely mocked for costing $500 with a 2-year contract with AT&T at release. It also didn't have native apps and only worked with AT&T. The big jump for Apple was the next release of the iPhone 3G that brought the price down toe $200 (with contract) and also opened up the platform for native apps.
The iPhone was $600 at launch, and when features were compared to other (much cheaper) phones, it didn’t stack up. It didn’t take videos, had a bad camera, slow internet speeds, etc, etc, etc.
The iPhone didn’t win because it had the most features, it won because it made the features it had much easier to use… so people actually used them. Other phones could technically do stuff, but it was so annoying to do, no one did it. Not long before the iPhone launched I had a friend get a Moto Q. She was determined to get the most out of it and learn how to use everything. She was carrying a massive manual with her in her purse. The iPhone did those things without the need to study a manual for weeks or months.
It is also the distortion field. You never heard people say the Nokia N95 (even though it was a very successful device) or the BlackBerry or the Macbook. So regardless, there is no 'the iPhone'. There was an original iPhone which IIRC didn't even have 3G. It couldn't do MMS. It couldn't do copy/paste. It was a crippled device, but it did a couple of things very well. It shows that in order to be successful the first iteration of a new product line doesn't have to be perfect.
The argument falls apart when you remember that more than one person outside of RIM owned a BlackBerry. Who has a Quest? Also? Who had a BlackBerry? Just the people who had a reason to own a BlackBerry. Everyone else just waited for the iPhone to exist.
This isn’t the iPad release, it’s the Apple Watch release. It’s a flag-planting, limited capability, system for early adopters that’s meant to be a ramp to a more practical v2.
I don’t think most people will have a use for the Vision Pro, but, for the people that do, it’s in a different league from what’s currently available.
The mass market iPad/iPod Touch version of the Vision will be out in a few years.
There is no reason this first iteration would not sell out. There are enough people with more money than sense or wishing to have an additional status symbol to sell it regardless of its qualities and defaults.
The question is will it have enough appeal for the technology to trickle down to more affordable devices that the general population is willing to actually buy? And will it happen before we can implant chips directly into our brain? So far VR has occupied nothing less but a niche market.
I remember the exact opposite. People were saying it’s just a bigger iPod touch, didn’t have a full fledged OS etc. Most online discussion said it would be a complete failure.
uh yeah, i remember it quite differently. everyone was dismissive of the ipad...i remember even thinking how phones were getting bigger and what was the point.
> Apple makes the arrogant assumption of thinking that it knows what you want and need. It, unfortunately, leaves the “why” out of the equation — as in “why would I want this?” The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a ‘mouse’. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I dont want one of these new fangled devices.
Given that at least 2 companies (including Microsoft) were already shipping mice for IBM PCs by 1984, and there were various pointing devices on engineering workstations, it seems like Dvorak was mostly just in his controversial mode.
As much as you guys mention them, I have never, ever experienced an "Apple fanatic" in real life. I'm probably the closest thing to an Apple fanatic and that's only because I buy a lot of their products. I pre-ordered a Vision Pro because I see a lot of use for my business and some new avenues for services I can offer to clients. I'm not tempering any expectations. I'm very excited for this thing.
I think we don't really need to look that far. I have never seen a Hackernews posts that downvoted so many completely normal replies like in this one.
I am expecting this here to be downvoted the same just for mentioning it.
I think you’d get downvoted for not contributing anything and it would have nothing to do with these supposed “fanboys”. You made a claim with no evidence to support it that was so general it might as well be meaningless and then added some preemptive persecution. If I could downvote your comment, I sure would.
A lot of people in the comments here complaining about the price, but honestly it makes a ton of sense to me. Apple isn't positioning this as a peripheral or secondary computing device.
They are staking the claim (via price and otherwise) that this is a whole computer that you should use for Very Serious Productivity. Whereas the iPad (for example) was always kind of assumed to be a secondary/casual computing device, this is very much not. The price, the "Pro" moniker, and fact that it has specs more in line with Apple's line of laptops than its iOS devices all support this framing.
There are clearly people who will happily drop $4k on an Apple laptop if they think it'll be a good tool. That is who this is being marketed to, not people who might otherwise have bought a Oculus or whatever.
Whether the device lives up to the marketing is a different question and one we really can't answer until we spend some time with it. I'll let you know when mine arrives. So very much depends on the "feel" of the finger sensors and eye tracking.
But I do think it's priced correctly for what they're claiming it is.
The commment said serious productivity, though. Many people don’t need general purpose serious computation in order to be seriously productive—they need certain tools and a certain environment.
I mostly agree. I think it's a bit much for a first-get device that hasn't proved itself out yet but I have enough experience with first-gen Apple products that I know this will easily lead to being a jumping off point for me to make a decent amount using this as a tool. If it breaks even for me, it'll be worth it for the head start I'll have over others who will just be getting into the ecosystem with later, cheaper versions.
Nah, I don't see that. Apple delivers the same spiel about the iPad Pro and its AR-capable cameras. Not one person uses the iPad Pro for that, they just want the bigger screen.
Isn’t this a bit of a narcissistic take? Tons of creatives use it. It’s a mainstay in a lot of media and entertainment use cases, from on set work to visualization etc just as an example of things I’ve worked on.
Must admit, as this got closer I contemplated getting it more and more. Especially as I find myself using my laptop a lot on the couch and bed.
Just the ability to have a larger screen without worrying about my physical Mac screen is a fairly large selling point, plus any other features. I assume there has not been anything about the ability to have multiple virtual Mac screens has there? That would likely make this an instant purchase for me.
Early reports are that the Vision feels quite heavy to wear. That’s almost certainly going to make it a bad choice for virtual screens for more than an hour or so.
There is a variable there in that there's an optional over-the-top strap included in the retail package, but many of the people who previewed it either chose not to use it or weren't offered it. MKBHD for example emphasized how heavy it feels, but he wasn't using the top strap.
But on the other hand, they took the feedback this time and created a different strap to address it (and early reviews seem to indicate it does help quite a bit).
So - lols aside - I don’t think it’s quite the same thing. I think they realize it’s a real issue for some people and they’re trying to address that earnestly.
From what I can tell it is about the same weight as the Valve Index which I have been able to wear for a fairly extended period of time while doing physical activities.
If I can wear that while being physical I can probably handle the Vision Pro for extended periods.
Based on my extensive experience with a Quest 2, overall weight isn’t as much of a factor as balance of that weight is.
The Quest 2 wasn’t that comfortable to use out of the box, but after adding a Vive Deluxe Audio Strap connected with 3D printed adapters (which distributes weight better) and a counterweight that’s attached the back of the strap it’s dramatically improved. Still not perfect, but I have no issues wearing it for an hour or longer playing Beat Saber.
That is a good point which is really hard to get a good feel for what this will be in that regards without actually trying it.
But I just don't think weight alone will be a concern given my experience with the Index.
My only problems with the index is the weight distribution while moving around (particularly while playing beat saber and crouching) but I likely wouldn't be doing that with the Vision Pro. And heat while being physically active but that was easily solvable by adding a fan to the front.
I already use this thing almost every day. But maybe that's because I am used too it so the jump to something like this is not really that crazy.
It's actually about 150-200 grams lighter than the Index, though the distribution of weight seems to be better balanced on the Index than the AVP. Hard to say how it will feel for long term usage, but I'm not particularly concerned, personally.
I didn't realize it would be the same weight as an Index. That's great to hear. I found the Index incredibly comfortable for long stretches too. Half-Life: Alyx was incredible and spent hours at a time playing it without any discomfort.
I’ve done countless long trips on motorcycles and have never been bothered by the weight of the helmet. I’m curious if a little bit of exercise will counter any discomfort with this. Seems other headsets have had similar complaints, too.
VR enthusiast here. A heavy thing hanging off the front of your face is extremely different to a helmet on top of your head. Wait for reviews and pay particular attention to how Apple have approached that issue.
My guess is that the primary goal would be balance front to back, assuming you use their stronger over-head strap. Then it shouldn’t be pulling you forward.
There doesn’t seem to be anything balancing the weight on the vision pro, the weight appears to be all in the front. You’re going to be feeling torque rotating your head forward about the axis of your neck, regardless of how good the strap is.
The mounting/straps can make a huge difference, e.g. the strap going over the top of the head was a game-changer for me. It obviously can't fix everything, though.
XReal Air are pretty good for that purpose. I can just plug them into my laptop or any phone that supports DisplayPort over USB-C and mirror my full screen.
The clarity is good enough for dev work, but my eyes feel a little strained after a few hours of use. I'm curious whether Apple's product will be more comfortable for longer use.
I coded on one of them. It was ok for a short period. The blurriness and ghosting, especially on the corners and edges made it pretty tiring after a while.
They're great for watching videos, movies, TV, etc. though!
I was considering those. Is there some sort of accelerometer in there so the screen moves in your field of vision as you turn your head, or does it just kinda float there? I haven't been able to understand that from their product pages.
On my Mac I can set up three monitors in the xreal air using their "nebula" software, you need the beam. They also have a beta version of nebula for windows might also have it on Linux.
It's three 1080 P screens, one in front of me, and one to either side of me. And yes, they "stand still" when I move my head to between them
The screen fills up the entire FOV, which is great. The problem is that there's a lag between head movements and the glasses adapting. That means unless you stay very still, there will pretty much always be a part of the screen that's not visible. Furthermore, the lag is (to me) really bothersome.
I think the virtual mac screen is limited to 4K resolution, which means you can “zoom” it as much as you want, but you won’t be able to fit “more content” on it. That is to say, there’s a difference between having a huge screen with a matching huge resolution (which can fit more windows with the same text/content size), and what the Vision Pro is going to emulate, which is more like taking your existing 4K monitor and blowing it up (making each window/text/etc correspondingly bigger, and potentially looking blurry if it’s too big.)
You can probably work around this by adjusting the compositor into a “more space” mode in preferences which makes all the content smaller, but it’s not the same as having arbitrary resolution to match the arbitrary virtual size.
Personally, I don’t want a virtual screen at all, I want all the individual windows on my Mac to hover around me in virtual space (like they do for native visionOS apps), but that’s not supported. It’s a real shame IMO.
> Personally, I don’t want a virtual screen at all, I want all the individual windows on my Mac to hover around me in virtual space (like they do for native visionOS apps), but that’s not supported. It’s a real shame IMO.
Well, yes, that would be the ultimate. Why even think in terms of "screens" which only exist for practical reasons in physical space?
Same reason I don't just have an ultra widescreen monitor on my desk and I have 3 monitors instead.
Separate monitors allows for better organization of different app windows than a single monitor, especially with different spaces on different monitors. I can keep my main screen on whatever it is I am working on while switching to a different space on another monitor to check email or teams for example.
Or just being able to have multiple full screen apps which is what I often do.
Hmm... so you use multiple monitors to emulate a tiling window manager, but with far less flexibility (you can't divide your workspace into four equal parts, for example).
I would say I use it to augment what already exists.
I don't really want my workspace divided into equal parts, I have my primary monitor which is my largest monitor in the middle. A slightly smaller (and lower resolution) monitor to the left for research, teams, etc. And then I have a vertical monitor to the right for things that I need the extra space for.
I have more flexibility to setup my workspace exactly how I want, sure I can't change it later but I don't need too. It does what I need it to do since I set it up that way.
I tried driving an ultra wide screen monitor at one point and it was probably my biggest regret of a purchase, and I have made some stupid purchases. It sells you on a more flexible ideal that just isn't the reality.
If I want to switch context on one of my screens while keeping my main screen where it is (which I do most of the time) I just move my mouse over and swipe to another space. No fussing with widows being over each other or making sure that the OS somehow knows that I only want to move part of my screen.
I've never seen a window manager that treats subdivisions of the screen like 1:1 physical monitors at the OS level.
They generally just resize windows, take over the entire monitor when you click "fullscreen", and display errors/prompts in the middle of the monitor, overlapping your other windows. Similarly, these subdivisions can't themselves host virtual desktop spaces.
Surely there's some Linux window manager that does all of this and more, but I'm never going to fuss with that when I can plug in a few cheap monitors and they work the same way immediately and consistently, out-of-the-box, on any OS.
Yes, but it's a minor issue of software configuration. Tiling WMs like sway can definitely do it. It seems weird to choose worse hardware to compensate for deficiencies in a window manager configuration.
I was thinking about that, and that is true when one of the monitors is generally Safari.
The question will be can I easily copy something from Safari on the Vision Pro to my Mac for example? Or move the mouse from my Mac Display (which will likely just be the trackpad of my laptop on my lap) to that Safari and use it that way.
It would need to operate as an extension of my Mac for it to be useful in this scenario.
Since that's basically how Sidecar works, I would imagine that this will work the same way. Copying between Apple devices is seamless with iCloud and Sidecar automatically connects displays via Bluetooth/WiFi discovery. Same goes for AppleTV and that's way more underspec'd than a Vision Pro.
Like I know I can use my mouse on my computer to control the Mac screen on my iPad, but I didn't think I could move my mouse over to control iPad apps?
I honestly have not used that feature much so if it can do that... that makes me rethink the usefulness of this.
You’re describing Universal Control. Macs have 2 separate features. Sidecar allows you to use an iPad as an additional display for a Mac. Universal control allows you to use one keyboard/mouse to control multiple Apple devices in proximity. If you use both together, you can use an iPad as a second display for a Mac and use that Mac’s keyboard and mouse just as with any other secondary display.
I am going to have to play with this tonight, while I know it won't be exactly the same it will give a good enough indication of what this workflow will be like.
That might sway whether or not I get this thing. Being able to more optimally work while away from my desk is worth... a lot.
Yeah that is all we saw in the marketing, and I figure if it was possible they would have shown it since that would be a killer feature.
I am guessing there may be some wireless bandwidth issue with transmitting more than one screen but idk. Guess we will see if it just happens to not have been shown
Except that wouldn't be a first-gen product and doesn't have the same capabilities so no... that wouldn't be a better comparison. Does a Quest Dev Kit even exist in 2024? I thought you just buy the headset now?
It seems like it’s also a dev device. Reports are that Apple is working on cheaper versions so the Vision pro provides an early adopter market and high spec device for developers. In a few years when they go for a mainstream launch there will already be an app and game ecosystem.
Different from a watch, some kind of mixed reality wearable will eventually replace phones and laptops, I am sure. It might still be several decades till the technology fits in a pairs of eyeglasses.
Consider this your 2050 preview, like the Apple Newton to your iPhone.
So true. The same is valid for many other (almost ridiculous) expensive items: watches, bags, shoes, cars, wines, perfumes… There are many rich people out there that need to differentiate themselves from us plebeians :-)
I recently watched a video that speculated that middle class people mostly bought those designer brands to appear rich. Rich people generally don't need/want Gucci and whatnot plastered all over their person. I'd buy that argument.
I’ve said this to anyone I speak to about Vision Pro, which is that the current iteration appears to me to be most similar to the gold Apple Watches that were released with the first version. These were mocked in the media but nevertheless made buzz about the Apple Watch and brought about general awareness of the product. The first Apple Watches were overall pretty incomplete products, especially in comparison to modern ones. If the Vision Pro follows the same trajectory, it will likely do reasonably well as future iterations get better community support, first party features, better form factor, and cheaper price point. Besides smart phones, Apple usually isn’t the first to do something, but when they do it, they do it well. I’m excited for roughly the 3rd gen of the Vision Pro, but will be interestedly following news of it.
This has been a reliable pattern, and why most people typically say wait for version 2 of any Apple product (and feature if we’re being honest).
I will say though, as much as it doesn’t make financial sense, I have been a part of some really rewarding experiences that were only possible while having new Apple products day 1.
So I just ordered a maxed out one. I wrote the firmware/OS for the prototype when it was a lot less polished and being demo’s to EVPs, so it’s going to be cool to see how far it’s come :)
I wonder how the reactions to this headset will play out. It's obviously going to be relatively clunky compared to expectations given that it's the first version. The marketing material doesn't really show the hassle of using a cable / separate battery. The battery only lasts 2 hours. There will not be many apps or they will be low quality. It'll probably be a bit front-heavy from all that glass.
Anyway, I got one for myself because I'm really excited about developing for it, and also seeing how productive one can be working with the headset on (I was already pretty impressed with using virtual screens for my MacBook with keyboard passthrough in the Quest).
Quest 3, the DPI looks somewhat similar to a non-retina Apple display.
It felt really futuristic to log into my office computer from a synthesized apartment via Virtual Desktop. The latency was fine for typing. Even YouTube video/audio was bearable. But the device itself is still too heavy. The fixed lens system can't be good for your eyes.
Apple Vision Pro is even heavier. Even as a hardcore VR fan I cannot imagine the current generation hardware to be useful in productivity tasks.
I attempted with the Quest 2 and it was far from doing the job well. Resolution is too low, optics too poor, headset too heavy and uncomfortable, battery too small. I’ve heard Quest 3 is better, but I am still very skeptical that the Vision Pro could be an all day device and replacement for a multi monitor setup. Possibly in a few years there will be a dedicated device for just virtual monitors designed for all day working. Xreal’s product is close but still very early adopter.
Apple says the Vision's device weight is 600–650 grams and Meta says its Quest 3 is 515 grams. The Vision is between 85-135 grams heavier despite there not being a battery on the part that you wear.
Anecdotally and in my experience, there have been many complaints about fatigue for the Quest, and I wonder if Apple will be able to get away with more premium materials in the future versions. It seems like there will be a big tradeoff between adoption and the materials used.
Vision isn't out, but I am curious what V2 looks like and/or a version that optimizes to comfort.
The additional weight comes from the front display.
The reports regarding fatigue are consistently related to users wearing only the band, when they add the additional strap that goes directly over the head it's fine. Typical Apple leading with form over function. It ships with the additional strap at least so that should alleviate it for most people. Quest 3 has a similar additional band which helps as well.
I don’t know why people think an oled display is heavy. There’s a ton of other heavier components to the point where that front display is likely insignificant.
Things like active cooling, multiple camera arrays, motorized IPD adjustment.
I bet when iFixIt does a tear down, the front display will be shown to be negligible.
> Can I buy Apple Vision Pro in the U.S. and take it back to my country/region?
> Apple Vision Pro is only available for sale in the U.S and is designed for customers in the U.S. to use at home, at work, and while traveling. We look forward to bringing Apple Vision Pro to more countries later this year.
So, why aren't they answering their own question here? Feels like they are dodging the answer.
What happens when I do buy it and take it to another country? Will it stop working, or is it just that Apple stores aren't equipped (yet) to service these devices?
* Apple Vision Pro only supports English (U.S.) for language and typing and English for Siri and Dictation.
* App Store requires an Apple ID with region set to the U.S.
* Purchases on Apple Music and TV app require an Apple ID with region set to the U.S.
* For customers with vision correction needs, ZEISS will only accept vision prescriptions written by U.S. eye care professionals, and will only ship to U.S. locations.
* Customers may not be able to access certain apps, features, or content due to licensing or other restrictions in those countries or regions.
The announcement says "while traveling" - I think there is a reasonable expectation that your Vision Pro isn't just going to stop working when you land in Europe.
The reasonable explanation here is that this product is in a soft launch... similar to when a restaurant opens for the first time to friends and family. There is almost certainly an entire book worth of experience that apple needs to get with rolling this product out.
I don't understand why companies ask themselves good FAQs and then dodge their own question, I've seen it a few times recently. If you don't want to answer it, why are you asking yourself the question? It's weird
"Apple Vision Pro is great for travel and when U.S. customers travel abroad, the experience will remain consistent. That means all of their apps and content will remain accessible while traveling, so they can use apps and enjoy music, TV, and movies."
Ordered one but have fairly low expectations. I guess my main fear is that it really takes off, and there is a huge improvement in the V2 that obsoletes this one.
I don’t think that’s likely. It seems that the price is high because Apple wanted the 2030 headset today. If they get moderate success, they will release lower spec versions which will probably not match the Vision Pro for 2 product cycles. So the Vision SE 2 might be on par with the Pro 1. Pro 1 likely to be supported for maybe 6 years, assuming it’s not a big flop and Apple abandons headsets for awhile.
Obviously lower demand than a new iPhone, because the store didn't stutter once, even with the new steps of scanning your face and uploading a prescription. When new iPhones are released usually you can feel the cogs turning in the backend.
It's decent but I don't think I'd say "fine". Most games (if they support both) work a million times better with the controllers. I tried hand tracking in a number of games on the Q2 and found it very lackluster. We will see if the AVP is able to deliver on their promise but already from the demos they've done it seems way more responsible/reliable than what I experienced on the Q2.
It supports conventional Playstation/Xbox style game controllers, but it doesn't currently have any equivalent to the Quests motion controllers for spatial applications which need more motion fidelity or inputs than are practical with just hand and eye tracking. It'll be a struggle to port a lot of existing VR games over to it.
Perhaps, but a Playstation controller chains your hands together by design. The established standard for VR gaming is to have a separate controller for each hand.
There's also the question of how precise the hand-tracking is under pressure, moving windows around is one thing but keeping up with expert Beat Saber maps is another thing entirely.
It will be interesting to see some side by side comparisons to the Quest Pro which has both the eye and and hand tracking as well.
I was disappointed there were no controllers, even as an accessory since it means that most of the VR gaming catalog will never be ported to this awesome Vision hardware.
Similar specs and price as XR-4 from https://varjo.com Wipes the floor with Oculus and others, but IMHO 90Hz refresh rate not enough for truly immersive VR/AR experience.
Once the initial fascination wears out, you are not going to use it as replacement for the big screen. VR/AR needs improve technically and find killer apps and must-have games.
Since that website uses the aggressively stupid "talk to sales" tactic, the "find a retailer" link a the bottom is more informative: https://www.adorama.com/vr0017500.html ($3990) or the platinum plated version at $9990 https://www.adorama.com/vr0017400.html both of which are "on backorder until March 2024"
I got a dystopian chuckle out of "Varjo XR-3 Headset with Perpetual Offline License" for $10990 (but free shipping!!1) https://www.adorama.com/vrjvr3d.html so maybe the $3990 XR-4 is just the hardware, and it's another $X for the license to use it
IMO the next big computing device is glasses with fashionable look like Aviators or Ray Bans. A private screen, speaker, and finger tracking.
It could even be a glasses and a band you wear on wrist that accurately track finger motion even though fingers are not in view of the glasses.
You don’t want to look like a Glasshole - hence it needs to look normal and fashionable.
You definitely don’t want to be talking to it all the time. It’s not private and voice bandwidth is like 8 bytes / second. This is where rabbit and other devices get it wrong.
The reason iPhone took off was its touch sensitive and responsivess was above and beyond what anyone has. The homescreen app model is great UX.
I essentially want something like Meta Rayban with a screen and finger tracking. The fingers could be under a table while I am sitting and it should still work.
Essentially like the Apple Watch but for your eyes. Non-obtrusive, fashionable, highly responsive, full day operation.
I was going to impulse buy it but then they have put so many barriers that impulse buy is not possible. You must measure your face and have eye prescription ready! Wtf? I am in my bed and not going to do that for the privilege of pressing buy button. Now it’s not surprising that it’s still not sold out.
Too many people seem to be confusing prior product critical commentary being invalid with all product critical commentary being invalid.
Apple Vision Pro won't do much as a product - it'll struggle for even minimal adaption and will be eventually all but withdrawn within 24 months. The patents etc may eventually lead to a compelling product.
But I'd be very confident I could look back at this comment and be proven correct.
iPad commentary on launch always felt wide of the mark - use case was clear. iPhone was limited at launch but you could see the path forward. Vision Pro feels like it could never be 'evolved' into a mass market product - though maybe the patents could be taken and become something useful, albeit different.
Would you be willing to bet a token amount, say the current base cost of a Vision Pro ($3500), that in 48 months (giving you some buffer here) Apple has fully withdrawn support for the Vision line and does not release a new model? That’s the real test of confidence. I personally think you’re way off the mark and am willing to put money on the line. Are you?
I too would like to participate in this bet on your side.
I read their first paragraph and thought to myself that it was a reasonable stance, only to then be followed up with ridiculous stuff that straight up slides off the other end of the spectrum.
Gotta admire the confidence though, however misplaced it might be.
That was my initial reaction as well. Having said that I thought the same about the Watch and I turned out to be wrong about that. I still don't want one but all that means is I'm an outlier.
> Still a lot of people will buy it so why 3499, 3699, 3899? Why not 3999, 4199, 4399? Surely if you have the money you would buy it either way.
Pricing is partly art. Pricing is about choosing a number that you think the market (and the market size you're after) will bear. Pricing can signal status; it can signal "this is for you" (e.g. when inexpensive). Pricing is psychological - that's why you see 9.95 instead of 10, that could be one of the reasons why the Vision Pro is not in the $4000 range because that is in a different level psychologically.
For a (relatively) fixed cost of manufacturing, it becomes an optimization problem with 2 variables: price and volume. Volume is inversely proportional to price, so price too high and you start losing profits due to low sales, but price too low and you don't make enough per unit.
I have no doubt this will evolve into a great product, but it is going to take some time.
For those with a FOMO, chill. This is a product that is going to iterate quickly, is going to go through the trough of disillusionment, and people are going to take a while to figure out how it works in their life. I felt zero interest in being an early adopter even though I'm sold that it will be how we eventually work. I'll be an iteration 3 or so buyer.
I suspect they will sell a ton. For the most part, people scoffed at inflation and just kept spending. Unemployment is still super low and wages are rising. Reports seem to indicate people still have money saved from the pandemic (eg. travel is still super high) so I think people won't hesitate to spend $3500 on what could be a ground breaking piece of equipment (even if you don't think it is now).
They’ll sell every single one they make for awhile. The question is the longevity - but if it works and they don’t drop support it’ll slowly catch on as they drop price.
I'm using it for business and the justification was easy, especially with the Apple Card financing. It's kind of a no-brainer, especially if I can sell it for a reasonable amount when the new one comes out. I don't think I've ever sold an Apple product for less than half of what I paid for it. Most of them actually resell really well. I wonder if this will be the same.
I would like to buy one for my company without prescription glasses.
For employees with vision impairment, contact lenses are the preferred option. Do contact lenses work with the apple vision pro? Does anyone know this?
Not everyone can afford this. I wish someone was selling a holographic sticker that can be placed at the front side of cheap VR headsets to mimic the creepy eyes.
I’m curious how well this could work for using it as a portable multi-monitor setup.
If that works well in combination with my MacBook, I’ll buy it in a heartbeat.
Imagine just sitting anywhere, but immediately having 3 large vertical screens with code and documentation.
Resolution is the killer for that application. The panels in the Vision Pro are dense, but through the distortion of the optics and with those pixels stretched over your entire field of view only a fraction of them will actually be displaying your virtual monitor(s), and as you scale a monitor down in virtual space it also becomes lower resolution. For comfort and ergonomics you don't actually want a giant monitor that fills your entire FOV, there's a reason why real monitors have settled around 27-32" despite larger panels being available.
Ironically existing Apple users are the most likely to notice this limitation, since their computers have had very high DPI displays as standard for a long time.
23 million pixels, divided by two, makes 12.5 MP per eye. Let's assume it's nearly square, so taking the square root gives us 3535 pixels in height and width.
This graphic claims 3400x3400 resolution, so we're not far off:
Frustratingly, the spec sheet doesn't list FOV, but let's assume it's on the order of 110 degrees. That gives us about 31 pixels per degree.
Right now, I'm sitting about 30 inches from a 24" diagonal 1920x1200 monitor. That gives a vertex angle of about 45 degrees, and it's 2264 pixels corner-to-corner, so I've got 50.3 pixels per degree. That's not high DPI, but it's acceptable. I also have a 4k, which is lovely, but given the chance I'll take more real estate over a small, high-DPI display. And with Vision Pro you can put monitors anywhere.
Another detail to consider is that your 24" monitor is probably benefiting from subpixel font rendering effectively tripling the horizontal resolution of text, but that can only work on a pixel-perfect display, not on a virtual display which is scaled and transformed before being displayed on a real panel.
I agree low DPI monitors are still acceptable, I'm using one now, but that's really contingent on subpixel fonts.
I don't personally use Apple products, but I do have some trust that they can get font rendering right. The browser window I'm looking at right now is a subset of my monitor, and could be considered a 'virtual display', but subpixel rendering works in that region. There's no reason other than laziness or lack of vertical integration that it wouldn't work in a virtual environment.
Keep in mind that the lens distorts the pixels so the density is not uniform across the FOV. Word is the PPD is 50-70 in the center, and beyond 60 is not visible.
This is precisely the use case I’m interested in. I work with a single monitor using a tiling window manager and multiple workspaces. I usually have one workspace with email, iMessage, another with code+docs+terminal, another with some desktop app, etc. if this device can make that more efficient and allow me to separate contexts better I’m going to go for it. If I can have that AND be on the go it’s absolutely worth the money.
I’m a bit loathe to go in on a $3500 device without trying it out though, so I’m waiting do a few weeks at least for some more reviews to trickle in and whatever hype to die down before checking it out. I am particularly interested in how heavy it is after wearing the thing for 4+ hours, which is not something you can really get a vibe about at the Apple Store
Unless I have missed it (someone please correct me if I am wrong) it only does 1 screen for a Mac.
But I agree, and the ability to do that really would make the price "reasonable". I mean I have 3 monitors on my main setup and one of those alone cost $1200 (I realize I didn't need to do that, but it still puts the price in prospective if I can have 3 virtual monitors on this thing.
As others have said I think it just does 1 screen but it's a 4K screen you can make whatever size you want. I run 3 monitors (2 vertical on the sides, one horizontal in the middle) and I love that setup but with a window tiling app I could make 1 big screen work just as well I think.
This is why I preordered it and if I don't think it delivers on that experience I'll probably return it. Productivity is my #1 use case with things like content consumption being a distant second.
I recently retired my Quest 2 in favor of a Pimax Crystal QLED. The resolution is superb, and it's well-suited to my primary use case (gaming/flight sim), but I will say that the one app that I miss from my Quest 2 is Immersed. I _really_ wish I could use my Crystal for productivity, but I've found no other virtual desktop app on any platform that can compete with Immersed.
I’ve tried it with the Quest Pro, but latency and connectivity issues in combination with the clunky Quest operating system and confusing Immersed user interface, pushed me away.
I want it to just work. Put on the headset and immediately be connected.
There's still no confirmation if the battery is hot swappable or not. Also Apple removed the text about passthrough charging. I'm surprised there's no option to purchase a bigger battery (the connection is proprietary; it'll have to be in partnership with Apple)
Sometimes I look at a product from a major company and wonder if I'm taking crazy pills. Why am I as some rando able to instantly notice stupid design? Don't they have teams of people examining obvious failures? Butterfly keyboard just for the apple example.
Put the damn battery on the back of the head to prevent neck problems you lunatics.
What exactly is the Vision Pro? AR goggles? VR goggles? Does it have hardware inside? Can it play VR games? The name certainly doesn't tell me anything, and the price point makes sure I won't ever see one.
This one just doesn’t feel as big. When the iPad was introduced, everyone was shocked by the very low price and the sleek form factor compared to previous Windows tablet devices.
Those are exactly the weak points of the Vision Pro: it’s very expensive and very heavy, according to reports.
The hands-on sessions that Apple gave to journalists earlier this week seemed a bit underwhelming. The reporter for the Verge wrote that it feels like the Quest, but with higher resolution.
That’s a worrying sign! Imagine if the first hands-on of the iPhone had been “it’s like a BlackBerry but with better DPI screen.”
Of course Apple is usually very good at consistently evolving their platforms. Maybe the non-Pro model will be something else.