This article addresses the MacOS vs visionOS thing, but doesn't go hard enough. It is incredibly frustrating that Apple seems determined to serve this up as kid gloves experience vs a general purpose computing device with direct access to a real file system and ultimately a shell prompt. I am not in love with how Meta has locked down the Quest but at least there is a thriving sideload app ecosystem.
That is, at least there is a way to load up the media player of your choice and watch porn.
Look, I get that corporate America is strangled by puritan values from the payment processing networks on up, but it is arrogant and willful ignorance to pretend that adult content consumption is not a major part of the VR/MR story.
You want to know what the people who actually use VR the most do with their headsets most of the time? VRChat and SexLikeReal, which is the PornHub of VR if you don't know.
Steve Jobs was a dude who loved to talk about doing LSD but in his later years, he became awkwardly fixated on preventing people from using Apple devices for the stuff most real people do.
He's been gone a long time. It'll be a shame if their vision for spatial blah blah is sanitized and safe for work, even after dark.
> Look, I get that corporate America is strangled by puritan values from the payment processing networks on up, but it is arrogant and willful ignorance to pretend that adult content consumption is not a major part of the VR/MR story.
I’m glad to see this sentiment expressed here. I have grown increasingly frustrated with this very thing over the past few years. Anything which even approaches, erotic or titillating is immediately suppressed, censored, and pretended like it never existed in the first place. Apple is one of the worst here, but far away not the only one. All of the AI companies are exactly the same: try and generate an image of a woman and a bathing suit with DALL-E and you will inevitably fail.
Instead, they pretend over and over that these are simply productivity devices, meant to enhance our capabilities as workers or consumers of Disney-level entertainment.
I am a human being, who occasionally gets horny. I masturbate. This is not something that corporate America recognizes, and in fact, seems eager to censor and suppress.
A world curated by conservative HR departments is not one that is particularly appealing to me, and the Vision Pro seems like it is the month of this attitude.
Your VR enthusiast is wrong. The issue he's describing was because of the two video players that launched in the App Store. There are video players for the AVP that can play stereoscopic video without issue.
I see ads for a program that draws pictures of women in sexual situations but boy when penises get involved it turns into nightmare fuel (disembodied, decapitated, bifurcated, pointing in the wrong direction) which makes me glad I don't have castration anxiety.
The really obvious MR sex app is one that overwrites your partner with somebody else like Strea or Bremington. Not sure if most partners would like that. You might get something that feels like motion sickness if there is too much of a difference in breast size.
> All of the AI companies are exactly the same: try and generate an image of a woman and a bathing suit with DALL-E and you will inevitably fail.
I think this is largely driven by the concern that the model could be used to (whether intentionally or inadvertently) generate an image of a person who looks underage. That's a gray area of law (not to mention morality) that people are very hesitant to test, so it's better to just block porn entirely.
But corporate America recognizes that you're a human being; most of popular culture is doing its best to make everyone horny or otherwise excited all the time. The fact that we're not served explicit content is a blessing IMHO.
I realize this is a bit of a different take, it does seem related though. At the same time I get that you'd like to do what you want with your device and that makes sense too.
> This is not something that corporate America recognizes, and in fact, seems eager to censor and suppress.
Numerous American companies recognize this and are developing services and products tailored to your needs. The comment just above yours highlighted some of these companies.
However, Apple may not be the best-suited company to take action in this regard.
> Apple seems determined to serve this up as kid gloves experience vs a general purpose computing device with direct access to a real file system and ultimately a shell prompt
I think the idea of a general purpose OS without a company involved in deciding whether you are allowed to run programs or not is a thing of the past. If Apple and Microsoft could go back in time and change macOS and Windows to be like iOS where everything has to be approved and signed by Apple they almost certainly would. The only reason they haven't already (IMO) is that people are already used to those platforms being open, and there would be too much outcry to change it. Even then, they are certainly trying to chip away at it...
Think how much money would be collected if these companies got to extract 30% of every transaction carried out on every PC in the world. I'm sure they (plus Google) are busy trying to figure out if they can bring the "Apple Tax" concept to the web as well.
> If Apple and Microsoft could go back in time and change macOS and Windows to be like iOS where everything has to be approved and signed by Apple they almost certainly would.
What was Windows RT if not an attempt to move Windows over to a walled garden model?
The thing is that people run Windows because they want to run Windows apps. That is, Windows is an important OS not because it is such a great OS in itself but because it has a great selection of software. Same is true for Linux or any other mainstream OS.
(Your comment reads to me as having a tone of disagreement, yet you seem to just be providing further evidence of the point: we are confident that this is the case as Microsoft is actively trying -- if failing due to some of the other things you didn't bother to quote about existing expectations -- to gain this kind of control.)
>I think the idea of a general purpose OS without a company involved in deciding whether you are allowed to run programs or not is a thing of the past.
Android is the most used OS on the planet, so no. Not even close.
But they aren't collecting 30% from Apple Pay. I assume they only collect juicy data and maybe even charge CC companies for making the service available?
Would love an informed reply, sorry for Google Laziness as I'm outdoors
Apple doesn't charge businesses to use Apple Pay. They do charge the CC companies a fee of 0.15%. This fee might be passed on to the merchant, but I'm not sure if credit card processing fees have actually increased since Apple Pay's introduction. It's been a while since I had any involvement in that world.
Apple's ad business is fairly limited in scope (I think they only sell ads in the App Store and the News app) so user data is not as valuable for them as it is for Google and Facebook.
They definitely do make some money off Apple Pay transactions via interchange, but it's probably something like 0.1 to 0.3%.
Even on the iPhone it’s one of my regular frustrations that Apple’s autocorrect tries hard to keep me from using profanity. There are some ways to mitigate that but it’s tedious and annoying to have to do so.
I'll have to look into that. It still won't let me use the F word, for example. It'll give me pretty much any other possible word as an alternative, no matter how hard I try. But this may be because I do most of my regular typing by swiping. I see that I can type in 'fuck' manually and it won't try to replace it.
I'm right at the edge of turning off autocorrect altogether, just because it has a habit of changing previous words, not just the one I'm typing. If I only ever talked with very generic English this might be okay, but when I'm using subject matter lingo it fails utterly and becomes a tremendous nuisance to try and convince it to leave that text alone. Sometimes even deleting the correction and re-typing what you want doesn't stop the behavior.
Forget porn, I'm just annoyed that I have to have an account and Internet access to make my lightbulbs do their thing. Access control and "security" have just become absurd. A car charger shouldn't have to authenticate/authorize me, nor a light switch, a television, a computer display (whether or not it's attached to my face), etc. etc. etc.
I'm going to become a luddite and carry wads of cash and wear a tinfoil hat.
This is my startup idea: less of this crap. The logo is going to be a rabid woodland creature wearing a tinfoil hat.
Learning how to import bulbs into HomeAssistant, or learning how to flash different firmware onto bulbs has been a difficult (yet kinda fun?) way to give myself peace of mind about that. Having that all run on NAS has at least given me some belief it isn't leaving my system.
You’re not wrong, there is a lot of unnecessary vendor lockin. But as someone who has worked on IoT, security is much trickier than you might like. Security for a non wireless device can be completely relegated to physical access to the device. Thus making security the problem of owner of the device in a way that we have accepted security since forever. But as soon as there is a way to access a device from afar… well suddenly there are attack vectors that most people can’t even begin to imagine. And mitigating these attack vectors starts to seem like an unnecessary burden for non technical folk. I even had to deal with issues of a CEO and product owner not being able to wrap their heads around a few attack vectors forcing user experience compromises that they really didn’t like. It is really hard to solve the problem of you being the only person able to turn on and off your light from afar from an arbitrary device (one not paired at the factory). At the end of the day you need some way to pair a device. That’s sort of easy, bluetooth pairing is kind of a solved problem. But now let’s say you want to transfer authorization to turn a light on and off. Well, now you need to pair the device with this new person. As a house guest, they’re not going to take the time to do this for every device you own. So companies rely on other means that often rely on some combination of authenticate authorize in their ecosystem.
Steve Jobs envisioned the Apple Macintosh as a personal appliance - locked down, no expandability. But with only 128KB or even 512KB, the computer couldn't do a whole lot. Once Jobs left Apple, management expanded the Mac's features.
When Jobs acquired Apple, his vision of computing appliances was restarted - iPod, iPhone, et al. They have a lot more functionality, but the iOS walled garden keeps enough of the users happy - at least in the Silicon Valley/USA.
Look at early 20th-century Sears-Roebuck shopping catalogs online - one of the pages showed a hand-sized motor and the various attachments one could buy to attach to it - want a blender - get the motor and the blender attachment, et al.
An early 20th-century motor-based ecosystem similar to the battery-powered power tools you see today.
Eventually the idea of a generic motor that gets specialized with whatever particular attachment you want was refined to combine a motor and each particular attachment into its own separate integrated device - no swapping of motor and attachment anymore. There are pros and cons to both systems, but the integrated specialized appliance approach won for the most part.
> When Jobs acquired Apple, his vision of computing appliances was restarted - iPod, iPhone, et al. They have a lot more functionality, but the iOS walled garden keeps enough of the users happy - at least in the Silicon Valley/USA.
This sentence is backwards. About the only users not happy with the iPad as computing appliance are the ones in Silicon Valley USA or drinking its "car makers should design for garage mechanics not for driving" koolaid. (Commenters here, for instance.)
If you accept the premise the best tech disappears behind "the job to be done" for users, if you acknowledge driving is not about tinkering under the hood, to run an errand a driver shouldn't need to even know how it works under the hood, and most drivers are better off picking up groceries or kids or traveling, not ever opening the hood, then you will have a better time making cars for the drivers who buy Apple because it's an appliance farther along the novel engineering utility curve, where tinkerability is for engineers, utility is for users, and most users are not mechanics.
See also this, on Apple's "brand promise" and the EU's DMA:
They sold about $30B in Macs last year. If you're going to claim they aren't general purpose computing devices, you're operating under a different definition than just about anybody else.
I mean Asahi Linux works really well on many versions of Apple Silicon these days, you're definitely moving goalposts if you're saying that a MacBook isn't a general purpose device.
Just to be clear, I was saying that MacBooks are general purpose computing devices. I was disputing that the level of sales of a device has anything to do with whether or not the device is general purpose or not.
I think it's reasonable to restrict pornography on a device intended to be used for AR in public.
From Apple's perspective, it's important that using the device in public doesn't have a stigma.
Otherwise, we don't need to wait for deepfake AI / AR apps to undress people.
Creeps could go in public, see a person they like, and put porn next to them without anyone knowing.
Without restricting porn, an AR device just becomes a machine to violate others boundaries. There's a reason cell phones in Japan cannot turn off the shutter sound.
Given that they literally tell you not to wear the device outside (and that early reviewers showed how it stopped working in a moving car or on a moving train, the device stops displaying content when its accelerometer determines you might become nauseated by outside motion) I don't think this argument holds water.
MacBooks can access an unrestricted amount of porn yet the public doesn't immediately equate computer users -> using porn right now.
This is factually inaccurate. It doesn't stop working in a moving car or train. The reviewers/users that were using it in those instances simply didn't turn on the Travel mode of the device. In order for the 3D windows to persist, they need tracking data. Travel mode disables the external tracking and leaves it as internal. It's less accurate but it's completely usable in a moving vehicle.
The same argument (who is it hurting if its notreal and viewed by a singular person?) is commonly used by organizations who would like to see the age of consent lowered / widespread legalization of child pornography.
I don't want to discuss it too much because there's enough nuance here for people to hang you with no matter what you say, but, a brief parable: I spent exactly 1 sentence pointing out to someone you could make porn with Stable Diffusion and they started hosting a SD instance for deep fakes in our non-technologist community with girls in it, and also started what I still think of as a "porn dungeon" chat room.
It was immensely frustrating trying to verbalize why this was antisocial and why there was a set of people who were legitimately upset by it. They never really understood fully.
But I'm sure they had moment with the Taylor Swift deepfake stuff from last week.
There's isn't really a 100% logical Spock reason why it's bad, other than other humans find it deeply distasteful.
Can't tell if this is satire or if you're being serious...
Just in case you're being serious, you realize that people can already imagine others naked in public or just snap a picture or video of them using their phone and upload it to your AI undressing service.
It being strapped to your head adds absolutely nothing, and you might be projecting your own fantasies.
I don’t need the glasses to substitute my computer. I want to be able to use them outdoors as an AR device that will give me information on various spots. Even if I could run MacOS why would I write code on that instead of my keyboard that has haptic feedback.
100% - "Closed" platforms are horrible - ok for a phone thing, but if you go in with "this is a computing platform" you have to give me more - especially at this price.
VR headsets are already borderline impossible for 90% of the population to operate. Kid gloves / rails experience is the only way normal people can use it.
Kinect failed because MS half assed it like they did Windows Mixed Reality, likely due to bean counting. It’s the same reason the Quest Pro was a failure.
Everyone buys their locked down walled-garden devices we are only allowed to use in a handful of profit-maximizing ways and this is what we get. If they liberated and respected the user they'd be another hardware company.
Its kindoff a shame. The people who built the foundations of our industry already knew what was coming decades ago and warned us, but we all thought they were crazy and ignored them. Now look at us. Governments can't even succesfully stand up against the control that these systems have over us.
This comment is deeply saddening because of how true it is. This is exactly what has driven me to become a FOSS enthusiast, but sometimes I can't help but feel hopeless about the future of tech in general.
It's a huge shame! I try not to use the anyone-who-disagrees argument but I genuinely think that anyone who disagrees lacks imagination. We have been robbed of so many possibilities!
General purpose computing directly implies that each user is free to do what they want with it, just like the MacBook Pro they bought from the same company.
The world would be a lot more awesome if people weren't entitled to feel "uneasy" about what people they will never meet are doing legally in the privacy of their own homes.
I don't agree, but I respect that this strategy is seemingly self-evident to a certain brain wiring.
PornHub says that red states often represent their heaviest users, demographically. Can you even imagine how different things would be if the rugged individualists defended freedom of thought as passionately as they defended weapons?
I think it’s not just the red states, imagine a viral message asking if you knew that the guy near you on the subway was watching porn on his new gadget.
Many articles don't address visionOS limitations for 3rd party app developers. Everyone want to have a killer app but many ideas are simply not possible because:
1) there is no access to video/depthmap stream like in iPhone ARKit so it's not possible to roll your down Object Detection or ML Model or even simple QRCode scanner
2) Latency for Image Tracking seems to be around 1-2fps comparing to iPhone ARKit
3) in some WWDC videos hand tracking seems to be not as precise and also having latency
4) You cannot implement something similar like Mac Expose because iOS/iPadOS/visionOS is much more limited than MacOS
5) At least on iOS/iPad depthmap from lidar is much worse than those provided from TrueDepth (and even those got significantly worse from iPhone 14+)
Overall for productivity I find some future iteration of XReal glasses more compelling and better direction:
- much cheaper
- very lightweight
- work with connected to desktop or mobile phone
- can have lower latency since connected directly with usb-c cable
- can possibly have less software limitation if connected to desktop
Ideally I would like to have some combination of google glasses / meta ray-ban / xreal so that you can wear it outdoor for simple HUD and AI voice control but can be connected to smartphone or laptop to provide AR experience similar like in xreal but just with better resolution.
After about a decade of supporting 3rd party software on Apple platforms (now, against my will and advice most of the time) I think other people need to come to the realization that Apple doesn't give a shit about 3rd party developers and their ultimate goal is to block you from making anything more useful than what Apple provides as first party software.
All APIs are provided begrudgingly and with a deep distrust of anyone using them and as much friction placed between developers and users.
Not to mention the fact that due to the very high introductory price you can't appeal to the developers the same way Jobs appealed with the iPhone. Then you had at least millions of existing users to encourage writing "disposable" apps (~ 1$) because 1) there are many potential users 2) they're two clicks aways from paying. The appeal was misleading a little but at least it looked reasonable. With Vision Pro to break even for at least the following a couple of years you will have to charge much more. Funny, even "two clicks away" is a little different here as many reviews mentioned the necessity to get used to the new eyes-based system.
Yes.. there are way too many developer restrictions on the VisionOS. There are so many use cases regarding eyetracking + external facing cameras that are just not possible with the current dev ecosystem.
He started off talking about how Vision Pro is not an open platform like MacOS and then he focused on how his productivity use case couldn't be realised because of lack of multiple screens. But he failed to draw the link between these.
Ultimately the upside of an open platform is that you can know with certainty that eventually literally any common need or deficiency it has will be addressed by the open market - if you are desperate enough you can pay and do it yourself. For example, when people didn't like Microsoft's desktop updates they created an entire alternative desktop shells. And there are now something like a dozen of these, some of which are / were commercial products. In an open platform, anything not addressed by the platform owner simply becomes a market opportunity for a third party developer. Of course, there are lots of downsides, but this is the upside.
But Apple's choice here to ship VisionOS as a fork of iOS and more importantly as a completely locked down system means that his ultimate conclusion is "maybe Apple will fix this" and alludes to hints of rumours they might do it. But this is what we are reduced to - disempowered, we simply hope that our overlords will have mercy on us, their interests coincidentally aligning with ours long enough that they do what we want. Or you buy into a competitor, but this just gives you a choice of tyrannies, not actual freedom.
None of this matters if you think Vision OS is a niche or a dead end. But if you actually buy into the idea that down the track this is the ultimate future of all computing, then it should be very concerning to be completely disempowered over it. I actually love the idea of a truly "spatially" aware operating system and I think eventually this is indeed where computing will go. So that is why I'm both excited by and very concerned about the direction Apple has taken.
Isn't that a little naive and idealistic, though? I love FOSS software as much as the next HN user but, for the vast majority of it, it only does the most basic tasks possible and, with few, rare exceptions, gets abandoned or obsoleted when the developers decide that it's not worth their time to work on it anymore. The market can't and won't solve every issue/need/deficiency that people have and, even with your example, the number of issues that every single one of those desktop replacements had dwarfed most of the benefits that using them had. For the vast majority of people that aren't tech nerds like us, the "locked down system" is preferable because it gives an incredibly consistent, polished experience for 99% of the use cases people need it for at the expense of the ability to customize it to your heart's content.
It's the same situation as the loss of headphone jacks and removable batteries. Some of us care deeply about those things but, antithetically to the point you've made, the market has decided that those things are no longer important to the vast majority of people.
> I love FOSS software ... the vast majority of it, it only does the most basic tasks possible and, with few, rare exceptions, gets abandoned or obsoleted when the developers decide that it's not worth their time to work on it anymore
This is just as true of paid, closed source software. And when it gets abandoned, you can't fix it if it's important to you.
> For the vast majority of people that aren't tech nerds like us, the "locked down system" is preferable because it gives an incredibly consistent, polished experience for 99% of the use cases people need it for at the expense of the ability to customize it to your heart's content.
I think that macOS is a great example of a system that is closed enough that a non-technical user will get the polished experience they're looking for, but allows technical users to get under the hood and customize it to their needs. Of course, it isn't open enough for some people, but it is open enough for a great many very technical people.
>This is just as true of paid, closed source software. And when it gets abandoned, you can't fix it if it's important to you.
It's not true of most paid, closed source software, though, while it is true for most open source software. At least in the former, the money people pay for the software directly contributes to its longevity and sustainability.
To be clear, not advocating for FOSS here, in fact almost the opposite, I want the full force of capitalism to be free to solve these problems without arbitrary barriers erected by big tech gatekeepers.
After working on it for several days, I can't really disagree with anything in here. Strictly speaking, it's not better or more productive than my large double 4k monitors.
But I am enjoying using it for work in a way I haven't heard reflected yet, that touches on some people's complaints about window management. Rather than surrounding myself with a "sphere of screens", I find it more pleasing to align windows with the walls of the room I'm actually in. Notes, todo lists, calendars, email, all open at the same time up against the walls of my physical room. I stand at my standing desk as usual, with my macbook display in front of me, and then I walk around to look at different things.
It may not be better but it's a different, pleasant experience.
Also, art is great on the VP. I put the album art of the currently playing music full size on one wall and it's actually given me a new appreciation for that.
Is there a way to manipulate the windows that I'm missing, or do you physically get up and attach the screens? I can't seem to find a way to adjust the... yaw?... without grabbing the window, walking, and turning.
And along those lines, that's also the only way I've found to have smaller windows far away. Otherwise pushing a window away also blows it up to an unreasonably large size, and I can't make it much smaller by grabbing the corner. In contrast, a window near you can be the size of a large iPad, which you can then get up and walk to the wall, with it maintaining its size.
Yeah, I haven't found a way around that. Hoping for "advanced window control" in a future version of visionOS. That and curved windows.
Although, it isn't a huge deal for me now. Walking around a physical space is part of the "new way of working" I'm exploring. Monitors beat the AVP if I'm going to be parked in a desk anyway, but the AVP unlocks a workflow in which I'm fully digital but also less tethered to a desk, which is interesting to me.
If Apple could find a reasonable solution for typing on a non-physical keyboard I'd be very happy. Not sure I want to resort to Keyboard Pants.
Heh, I hope they introduce typing on your lap or a desk for touch typers. It seems like it should be feasible with good hand tracking and maybe some AI. So not so much where you touch, but which fingers are doing what. If passwords can be deduced by desk vibrations, it should be possible...
I'd even be willing to put in the effort to learn a completely new set of finger gestures for typing, provided it was ergonomic and had equivalent speed to a keyboard after an initial learning curve.
Even something like an American Sign Language interpreter would be amazing... and could learn to speak to deaf people, to boot.
Just a little note, you can totally write things on notes in the physical world and tape them around your room. It's even quite pleasant to write on paper or chalkboard and to cross items off as they are completed.
> One of the realities of the iPad is that, for most customers, it is a personal video player; for that particular use case the Apple Vision is superior in nearly every way.
Pretty hard for me to imagine parents handing their young kids AVP instead of an ipad to watch videos, or an adult putting on AVP as they go to sleep instead of the pad on the side of the bed. Some people will prefer AVP on a plane over an ipad perhaps, but not all. Maybe teens will prefer it for casual watching, but many people will prefer something where it is less awkward to get up and pee or get a snack or interact with someone else in your house.
The quest 3 does essentially the same at roughly 10x lower price. I say that because I think the price tag makes AVP a non starter for vast majority of families with kids. I think its out of reach price-wise even for a lot of professionals without kids tbh.
But also this is the first version. The original iPhone didn't have copy/paste or the ability to shoot video.
The software will continue to get refined and the hardware will get smaller. It'll eventually fit into roughly standard sized glasses and I think that's going to change everything
I own a Quest 3 and on day three of AVP. I can assure you, the difference in quality - and therefore movie-watching experience - is night and day between these devices. Watching a movie in AVP is outstanding. This device doesn't shine in all cases, but it shines there.
It's like saying, "Sure, Ferarris are cool, but my VW can also drive to the track." (No shade thrown to VWs. Love the boxy, 90s-era Jetta.)
Usual disclaimers: Is it for everyone? Probably not. Is it expensive? Very. Is it perfect? No. "Essentially the same?" Not at all.
Yeah the VW/Ferrari analogy is good, because as two cars they do essentially the same thing.
Also I think the group of people who are shelling out $4k for the AVR are going to be heavily biased to justify the expense. I don't think there's a $3000 difference between the two devices. Maybe $500.
Fundamentally though, that's just the nature of diminishing returns. Of course the value proposition for the Quest 3 is far better than the value prop of the Vision Pro.
It's no different than consumer GPU's. There will be enthusiasts who purchase the GTX 4090 for $2000 but the average consumer is far better off buying something like a 3060Ti for $340.
My favorite example of this is a site called Logical Increments [0] that clearly shows just how expensive pushing to the next tier of quality is as you scale up.
You're being flippant to the point of absurdity, and past the point of being rude. "Yeah" when you don't mean it, and "you must be biased"
I wish the Quest 3 was as good as the vision pro. It isn't. It's not even close. The display specs are way more than enough to be able to observe this.
Have you used VR much? Quest 3 FOV is much better. And FOV is kind of the holy grail for immersive VR and interactive experiences. So saying Vision Pro is strictly better (and at 7x the cost) makes little sense to me.
Yeah FOV is worse, yeah it costs more, virtually order of magnitude more.
People are responding to "The quest 3 does essentially the same at roughly 10x lower price.", i.e. dismissal of there being a significant qualitative difference.
I never, ever opted into watching video on any headset until now. Like, yeah, I tried it. I watched stuff. This is organic "I want to watch stuff, where's the VR headset?" instead of "here's a VR headset, I can watch stuff"
Something that escaped me until a week ago was a good visualization of the pixel density. I thought the Aero was amazing. It is/was.
I assumed Vision Pro was marginally more or less than the Aero.
Actually, Aero::Vision Pro is roughly Vive 1::Aero.
[^1] that one is important, that's real street cred, you know I care, invest, and know what I'm talking about
> dismissal of there being a significant qualitative difference.
I think it depends on use case. Is having a bunch of high resolution floating screens the killer app or just a gimmick? For most current VR users, they're not going to see a significant benefit from higher resolution Beat Saber.
FOV/immersion is not the holy grail of XR usability. A virtual screen in the Quest 3/Pro isn't so great, and I've spent hundreds of hours reading text in the Quest Pro. For screen replacement, aka "spatial computing", Vision Pro is strictly better.
> I wish the Quest 3 was as good as the vision pro. It isn't. It's not even close
That in itself is a false question, no? Nobody says they are as good. I haven't seen even the most ardent Meta fan suggest such a thing.
It's not a question of whether they are as good but whether the difference matters enough. There is a curve with very sharply diminishing returns and a lot of threshold effects (once you get close to screen door effect going away, nobody cares that you made it 1% less noticeable any more etc).
I have a Quest 2, 3, and Pro, and have been doing spatial computing for years now, and the Quest 3 is nowhere near the point of diminishing returns for resolution. The Quest 3 is a relatively terrible monitor replacement, with a PPD of 25. The AVP has a PPD around 50. Around 56 is the point where diminishing returns happen (but with the edge detectors in your eyes mostly left dormant).
I will just say that I think you're an outlier on the quality / perception spectrum.
It's definitely very personal, so this is completely normal, but I don't think you are even slightly representative of where the general public would fall. For reference, I myself and a number of people I know quite happily use Quest 3 as a monitor replacement. It's borderline - Quest Pro was not good enough - but Quest 3 is - for me.
> For reference, I myself and a number of people I know quite happily use Quest 3 as a monitor replacement.
If it's in Immersed, then I've probably talked to you. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm saying it has around double the clarity. This is trivially perceived. I'm definitely not special here. You should really go look through an AVP at an Apple store. If you have a high res computer display, you can also somewhat emulate it.
You’re not arguing in good faith because you’ve already laid out your assumption that anyone who bought it is inherently biased. How do you expect anyone to discuss anything with you?
There's no difference in detail for 1080p content.
There absolutely is for 4K content though.
If you're happy with 1080p the Quest is perfectly fine. Not for the AR experience of a screen in your living room, but for a VR experience watching a floating screen in space.
> The quest 3 does essentially the same at roughly 10x lower price.
Only if you claim that having "a screen" is the only metric that counts.
> Apple is very proud of the displays inside the Vision Pro, and for good reason — they represent a huge leap forward in display technology...
They also look generally incredible — sharp enough to read text on without even thinking about it...
The displays are the main reason the Vision Pro is so expensive — they’re at the heart of the Vision Pro experience and what makes the whole thing work. You are always looking at them, after all.
I eventually did get iPhones, but vividly remember being laughed at -- as a Mac user -- for choosing the little white HTC Magic with a trackball because I prioritised the idea of actually being able to edit text (which we now do on iPhones with a force-touch gesture not much more elegant than that trackball and lacking some of its nuance.)
There have to be limits to miniaturization. I have seen the industry evolve from 8088 chips to now; and what we have now was likely unimaginable then; but aren't we going to run into limits eventually?
When I look at my Apple Watch, even that feels too big (thick) to me, so thinning AVP is quite far off IMO.
On the other hand, all the research to make things thin will finally pay off when it happens. If Vision Pro can go half its weight and double the battery (even if detached like now), that will probably be the point when it becomes a serious platform.
There is a counter argument to this - the iPhone shape did not change, the shape evolved. Apple is never known to change shapes or geometry, they evolve from the same geometric construct.
The AVP fitting into standard sized glasses like swim goggles is a possibility but it'll be more like Cyclops visors. I am not sure if it will ever achieve a Rayban form factor.
For example I would like, and could reasonably afford, a decent technical camera rig and a 45mp+ digital mirrorless camera to go on the back of it. I know how to use it properly to get value from it.
The outlay for this is more than the Vision Pro by a small margin.
But there are many things I probably should spend that money on before that.
The Vision Pro, as amusing as it surely is, is way, way down the road beyond even that purchase.
Having the money to spend on something — whether a personal or business expense - means engaging with the opportunity cost of spending the money.
And even if you comfortably have the money, you still question the value.
What is going on right now is a lot of people have a Vision Pro on fifteen day approval and they are all feverishly writing blog posts and tweets to explore every possible way that they could get other people to validate their impulse purchase. Because that’s what it is. Unless you’re going to build an app for it —- go all-in on that ecosystem —- it’s a weird thing to prioritise spending $3500 on.
Apple Vision Pro is heavy and inconvenient to use. It has glare and poor FoV. It gets hot and has a short battery life. There are plenty of reasons why you might not want to use it, even if it is actually pretty nice for watching movies.
>It has glare and poor FoV. It gets hot and has a short battery life.
FOV is the most unforgivable. I can't for the life of me imagine who is deciding that 110 is sufficient. I would give up just about every single other specification in a headset for 180°+, and I have owned just about every consumer headset released since DK2.
> I would give up just about every single other specification in a headset for 180+.
I'm having a very difficult time imagining how that would be physically possible.
I'm actually curious what the highest theoretically possible FOV is for a conveniently sized device strapped to your face, and how close we are to it already.
Valve Index is 130°, which is right at the line of becoming acceptable and achieving presence. I seriously can't believe Apple released this thing with functionally no difference to the $500 Quest 3 beyond higher screen quality.
And it's only 103° FOV vertically. (For comparison, the Quest 2 is 93° vertical.)
But I'm very happy to know 159° horizontal is possible. From more research online, it seems that the wider the FOV, the more distortion you get, so there's a tradeoff?
Also it seems very clear that Apple prioritized resolution (sharpness) over FOV. For a given display panel, the more you spread it out, the blurrier it gets.
Just for the sci-fi fun of it, I'm trying to imagine the mechanism of the laser projector featured in Snowcrash.
How about a microscopic lenticular array in a close-fitting shell over each eye (kind of like swim goggles) or even in a special contact lens. The goal is to have appropriate lenses in front of the pupil. This lens array can then be targeted by extremely precise laser projectors, exploiting the lenses to illuminate parts of the retina that would not otherwise be visible from the same projector location through a naked eye.
Generally speaking I don't think a product this expensive can iterate quickly, because even if you want to spend $3500 once, that doesn't mean anyone wants to pay the upgrade costs and face the depreciation on selling the old one.
There is already a social stigma around people being focused on their phones/screens, and the disconnect it creates with people around you. But that disconnect is somewhat virtual in that the phone is absorbing your attention, but it's not a physical barrier.
These AR glasses all, by design, create a very real physical barrier between the wearer and their surroundings. It also doesn't help that they look goofy, and sometimes slightly creepy. I think this creates a much bigger barrier to widespread adoption, it is a much larger conscious decision by a user to wear an AR kit. You can't just glance at it and get sucked into the content stream, it is a very distinct process to put it on/take it off.
I've been intrigued by the Apple Vision, and other AR devices, but it still feels like there isn't a breakthrough moment for them.
AVP is a V1 product, but it’s already clear that Apple understands this and is interested in solving it. It has the best pass through of any VR headset, with reviewers able to do real-time tasks like playing ping pong or playing catch. And it has a screen on the outside that displays some weird virtualized version of your eyes to try to pass through in the opposite direction. And, lastly, in has a “persona” which it can use to make you seem like your not using AVP in FaceTime as much as is possible.
These are, mostly, janky attempts to solve the problem, but it’s easy to imagine them getting more refined over time. It’s easy to imagine that someone walking down the street wearing future versions will be able to make eye contact with other people and will appear as their persona to other AVP wearers rather than someone wearing a headset, though likely with some green aura that’s only blue for wearers of other copycat headsets (there’s no way that Apple isn’t carrying their green bubble social stigma into the spatial computing market). All the building blocks are there for that physical barrier to feel a lot less physical, they’re just really, really raw and don’t quite work yet.
I'm already not a huge fan of wearing something like noise canceling earpods out in public. I couldn't imagine wearing goggles isolating me from what's going on. But I realize a lot of people don't care.
The biggest drawback for me is that AVP only works if you're watching things alone. You can easily watch an iPad with your SO, with your kid, with your friends — and AVP may be a better experience, but only for you alone.
It may be amazing on a plane, but even then only when you're traveling by yourself.
Nit: you can group watch things with people who are remote. My friends have done this thing since the pandemic where we pick a show and all watch it from our own homes but while on a Discord voice call, and it just got a whole lot nicer to do this since last week ;)
Also, iPads are worse personal video players than laptops. You wouldn't buy a personal video player with a 4:3 screen. Plus it doesn't stand up on its own so you can't set it on a surface to watch. You could reassemble it into a laptop if you want, but you'd be better off just with the laptop.
“I’m going to show them a world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice a leave to you.”
More succinctly, here's my point: Maybe AVP is a better personal video player for people who are very into optimizing the experience of the content they're consuming. But almost every use of an ipad as a personal video player that I can think of isn't that.
Maybe for the ladies or the men that pee sitting down, if they manage to make their way to the toilet without rolling down a flight of stairs. However, if I try to pee with one of this on my wife will not appreciate it.
What if there were an app that could overlay a calculated stream trajectory over the view of the toilet, showing you exactly where and how to stand to minimize urination errors. The name of the app could be Piss Optimal Flow Flight, or Piss OFF.
As soon as men get tasked with cleaning their own toilet, the benefits of the peeing sitting start to rapidly increase. After second or third week the idea of peeing standing in your own toilet sounds like an absurd alien speech :) .
Yup, my ability to quickly monitor what my kids are up to is a big deal to me. Putting on a headset, software options for monitoring, they're just not as quick, detailed, or convenient.
I wrote in the productivity section of yesterday’s Article, “To put it even more strongly, the Vision Pro is, I suspect, the future of the Mac.” I’m kind of irritated at myself for not making one critical observation: the Vision Pro is the future of the Mac if Apple makes software choices that allow it to be.
I’m mostly referring to the Mac’s dramatically larger degree of openness relative to other platforms like iPadOS: so many of the capabilities of a Mac are not because of its input method, but because applications and users have far fewer constraints on what they can do, and it will be difficult to replace the Mac if the same constraints that exist in iPadOS exist in visionOS.
Frankly, I’m dubious Apple will allow that freedom, and I should have tempered my statement because of that. I do think that visionOS is much more compelling for productivity than the iPad is, thanks to the infinite canvas it enables, but if you have to jump through the same sort of hoops to get stuff done that you do with the iPad, well, that ability to project a Mac screen into the Vision Pro is going to be essential.
If Apple seriously wants to make this the general purpose computing device of the future, it needs to be 100% as open as the Mac and other PC platforms.
Locking this things down like iOS/iPad OS is going to severely limit the potential, and that makes me very sad.
Of course this is Apple, and like any publicly traded company they see $$$ above all else, and they know they can make the most money by locking the device down, forcing people to use approved apps purchased only via the approved app store, and doing everything they can to prevent people from truly owning the device they bought.
If I'm being completely honest, I don't think the AVP itself needs to be as open as a Mac, but I'd absolutely expect it to be able to act as a window manager for a paired Mac. It's really, really surprising that it only comes with the ability to project an entire Mac screen into VR instead of letting the user break out individual windows within the space.
We had no doubts before but the harm this will cause is unbelievable.
At least until now you kind of sort of was forced to interact with actual human beings if you met them face to face although already the smartphone made a dent in that. Now... much less. See https://disconnect.blog/apples-vision-pro-headset-deserves/ for more.
Of course, it'll be a success, everyone was in agreement openly wearing a bluetooth phone headset https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bluetooth_headset.jp... was basically a sure sign of the wearer being an asshole but Apple painted it white , rotated it downwards and presto! it's now trendy.
Let's be honest, a Bluetooth headset like you've linked is very different to that of a pair of earphones. One was build for calls, the other is built for music and calls.
The Airpods aren't just trendy, they're actually an excellent pair of earphones.
> was basically a sure sign of the wearer being an asshole but Apple painted it white , rotated it downwards and presto! it's now trendy.
The first says you have half my attention and I can interrupt you at anytime, the second says my attention is somewhere else when on and at you when off.
That’s what makes it asshole vs socially acceptable.
For me it's the opposite, I can't believe people are so excited for it when it seems to be technologically severely undercooked and/or on par or slightly better than existing, much cheaper products. I have to assume it's because it's an Apple product. If it were a HTC headset with the exact same specs, I think most people would just shrug and keep scrolling.
> slightly better than existing, much cheaper products
I've watched many reviews by hardcore VR enthusiasts, and none of them have suggested it's only "slightly" better, with the only comparable clarity coming from devices that are only available through business contracts. Comparing it to my 2/3/Quest Pro (for the short session that I did), I also didn't see anything "slight" about the improvements.
Which other headsets have you used that you're comparing it to?
Totally an Apple effect, but it being Apple vs HTC also lends belief that this product will blossom larger because it has far greater potential (apple silicon, app store, and past success) and bigger pockets with a strong conviction to make it succeed. HTC unfortunately only fulfills they can make a hardware product, not an ongoing ecosystem.
Not bait. There is nothing wrong with getting tech jewelry btw..
Its the same story with luxury cars. For the vast majority of people, something like a 250 hp crossover with part time AWD is pretty much the most functional vehicle you can buy. The driving use case for the average person doesn't depend on things like driving dynamics, higher horsepower figures, exhaust notes, or even interior trim. But if your dopamine circuits are trained on being in a BMW and feeling the leather and hearing the engine and experiencing short bursts of higher acceleration, then you are going to think that your current vehicle is better than the former, but you are not making that decision on anything objective.
In the same way, people like Apple products mostly for vanity. You can get a Pixel 8 for half the money of the iPhone and do all the same stuff as the iPhone.
> many not tech-savvy people prefer it because of its ease of use.
You realize how much you're hurting your argument when saying this?
iPhones are in no way “easier to use” than Android phones, if anything the lack of a back button and more limited Windows support makes it marginally harder for beginner to use but that's not hard to overcome either so it's not a deal breaker in any way. But it's not easier, except in Apple's marketing pitch and Apple fan's head.
The only thing saying things like this shows it that's you're an Apple fan whose PoV is too biased to be worth reading.
It’s very hard to understand what Android’s up to because it can do anything. Also, you can’t tell what the back button will do - is it going to close the app or go back?
On the other hand iPhones are very predictable. There’s one button or one gesture that takes you home and one gesture to take you back. Also, apps always stay with their limits, don’t blend in the OS beyond notifications,widgets and playback controls.
That’s also part of the reason why Apple wants to keep it as a walled garden.
iPhone’s are miles ahead of any Android in ease of use. Once you deep dive, they might be about the same but Apple still has the consistency advantage.
> Also, you can’t tell what the back button will do - is it going to close the app or go back?
I've yet to encounter a single app that “closes” when pressing the back button…
> or one gesture that takes you home and one gesture to take you back.
And while gestures are ok in terms of UX, they aren't discoverable at all, hence my argument about bigger barrier to entry for beginner with iOS.
> That’s also part of the reason why Apple wants to keep it as a walled garden.
Nope, the reason is a mix of company's culture and profit motive. Since job's death Apple has largely departed from its former design consistency obsession.
> Once you deep dive, they might be about the same but Apple still has the consistency advantage.
The consistency advantage Apple has only exist compared to different Android phones (jumping from one Android brand/OS version to another is generally confusing), but it only matters when you change phones, and people have refrained to upgrade their iPhones to newer iOS version for years now so jumping to a new iPhone also come with a feeling of confusion if you were used to a former iOS version.
As I said before, most of what you're talking about doesn't really exist except on Apple's marketing and fanbase mind.
>I've yet to encounter a single app that “closes” when pressing the back button…
Here is how to reproduce: Tap back button until the app closes.
Oh you will say that the app didn't close, it went into the background? Maybe, maybe not - users can't tell without further investigation.
This alone makes it 10x harder to use than iPhone. On iPhone, there's no concept of closing the app. Well, there's but its not a relevant thing %99 of the time because apps are very limited on what they can do in the background and its very obvious if the are doing something(you see controls on the screen because they will have to use some system service like playing audio).
Yes I am very embarrassed for not agreeing with your opinions.
Maybe you should consider writing arguments defending your position instead of personal attacks though. It keeps conversation useful for everybody.
Another thing about the Android is its toxic hateboy mentality among the fanboys, they can't just tell what they like about something and tell why they believe its better. They also feel the need to take down the competition and insult the users of the competition. Unbearable bunch really, and those are the people you have to deal with the moment you have issue with your phone.
> Yes I am very embarrassed for not agreeing with your opinions.
Saying that iOS is “10x easier” because some trivial reason is a good way to shoot your argument in the foot, and you should be embarrassed to have made it. That's what I'm saying.
And as such the conversation cannot be useful for anyone except as a procrastination apparatus (and an occasion to practice a foreign language, but tbh that's mostly an excuse).
Also, most people using Android give no shit about Android (I could even use an iPhone now that the European Commission is breaking the walled garden), it's an operating system, not a sport team. We just get annoyed when Apple cultists are mindlessly parroting the credo coming corporate marketing without an ounce of reflection.
This is why it's embarrassing: you're supposed to be an intelligent being with critical thinking but somehow collectively fail at using it. This is an endless source of disappointment.
This argument of UI design needs to die a quick death.
The fact is, no matter what interface you use, you are going to become accustomed to it, and over time you are going to be just as efficient at doing stuff.
I can easily make arguments about iPhone shitty notification system compared Android, or lack of easily accessible settings, but we both know that people who use the iPhone don't really have an issue with it.
This is the same "vim vs IDE" pointless arguments that people used to have.
Doing more things is not about ease of use. The notification example is horrible, why would you do more things in the notification beyond immediately reacting(an action like reply) to it? If you do more, it's not a notification its a widget that is presented in a list and this makes it 10x harder to use instantly because it breaks concept of notifications. Can be useful in certain workflows but this doesn't make it easier to use, it makes it versatile which can be good if you are willing to deal with the added complexity.
> iPhones are in no way “easier to use” than Android phones
Sorry, this is just delusional. Android has no unified standard for how the OS is implemented between devices. Every time you get a new android phone, you need to relearn new UI quirks specific to that device. I honestly don't know how someone could claim with a straight face that Android is easier to use than iPhone.
> Every time you get a new android phone, you need to relearn new UI quirks specific to that device.
“Everytime” is in fact every 3+ years in average! At this rate, even iOS changes its UX in a way you need to learn new stuff, and that's fine.
And while there are undeniable differences from one device to another, it's a completely pointless metric! For the user the only thing that matter is what happens on your device.
Pretty much no-one cares if their neighbors' phone is the same as their own, what matters is how easy it is to use your phone. Also I can tell you, as an Android user, it's orders of magnitude easier to use any other people's Android phone than it is to use an iPhone with its undiscoverable hand snaps to get to the previous screen! Long term iPhone users (and MacOs users for that matter) have internalized the idiosyncrasies of their platform, and forgotten that there's actually an non-trivial learning process. Obviously it's “much simpler” once you've already learned it, it's the kind of statements people make about the command line as well…
> Also I can tell you, as an Android user, it's orders of magnitude easier to use any other people's Android phone than it is to use an iPhone with its undiscoverable hand snaps to get to the previous screen! Long term iPhone users (and MacOs users for that matter) have internalized the idiosyncrasies of their platform, and forgotten that there's actually a non-trivial learning process.
Hey, let me try!
Also I can tell you, as an iPhone user, it's orders of magnitude easier to use any other people's iphones than it is to use an Android with its multiple runic symbols crammed together and baked into the OS that always takes up a portion of the screen! Long term Android users (and google users for that matter) have internalized the idiosyncrasies of their platform, and forgotten that there's actually a non-trivial learning process.
All android phones have the home screens, the bottom app drawer, the app switcher, and the top drop down menu for quick settings. The only big differences between Android phones are extra features that a phone may have. For example, Pixel has a bunch of interactions you can do with it that you can't do with other phones.
All android phones can implement whatever menu structure, app icons, and other flavors on top of the OS - Samsungs implementations being notoriously hated. That some minor bits are consistent across the platform doesn’t fix this. There’s also the fact that android App Store has a far worse shovelware issue.
> It costs about the same as flagship Androids ...
The large majority of people out there aren't purchasing flagship Samsung phones though, most people just buy mid-range/budget phones.
> ... and many not tech-savvy people prefer it because of its ease of use.
Perhaps if you're using versions of Android from 10+ years ago this is true, but nowadays iOS and Android are pretty much on-par from a usability POV. If anything as a life-long Android user forced into an iPhone for work, I find the stupid gesture shit on iOS waaaaaay more obnoxious than anything else on Android, but that's just a case of getting used to it and the annoyance goes away slightly after a while (though it's still there for me).
I mean seriously, I imagine the large majority of people's use of phones is them clicking on whatever the default browser is, assuming whatever they're doing on their phones isn't in one of the native apps they can install with like 3 clicks. Occasionally they'll open the Camera. I don't even see how you could make these flows any simpler than they already are other than a direct-to-thought type of interface.
The "mea culpa, I have been part of over-egging a pre-launch product based on being blessed with privileged access to an extremely limited guided walkthrough and I lost all objectivity" shuffle.
And that bit about a VR headset being better than an iPad for a personal video player is some seriously optimistic, overextended thinking.
Is wearing half a kilo of electronics with a two hour battery life on your head really superior to a smaller screen with all-day battery life that you can put away at a moment's notice?
(Even ignoring that video content often has more than two hours of runtime.)
Often the other people in your house would like to be excluded from the movies you're watching, for instance because they want to sleep and don't want the light leakage.
This is not true at all. You get full 1080p detail on a Quest, with excellent color and contrast.
The AVP gets you to around 4K detail.
It is nothing at all like CAM. Not in color and not in resolution. It doesn't even make sense to say that because the display specs for these devices are well known.
God rays aren't really a problem watching TV content because they're most prevalent at the edges of the display, but you place your virtual screen in the middle. So they're basically a non-issue. (And TV's can have glare problems of their own if you're not watching them in the dark.)
How can you possibly get full detail on a Quest 3?
The resolution of the horizontal on a Quest is 2064 pixels. However this fills the headsets entire ~110 degree horizontal FOV. Also, you are not seeing the edges of the panels, so we need to eliminate some of those pixels you can't technically even see to around say 2000 (cut off 32 on each side which I think is fair).
Now a 1080p video has a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels. You only have a 2000 pixel canvas that fills up your 110 degree FOV.
Now sure, if you zoom your virtual movie theater screen to fill your entire FOV, then you can say you are seeing the whole 1080p video resolution. But nobody I have ever heard of watches movies at a horizontal FOV of 110 degrees.
Industry standards are around 35-45 degrees. Yes I personally think that is a bit low. I have a 150" projection screen at home, and I sit at about a 53 degree horizontal FOV. I wouldn't want any closer. This represents sitting like 1/3 to the front of a typical movie theater.
However, even at a 55 degree virtual screen, that means the virtual screen is only 1000 pixels across on a Quest 3. this isn't even full 720p resolution which would need 1280 pixels across. Let alone 1080p needing 1920 pixels across.
Now the AVP does better obviously. It's 3680 pixels across 100 degree FOV. If we subtract a few due to not seeing the edge and say about 3600 pixels, and if we say the virtual screen is again 55 degree horizontal FOV, then that gives us a virtual theater screen of about 1850. A little shy of the 1920 for 1080p.
So at best, if you make your virtual screen huge, like 60 degree horizontal FOV, then I could concede you get about a 720p virtual screen in a Quest 3 and about a virtual 1080p screen in a AVP.
Last point I will make is that even at this it's not quite equivalent because you lose a bit of resolution too due to your head being slightly askew and the video pixels not being able to line up straight with the physical virtual theater screen pixels in the headset. So the resulting image becomes a bit softer since the pixel mapping isn't 1:1.
I haven't used an AVP, but I have used many other VR headsets including a Quest 3, and the quality of the virtual movie screen looks quite low to me. Nowhere near even my old 1080p projector on my 150" projector screen. Let alone my current 4K projector on the 150" screen.
You're forgetting that the effective pixel width is wider because the two eye displays only overlap about three quarters of the way.
So the 2064 pixels becomes about 2500 in practice. So a screen width of 1920 is perfectly doable.
The image doesn't get "softer", surprisingly, because of the constant resampling at 90 or 120 hZ with tiny constant head movement. Any individual frame might be a little softer, but the actual viewing experience doesn't lose any detail at all.
Yes, the virtual screen is huge. It's like IMAX. But it's not a problem -- it's actually great. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Now when I go to a movie theater, I find the screen annoyingly small.
If you find the quality of the virtual screen on the Quest 3 to be low, first make sure you use an app like Skybox that lets you make the screen as large as desired. And then second, do a live comparison with the same content on your laptop (play a file, not a streaming service that might deliver a different bitrate). You'll find that you really are seeing all the same 1080p detail.
It's nowhere close for me since I can clearly see the individual pixels and aliasing of the Quest 3 screen.
But I cannot see the individual pixels and aliasing on my TVs, computer monitors, and projector screens.
The PPD (pixels per degree) of the Quest 3 is about 25. The average human eye has the vision capability of about 60 PPD+.
Plus after using OLED TVs and monitors I can't go back to using an LCD for video, so the contrast in dark scenes looks poor and washed out to me in the quest.
In this regard the AVP is much better as it's using OLED panels with near-infinite contrast.
Otherwise, at home I am normally used to movies on my 150" 4K native JVC projector setup where I sit about 11ft away from it giving me about a 53 degree horizontal FOV. I don't want it to be any larger of my FOV, and I wouldn't want to in VR either.
> It's nowhere close for me since I can clearly see the individual pixels and aliasing of the Quest 3 screen.
That doesn't make it not 1080p -- which is what you were originally claiming it was less than.
I can absolutely see the individual pixels on my 1080p projector too. It's not a problem. It's inherent to 1080p content. It's just what the content is. You're not losing any detail.
And I'm happy you've got $5,000+ to drop on a 4K projector, with the space for a 150" screen. But 99+% of people aren't comparing their VR headset to that. If mean sure, I were you, I wouldn't be watching something on a VR headset either.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "virtual theater", but if you have an app that allows you to freely move and resize a virtual screen in a black "void", the movie-watching experience is exceptional, including on a Quest 2 or 3.
I’m glad it’s gotten better. A few years ago, it was genuinely terrible. Any dark scenes looked awful, screendoor effect was huge. Haven’t tried Quest 2/3
I've tried the Quest 3 and it's still not very good IMO. Quest 3 is still a low contrast LCD and at absolute best gives you close to a 720p virtual theater screen.
I think the AVP is the first headset that can actually provide a good movie viewing expedience in a headset coming close to a full 1080p virtual screen and with high OLED contrast.
Maybe with an ungodly large and wide FOV virtual screen.
AVP has a 3680 pixel wide screen across a 100 degree horizontal FOV.
If you make your virtual screen take up a 50 degree FOV (which is still somewhat bigger than most people normally sit/view at home or in a typical theater), then you are still only getting at most 1840 pixels across the virtual screen, which is a bit less than 1080p. Nowhere near 1440p.
That doesn't mean I don't think it can be a great experience. I think it can be, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.
It doesn't bother you that your spouse can't see it?
Even with an iPad, they are still sharing the space with you because they peripherally see what you are are doing, watching, etc. If something particularly interesting was on the screen you could point it out to them etc. I can completely believe it's mind blowing (I do it with my Quest 3), but I can't see how this isn't something that will ultimately harm your connectedness to the people around you.
Richest company in the world shits out a 2 kilos vr headset so we can watch the blandest Netflix original of the month from our bed between two soulless shift at work. The future is bright.
At that point I'm genuinely more interested in watching a tomato grow in my garden
3D movies suck and there's no difference between it being the size of a wall and being a laptop sitting on your lap or chest in bed. Field of view don't care about the "size". (I have a Vision Pro)
I have the disposable income but I already feel so alienated from the world as a software engineer. Especially post-covid. My mind is nudging me to go out and socialize or go on an adventure. I might purchase this as a tech geek, but I know I would benefit more from investing the small fortune in something that maximized my social growth (i've no idea what that would be..) All in all, I guess if it was cheaper, I wouldn't evaluate this on such an intellectual/philosophical level..
The equivalent sum of money gets you _several_ somethings that maximise your social growth. A musical instrument and an amplifier. A competent bicycle. A squash racquet. A digital camera or a vintage camera, a kitted out darkroom and a membership to a photography club. You could do all of that for the price of Vision Pro.
The point is not to get the “benefits” of a VR headset, but rather to maximise one’s chances of doing something interesting without a VR headset.
I would not suggest getting all of them anyway. It’s just to observe that the opportunity cost of disappearing inside an expensive virtual device is matched by the financial cost.
One gadget is the equivalent of the outlay of an entire well-funded hobby that might broaden your horizons.
I had the unfortunate experience of trying the metaverse. It was vile to the point I logged out and returned the headset. Maybe Apple will offer a better alternative. The experience is nothing like real life, where a few bad people are usually limited in their verbal assaults. Also you wouldn’t generally have exposure to such indecent behavior generally in real life.
A good bicycle can be easily as expensive as the AVP. Imagine the experience to ride a bike, would be marketed to us the same way we are told about seeing a 3d AVP experience. Riding a bike through the landscape is 1000 times the sensory experience.
One can choose to go into a consumption mode with an AVP or be active and move oneself outside through a real 3d space, the landscape we live in. What is better for the health? Mental and physical.
I would guess that the AVP is a temporary device to get 'us' into a future with different hardware for spacial computing. Something for the developers and early adopters -> the actual mass market(s) then will look differently.
The current trend in tech is that the stuff&servives we use is becoming more and more a mental burden to us: information overload, distraction, noise, manipulation, control, ... the future that has been warned about is now here and a lot of people can't handle it.
The AVP is the 3d version of it. It has potential, but there are a lot of warning signs on its effects on society. People get more and more disconnected from the reality. We'll already see lots of people staring at screens, instead of interacting with their immediate surroundings. This will get worse...
> During the pandemic, we got a very clear picture of the incentives of the tech industry. Once many of us were isolated in our homes to avoid contracting or spreading a contagious virus, tech companies saw their revenues and profits soar as we spent much more time in front of our screens engaging with their services. Companies that were already massive with almost unimaginable valuations and earnings took it to a new level because we were so isolated from one another, and it showed just how much they’re incentivized to get us to spend more time looking at our screens.
...
> I see the Vision Pro and these attempts to have us work in the metaverse or go through our lives with headsets on our faces through a similar lens. The goal of these companies is to isolate us so more of our interactions occur through the products and services they offer, instead of just living our lives and actually interacting with people throughout the course of our days instead of apps and chatbots.
That was a fine review and telling of his experiences. I am fairly wealthy and my wife encourages me to buy any toys I want (advantages of 40+ years of marriage!), but I found it easy to resist the purchase. Do I think that in a few years Vision Pro version 2 or 3 will be a must buy? Yes, indeed!
I just didn’t want to go through early product hassles.
I have bought Go, Oculus 1, and Oculus 2 products. The Oculus 2 hits a sweet spot: I always use it once or twice a day now for 5 to 15 minutes to run around playing ping pong, watching live concerts for 1 or 2 minutes just to see what performers are like, etc. I should have bought an Oculus 3, probably, but for quick fun the older model is just fine.
I hate to bet against Apple but Meta may win the escapist just having fun market. Two Apple products have however totally changed my life style: the Apple Watch lets me comfortably function in the world while having no other digital device with me: perfect for quick calls, messaging, checking calendar, etc. while I am out of my home. Much less intrusive to being a human being than carrying around an iPhone. The other product is the iPad, which does a little of everything, and is such a great form factor. I have an Apple Pro Display XDR monitor that pairs perfectly with a modern iPad Pro.
I look forward to something like the Vision Pro in the future that revolutionizes my life like the Apple Watch and the iPad.
EDIT: it is true that a good iPad Pro and an Apple Pro Display XDR together cost about $9000 and as spectacular as watching movies on this combination is, apparently the Vision Pro for $3500 is better, the iPad Pro and Pro Display XDR also have other excellent functionality.
It's interesting seeing so many of these takes on AVP. So many people imagined how they'd use it when it came out. Now that it's out, they're realizing that reality doesn't meet their imagination. Not that AVP is bad or that it doesn't work correctly, it just doesn't do some of the things people expected it to or it has more limitations than they expected.
Which, to me is odd why they would think this because this is an Apple product. You will only ever be able to use it the way Apple wants you to use it. If it doesn't fit your imagined use case, Apple expects you to adapt.
the passthrough quality is a real letdown given the marketing. it's like looking at everything through a grimy, unwashed window
i never expected it to be good as a productivity device because my own experience is while screen real estate is nice what really matters is the ergonomics of your work space and wearing a pair of ski goggles is never going to be ergonomic
OK, all the upbeat Vision Pro articles have one theme in common: "Like the original iPod or iPhone, you will first ridicule it, then realize you can't compete with it, then put one [in your pocket]."
Which... is reasonable, I guess? But it does ignore two quite significant elephants in the room:
1. No, I will not put that on my face, nor accept anyone in my proximity to do so without [social] repercussions (see: Google Glass)
2. No, it does not do anything I actually want. My 4K, soon 5K, soon 8K monitor displays my movies, code, or whatever, just fine, and the fact that I can get custom overlays or whatever, while making me nauseous, just isn't that appealing? (see: anything Oculus/Meta, Microsoft, HTC, etc. have achieved so far: some subset of fans will lap their product up, but broad marketplace acceptance is... nowhere to be found?)
It's quite possible that VR/AR will take over the world at some point, but right now, it more seems like 3D TV/cinema: a supply-side fad that lacks consumer acceptance.
Once the shiny new thing gets old, this is going to be reduced to a 3D YouTube viewer. The size is too large, and the practicality and long term vision is just not there for it to transcend into a workhorse device.
"Those are air bubbles," he snapped. "That means there's space in there. Make it smaller." -Steve Jobs
Strap this onto your face and enjoy the ride. -Tim Cook
It's a solution in search of a problem. Everyone says "this is first gen, and it will only get better." I don't think that's right. "this is first gen, and it will only get cheaper." is more like it. Walking around without peripheral vision in order to be able to watch YouTube in the train station is not worth any amount of money.
This is Apple's first gen which, as usual, is 8th gen for the general market. Magic Leap and HoloLens have been in production for years. Looking at reviews of this product it seems they've upgraded the optics and horsepower and tied it in to their app ecosystem. But I don't see how they've solved any of the baseline usability issues. The controller-free gesture tracking is how a lot of earlier products worked it's really just not comfortable at all. Physical controllers are far more responsive and ergonomic.
Indeed, I'm quite convinced that individuals have attempted to drive while using their Quest 3, and it wouldn't surprise me if some have been pulled over for such actions. It seems likely that at least one person has taken this reckless behavior to an extreme.
Apple products typically enjoy widespread popularity, though the Vision Pro appears to cater to a somewhat limited demographic that is serious enough to make the purchase. There are numerous instances of people confidently wearing these devices in public. Among the footage I've encountered, one particular video caught my attention, showing someone using a Vision Pro while driving a Tesla and getting pulled over, though I'm unsure about the video's authenticity.
Finally, a review that talks about that it is basically impossible to share this 3499$ device with others. This is such a glaring miss on Apple's part, I can't believe all the other reviewers simply ignored this fact.
Honestly, I believe it's very intentional. The idea is this device will be personal, like a phone or watch. Not a device you'll park in dock at home. If you have a family, they'll all need their own headset.
I also believe it's intentional, and it fits very well with the dystopian marketing towards young singles and divorced dads. However, this alone would be a showstopper for me. The idea to buy a 3.5k$ device, which is ideal for watching media, and not being able to lend it to my wife or kids, is just ridiculous.
I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "apple" and "share" in the same sentence. /s
It's a problem with VR in general. I have a quest 1 which actually wasn't too hard to share with my kids. The novelty did wear off after some months.
FOV is determined by the distance of the screens from your eyes, which are user-specific. Lots of users have reported [0] that switching to a 21W [1] light seal, or removing the light seal altogether [2] provides a massive FOV increase.
I'm pretty surprised that a product that's spent this long in development and is being released with such a high price tag would still need to be modified by users for what is arguable the most critical spec. And also I have no idea was 21W and 33W refer to so it seems unlikely the average user will have any idea.
I have no idea. I’d imagine using a light shield increases the relative brightness of the displays, which could be important to Apple.
Some users cannot use the thinnest lightshield: their eyes or eyelashes touch the lens.
Apple did make them interchangeable and exchangeable (for free), so it seems like the major FOV issue is with their scanning and auto-selection (for some users).
The assumption that it’s v1 and will only get better seems to miss the physics and battery limitations. Magic Leap spent billions trying to overcome the physics of seeing in high definition. How soon we forget…
Moreover, are the latest iPhones or iPads really that much better than the first versions, each seems like incremental improvements, not dramatic leaps forward.
* The assumption that it’s v1 and will only get better seems to miss the physics and battery limitations
* Are the latest iPhones or iPads really that much better than the first versions
Batteries are one of the few things aside from the camera and screen resolution where things are substantially and obviously better from a decade ago. The iPhone 5S was released a decade ago - it had a 1,560mah battery that weighed ~40g and got you 10 hours of video playback at 1136-by-640 resolution. The iPhone 15 Pro has a 3,300 mah battery that weighs about the same and provides over 20 hours of playback at 2556‑by‑1179 resolution.
Similar improvements int he AVP's batteries would be a huge boon.
I haven't read every review of the AVP, but I've read a few (not skim-read) - this, the Verge, Gruber, some others - and while everyone waxes lyrical about the movie watching experience, I haven't noticed a single comment about whether you can actually have a drink while doing so. I can't easily drink from a glass/can with a Quest 3 on my face. Would I be able to with an AVP?
Drank a can of beer while wearing AVP this past weekend. No issues whatsoever, the device profile isn’t obtrusive enough to interfere.
I was struggling to do that with Meta Quest 2 before tho, as the shape of it on my face ends up hitting the top of the can sometimes, and it is just straight up not the best experience. For that case, yeah, a straw would help.
I find it to be pretty easy; some friends said they had trouble though. You can't see what you're drinking once you bring it close to your mouth, though.
The discussion is kind of a waste of time. It isn’t anywhere close to being an AR product. Tim basically already told us that this type of product would fail (mentioned in the article). It’s being released to put the project to bed, if you ask me. “Ship or go home” is what the Apple board is saying. They’ll be happy if it sells like hotcakes to cult members and they’ll be happy if it fails big time so they can finally kill the development hell that is the project.
Five more years won’t fix it. Don’t believe me? Look at the Meta Quest from 5 years ago compared to the Quest 3 or the Vision Pro for that matter. It’s barely a different experience. Useful for games and videos and that’s about it.
This concept can’t mess your hair and makeup up. It can’t be something that you can only use in isolation for thousands of dollars. It quite literally needs decades of technological progress that may never happen.
The only argument for owning a vision pro is that I could do _more_ of everything I'm trying to quit or reduce, hard sell, and I doubt I'm in the minority on this one
I find it somewhat interesting that a good number of the articles about this don't seem to go into details about eye strain. I don't think I'm mistaken in thinking that even if it doesn't seem like it your eyes are going to be focused on a screen image that is what? 2 inches in from of your eyes. Given the recommendations when reading a book (which is further away although maybe not so much to matter) how does that work with something that seems to be being sold for continuous use over a 2 hour period?
The FAQ from Apple does suggest breaks every 20 minutes "as you become acclimated". I don't quite know what that means for someone who, say, uses it for 2 uninterrupted hours a day to watch movies for example.
There is no eye strain. As far as your eyes are concerned, the light is the same as if it's coming from meters away, not inches. Watching a two hour movie feels the same as doing it in a theater.
And taking 20 minute breaks is really more to do with motion -- using VR makes some people feel nauseous at first because of a mismatch between what your eyes are telling you and what your body is. But that's more apparent with games. It's a non-issue if you're sitting still watching a movie. No breaks needed.
I'm very curious what focal length they're actually targeting here. I figured they'd put the image at infinity or even ever so slightly past, but the fact they're selling "reader" lenses for it makes me concerned that this isn't the case.
Related: I've had success over the past few years purposefully correcting my computer monitor to be at ~infinity focal distance (EndMyopia method). The idea of using AVP to achieve this focal distance consistently (whereas in real life it depends on careful head placement compared to monitor) is quite tantalizing, though the lens pricing is pretty obsurd.
If you put a screen 1 inch away from your eye, your eye can't focus on it properly.
To adjust for this, the optics in all VR headsets are set up so that the "focal distance" is around 1-2m.
Articles aren't really addressing this concern because this kind of eye strain has been a "solved problem" in the VR space for a long time, so any tech reviewers wouldn't pay attention to it even if it's a good question.
The MacOS virtual display limitations seems like a real achilles heel for no good reason.
The technical reason is wireless bandwidth for the virtual display.
But AVP isn't wireless!!
You've already got a wire running down from your head to the battery pack on your waist. And from there in a real productivity setting presumably you've got the battery pack plugged into the wall. So what's the harm in having offered a TB4 input to allow multiple displays from your MacOS device?
Just feels like an aesthetic "no wires / no ports" thing which is fine if not for the giant power wire!
A big problem of AR is the other people. Google Glass wasn't so awkward looking, but it still had negative reactions from other people that could be afraid of being recorded, or information gathered from them, or apps that do something "fancy" with the people you see like mood detection, to mention something tame.
We are not anymore in the internet or technology of 2014, you can put significant intelligence over what you see, and people may be afraid even of things that technology can't do yet or at least that Apple should forbid in some stage (you don't have to go as far as an AR app that shows everyone around you naked, just recognizing faces and show personal data and selected social networks information is bad enough).
And that is beyond updates in hardware (at least, while it is visible that you are using it) or software.
It's Apple though. They can get away with most things, feels like. If Apple released Google Glass in the exact same state Google did, things would've been different. I realize people will disagree with that, but I truly think it's not just about the cold, hard product.
Yeah, if I'm going to attempt to analyze the potential success or failure of this product, it's going to be entirely based on Apple's still indomitable brand position and less about how many nits it crams into it's microleds. The tech itself seems like at least an iteration on the predecessors. Screens are smaller and sharper and use less power and so are CPUs so I don't doubt it's at least a better Magic Leap or HoloLens. Whether or not you see people wearing these around NYC is up to their marketing team. I'm also sure the person to crash a car or get mugged because they were watching MrBeast while walking is going to get a ton of press.
When the VisionPro first went public I wondered if I should regret pre-ordering a SimulaVR[1] but it seems like for productivity at least I probably made a good choice. We'll see when it actually arrives though.
Yep, pretty much the same conclusions I came to [0] in my blog posts on the AVP.
It’s essentially an iPad on your face (in both weight and capability). I was happy to pay its cost if it could replace my external monitors but it’s far from being able to do that. The pass through quality could be forgiven (it’s cutting edge but still not perfect) if the Mac Virtual Display was as sharp as visionOS apps but it’s not. Again, it’s better than anything else I’ve tried but it’s not anywhere close to my 3 monitors.
If Apple can continue to iterate on this and not lose interest then I can see myself buying a future version but as things stand today I’ll probably be returning mine.
Eh I think we are overthinking the "strategy" here. This article seems like those who "trade" stocks with intense technical charts and lines.
The real reason Apple did this was they kind of had to? There is a sense that the future is something to do with AR/VR and Apple had not released a new product in a while.
But the headset still has all the issues of other headsets: poor field of view, heavy on the face and expensive.
I think the real signals here are that the current big tech companies have all tried and failed.
The field for disruptors here are open. If anyone has a real pirate spirit and can hack together a better ar glasses with a linux os, it might just be the beginnings of the next Apple.
If people DO start replacing other devices for video content like their televisions with VR experiences I'm kind of excited about the implications for interior design. Imagine the living room no longer having to be TV centric.
Reading this article, it's nice to see I'm not alone in my thinking about the vision pro. Ignoring the remarks on entertainment (it's excellent!), I've believed for several years now that VR headsets are going to replace computer monitors, and the vision pro is a step in the right direction. But a 1:1 monitor projection from my macbook is not quite enough of a benefit to merit the drawbacks of the headset. And it turns out that all of the business software I use is highly interactive, so very little, if anything at all, can be run as a separate native vision pro app.
Teams? I'm not using a persona in a professional setting. Also MSFT's implementation has really low information density. Slack? I need to be able to copy and paste, and the ipad compatibility app stinks. Outlook? Again, the ipad compatibility app is no good. Excel? Give me a break. I had tried the browser first, but it turns out that I have keyboard workflows that are very efficient, and requiring my gaze to shift is no good. To add to it, the gaze tracking highlights controls all over the app when I'm just trying to type, and if I glance at another window for reference, shifts my keyboard and mouse attention.
Multiple monitors projected from a real computer really would be ideal here.
one wonders if there is a current niche that could be filled where they have the excellent high fidelity screen of the Vision Pro but without the hand tracking, effectively making it a monitor HUB and optimized for that, but you can still use a mouse and keyboard in addition to some head tracking, but no hand gestures, as it were.
Have it entirely driven (experience wise) by the external compute.
I’d love to have portable multiple monitors. However, I’m not sure if that works with a MacBook Air, not sure how well it works, and not sure if I can still control my keyboard/trackpad. I don’t want to lift my arms/touch when editing text.
A virtual machine or performant screensharing would work, but I haven’t experienced a good solution yet, so I don’t think it’ll be any better with the Vision Pro
Everything under the condition there’s no eye and neck strain
Thats what I mean, with the Vision Pro, multiple reviews have pointed out you can't really use a mouse and keyboard with it because of the hand recongition. Its not meant to be part of the overall experience.
My take here is that if you remove the hand recognition (gestures etc) and only keep some spatial awareness (in so much that turning your head lets you see your other "monitors") and the high fidelity multi-monitor experience, if you would have a better, sleeker product for the medium term.
Doesn't even have to be Apple per say, simply a thought exercise. I think I'd use something like that, because mouse / keyboard require no visual interaction (for me at least) 99.9% of the time, and pass-through would be sufficient if I really need it from time to time, but it completely alleviates needing to buy physical monitors, is the idea.
Same.. More screen real estate and spatial positioning.
I just want better and more windows in something reasonably portable (travel).
Even a stack of large e-ink panels I could lay on a large table would work great if the software would work properly.
The immersiveness is nice and all for games and videos, but def no requirement for my means.
Given how long this has been in development, I’m surprised that Apple didn’t buy a studio like MGM or Paramount+CBS. If AVP is best as a consumption device, creating next generation content and especially on top of events like the Grammys and Super Bowl would accelerate adoption. Folks are raving at how Avarar looks, and Cameron has another 4 or 5 in the works.
Can we try it somewhere? I feel tempted to buy one, try it and probably return it if what I read about temperature, FoV and battery life turns out to be true. Is that ok, or does anyone think that is not an ethical thing to do?
Apple's policy specifically states that you have a 14 day return policy if you are not satisfied with your product. I think if you genuinely think that, if the product reaches some realistic expectation of yours, you'd happily continue to own it and fully pay for it, then it is morally ok to buy it knowing that if it doesn't you'll return it. But if you are squarely in the "I can absolutely not afford this but it would be fun to play with it for free on their dime for a couple weeks", then I'd argue that it is morally very questionable. But, having said that, I can assure you their pricing and sales model has built in those considerations as well, so there's that perspective, too.
Thank you. However, on thinking about it some more I do think that a little bit of dishonesty is warranted since Apple is being dishonest by not painting the full picture and leaving the external battery and cable out of view in most of their advertising, for instance.
So my rule would be: if Apple's advertising would make you buy it even though the reviews and HN comments would not make you buy it, then you can still buy it.
1. If you are on the fence about features, never buy first gen of ANYTHING.
2. Buy the Quest 3 and use it. You can do largely the same stuff, its just going to have lower quality (but still very usable). If you love it enough, sell it and buy the Vision when it gets an update.
In the Bay Area, appointments are booked for a week. If you want to buy without an appointment, you can return within 14 days as you said. But if you need prescription lenses, those take a while to arrive, and may not be returnable in any event (IDK).
It won't. At the store I had no qualms about comfort, but of course taking it home I started to see what many of the reviewers were saying. I think the demo experience will very nicely showcase the major selling points of the device, and quite honestly the only way to really get at the rough edges is to spend considerable more time with it than they'd allow you to do.
Maybe I'm just too old for this shit but I'd much rather spend $3500 on a set of excellent displays for my computer and still have money left over to buy a huge TV for entertainment purposes. Might even have enough leftover to buy an Oculus for occasional novelty use.
A 49WL95C-WY from LG is going to run you $1,300, new. Less if used. It's an inscrutable product name, but it's a glorious 49 inches and curved and is so much monitor. it doesn't travel at all though.
That is, at least there is a way to load up the media player of your choice and watch porn.
Look, I get that corporate America is strangled by puritan values from the payment processing networks on up, but it is arrogant and willful ignorance to pretend that adult content consumption is not a major part of the VR/MR story.
You want to know what the people who actually use VR the most do with their headsets most of the time? VRChat and SexLikeReal, which is the PornHub of VR if you don't know.
Steve Jobs was a dude who loved to talk about doing LSD but in his later years, he became awkwardly fixated on preventing people from using Apple devices for the stuff most real people do.
He's been gone a long time. It'll be a shame if their vision for spatial blah blah is sanitized and safe for work, even after dark.