7 ms·

What's different about it compared to Occulus or Samsung Gear or any other existing attempts at this? Virtual movie theaters and virtual monitors haven't reall

What's different about it compared to Occulus or Samsung Gear or any other existing attempts at this? Virtual movie theaters and virtual monitors haven't really been compelling use cases for putting an ugly sweat box on your face so far. What about slapping an Apple logo on it and pricing it even further out of reach changes that in your mind?

seanalltogether 3y ago
Most VR so far has been designed to isolate you from your surrounding environment, and is the opposite. Also the ability to use it without controllers makes the whole thing feel less intrusive/burdensome to use.
newZWhoDis 3y ago
Less space than a nomad, too
- kshacker 3y ago
  Lame? For those downvoting, see the parent comment and also this: https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i... "Lame" was a historic comment and parent commenter should have included it :)
sgt 3y ago
Usually Apple comes along and builds it so well that people will actually start using it. Oculus and the others are still a pretty niche thing.
- raydev 3y ago
  > Usually Apple comes along and builds it so well that people will actually start using it Agreed, but Apple have put themselves in a weird spot with the $3500 USD price tag.
  - andrei_says_ 3y ago
    I think they’ll be fine with first adopters, businesses, the rich. For people making 10x what we make, these are on the level of $300. And Apple gets to iterate and present v2 in a year or so, at 1/2 the price.
  - viscanti 3y ago
    Not that weird of a spot. That's what it costs for the most premium experience they can launch with. They'd rather it be good than something everyone buys on day one. They can get costs down in future models as they scale and progress pushes down some of the costs. As iPhones become even more performant in the future they can also eventually offer a version that offloads more compute to that and bring costs down even more. Their goal is to show this is a new type of product that works at the level people expect for a completely new Apple product. They can probably afford to wait for a much lower priced mass consumer product.
  - briandear 3y ago
    Considering what I paid for my Apple XDR display, $3500 is a bargain.
    - billti 3y ago
      It's also the "entry point" price for a HoloLens (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy). Businesses will spend that on an AR/VR device that adds value to their use-cases. It seems pretty clear this is not intended for "mass market consumer adoption" at this point in time.
    - raydev 3y ago
      The Vision Pro is arguably less useful than your XDR since the VP can't run macOS. :p
    - sgt 3y ago
      It's really about priorities. People don't mind paying $1000 for a bed or a phone, but 3x for something truly revolutionary? ...One can also translate it into coffees. Just 700 coffees! Ok, better not.
SparkyMcUnicorn 3y ago
> ... bring the powerful capabilities of their Mac into Vision Pro wirelessly, creating an enormous, private, and portable 4K display with incredibly crisp text. If this "incredibly crisp text" is true, then I want it. Nobody has done this yet.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  With a resolution of slightly over 4k resolution per eye for the entire view, on top of lenses and warping when rendering it into the space, I just can't see how this is actually possible. It may be better than many previous solutions but they were all so far off in text clarity that's not saying much. Of course, they could just set the zoom way up on Safari/the UI and say "look, it's so clear!" and be technically correct.
afavour 3y ago
People are going to reply to you and say "what made the iPod different from the Nomad"... inarguably the iPod was hugely successful where the Nomad wasn't. I don't think it's a great comparison. The MP3 players in the pre-iPod era were all made by tiny players no-one had heard of. The Oculus in particular has absolutely massive backing and still hasn't amounted to a lot. I suspect the differentiator will be software, not hardware. In particular the willingness of third parties to create software. Apple has a good record there at least.
- fzzzy 3y ago
  Tiny companies nobody has heard of like Sony? Cmon.
  - cmiles74 3y ago
    My recollection is that Sony's Memory Stick based products of this era all had weird DRM requirements that were a big hassle.
  - afavour 3y ago
    IIRC Sony were an absolute mess at the time. Didn't want to cannibalise their Minidisc sales, had weird DRM... even in the geeky crowds I ran in (where Nomads definitely were seen) Sony MP3 players were a rarity.
    - ambrose2 3y ago
      Agree, they were really big on the Minidisc players at this time (I had one).
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    At the time early media players were relevant, and to the community they were relevant (people very into music tech), Sony was known as "that company that installs rootkits on your computer if you buy their CD"
    - 3y ago
zamadatix 3y ago
The sweat box is actively cooled this time. I'm concerned about the price as well though, even if it is fantastic beyond all expectations of what was presented that's a really hard price for most to justify for the feature set shown. Showing things like true and proper Disney+ integration day 1 gives hope for big name support vs just special one off demos for headsets of the past though. At the same time, they are going to need a lot more properly integrated apps for it to reach success status.
beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
I think the: - existing apple ecosystem; - the fact that this looks far more AR focused than the VR focused stuff I've currently seen; - the public's perception of the Apple brand and its build quality (questionable if real, but an undeniable public perception nonetheless) could get around the "ugly sweat box" vibe you've described; - the willingness for app-makers to build for the ecosystem; - the 4k and (apparent) visual quality; ...could make this successful, or at least iPad-like in terms of dominating a market. Hard to know for sure though until we get some actual reviews and footage of people wearing it.
steveoscaro 3y ago
I have an Oculus2 and a PSVR2, and the Apple headset seems like an entirely different thing. It's meant to replace your mac computer and your tv. Yes with the headsets I have, you can surf the web and technically try to write code, but it's not a good experience. And those displays basically still suck. You can see the pixels, and the lenses create weird effects. If Apple has solved this, and the presence of the screen and lenses is just "forgotten", it's going to be a huge step forward. It'll be a device to actually be productive on, let alone watch movies and play games, IMO.
- drrotmos 3y ago
  IMHO this really is what's gonna make or break this product. Will the screens have good enough fidelity and not strain my eyes in such a way that I will want to wear the headset for my entire work day.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    People always drag out this line but how much time in VR do you actually have? I have hundreds of hours in VR, doing fiddly simulator things, and it's not an enjoyable experience, but rather something you put up with to get to experience something you wouldn't otherwise get to experience, like flying a real as it gets plane. A couple really nice monitors are $500. A laptop with a really nice built in screen is $2000, even if you want the apple logo on it. Having infinite floating windows in VR is actually pretty useless. Either they are all tiny and unreadable because you need INSANE resolution to get 1080p quality at normal viewing distance, or you have one giant screen pressed against your face and your eyes find that very uncomfortable. VR is tiring on your eyes, worse than looking at a screen all day. I wish rich kids would stop trying to attain a minority report style dream of computation and focus on making actual, usable, good UIs that are enjoyable, easy, and productive to work with. This is none of those.
    - sebzim4500 3y ago
      >Having infinite floating windows in VR is actually pretty useless. Either they are all tiny and unreadable because you need INSANE resolution to get 1080p quality at normal viewing distance, or you have one giant screen pressed against your face and your eyes find that very uncomfortable. VR is tiring on your eyes, worse than looking at a screen all day. Apple seem to think they have solved these issues. We'll see.
jansan 3y ago
The difference is the AR, which will eventually make it wearable in everyday life. When setting the perimeter, the Oculus already shows the surrounding using it's integrated cameras. This will be the future. I don't think the first version of Apple's AR mask will be a huge success, because it still looks too dorky. But in a few years you will see many people wearing sunglasses that double as phone screens all the time.
- kjreact 3y ago
  I don’t think the dorky mask look will change any time soon. There’s just too much electronics to fit into the system for it to shrink down to a pair of regular glasses. When the Apple Watch was introduced, I thought that the form factor would change after a few years. It’s almost been ten years and it doesn’t seem like Apple will be making any big form factor changes to the product. Apple will just have to make it fashionable to wear dorky scuba masks everywhere. Maybe the price tag will be sufficient…
  - jansan 3y ago
    You may be right. Remember when they used someone with extra large hands for presenting the first iPhone in order to make it look small? Now you can get the iPhone 14 is large and very large. We may get used to this if the product is sufficiently useful.
  - ambrose2 3y ago
    I mean, nice ski goggles don't look uncool on the mountain, I don't see how it's impossible for people to get used to Vision goggles on people's faces.
    - danans 3y ago
      Context is important. Ski googles look OK because they make functional sense, because everyone needs some kind of eye protection while skiing. You'd look ridiculous wearing them anywhere but at a ski resort. It's an open question whether these will fit into their intended social contexts, whether that's the office, home, or public. If anywhere, I'd guess they wouldn't look weird in an office or on a single person at home (since there is nobody to look at them), but not in public or in a family setting.
kjreact 3y ago
My take would be that it would be Apples track record of making software work well with the hardware, more seamlessly than either Samsung or Meta. Just look at the virtual avatar they demoed compared with Meta’s. Apple went with a more professional looking avatar instead of a cartoony one. Another app that was shown was a Birds Eye view of a basketball game. I’d love to be able to watch a sporting event live from that perspective (if I could stomach the entry fee for the experience). I was on the fence about this product, thinking that there wouldn’t be many good use cases, but their presentation gave some activities that I’d want to try on the hardware. Whereas Meta’s presentation didn’t show anything I was interested in. Apple is giving developers 6+ months to make even more interesting apps. I think there’s a good chance that this could be a successful product. But I should hold my judgement until I’ve seen the caveats of this device (ie comfort, battery life, display quality, etc). I’m sure we’ll see more in-depth looks in the coming months. We can judge it more fairly when these reviews come out.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  > Another app that was shown was a Birds Eye view of a basketball game Is there anything specific to the Vision Pro in that feature? Couldn’t they just offer that as something that you could choose to watch on TV?
  - skc 3y ago
    Yes.
  - EA 3y ago
    When you watch live TV, you watch what one person decides you should be watching. With eye and head tracking in the headset, you can watch what you want to watch during live events and eventually in interactive motion pictures/motion environments.
    - snapdeus 3y ago
      Literally no one wants to do that. That's why it's someone's job to do this. This is just like how grocery stores have made us all become cashiers. I'm not doing that, it's work, and I'm not going to do work.
tkanarsky 3y ago
I've said this before, but Apple's attention to detail might finally bridge the uncanny valley to actually good AR. I can elaborate a bit more when I get on my computer.
jolux 3y ago
No controllers, no waving your arms about. Eye tracking and hand gestures for navigation. Screen on the front that shows your face to make it feel less isolating. I don't know that it'll be a success but it's a lot more than just putting an Apple logo on it.
SirMaster 3y ago
Probably the fact that this uses microOLED at a much higher resolution than anything before. And that it's very light weight and more comfortable fitting and probably wont be a sweatbox.
ilaksh 3y ago
Thr fact that the battery is separate should be a huge improvement for comfort because one of the biggest problems with most existing devices is their weight. Another thing to check is how much heat the device transfers to the user. Or in general the comfort. Also the fact that you can easily see you surroundings should help.
EnragedParrot 3y ago
What compelling use cases did the average consumer see for carrying around a computer in their pocket before Apple released the iPhone? There were a bunch of devices on the market all kinda doing what iPhone did, but Apple made it make sense for the average consumer.
balaji1 3y ago
Gaming could be much be better on a VR/AR device, and a reason to put on a "ugly sweat box" initially. Apple did not go deep into that, only a brief segment about the Unity collab. Maybe gaming is not their forte right now. Apple Vision v3 will not be a sweat box. And even right now, Occulus interface has to evolve to match this. Controller has to be optional. It has to be AR.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> What's different about it compared to Occulus or Samsung Gear or any other existing attempts at this? It's sexy. Also, it's Apple, which means–given the price tag–it's unlikely to be shit, and if it is, I'll have some semblance of support.
caconym_ 3y ago
> What about slapping an Apple logo on it and pricing it even further out of reach changes that in your mind? Probably the fact that Apple has an excellent track record of entering nascent consumer electronics markets late (e.g. iPod, iPhone, Apple Watch) at high price points, nailing the execution, and eventually dominating said markets with arguably superior products. It's the same story again and again. If you've already decided Apple is charging $3000 for "slapping an Apple logo on it" and nothing else, you may as well have been one of the people back in ~2001 who swore up and down that the iPod was just an overpriced late entry in a market full of mature, attractive offerings like the Archos Jukebox line. In retrospect, to be clear, you would have looked quite silly. I'm not saying this thing is absolutely going to be a success, but the problem with previous attempts at virtual displays has been that the execution is always shit, and Apple's greatest strength is nailing the execution. I don't think betting against them here is a good bet.

seanalltogether 3y ago

Most VR so far has been designed to isolate you from your surrounding environment, and is the opposite. Also the ability to use it without controllers makes the whole thing feel less intrusive/burdensome to use.

newZWhoDis 3y ago

Less space than a nomad, too

kshacker 3y ago
Lame? For those downvoting, see the parent comment and also this: https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i... "Lame" was a historic comment and parent commenter should have included it :)

sgt 3y ago

Usually Apple comes along and builds it so well that people will actually start using it. Oculus and the others are still a pretty niche thing.

raydev 3y ago
> Usually Apple comes along and builds it so well that people will actually start using it Agreed, but Apple have put themselves in a weird spot with the $3500 USD price tag.
- andrei_says_ 3y ago
  I think they’ll be fine with first adopters, businesses, the rich. For people making 10x what we make, these are on the level of $300. And Apple gets to iterate and present v2 in a year or so, at 1/2 the price.
- viscanti 3y ago
  Not that weird of a spot. That's what it costs for the most premium experience they can launch with. They'd rather it be good than something everyone buys on day one. They can get costs down in future models as they scale and progress pushes down some of the costs. As iPhones become even more performant in the future they can also eventually offer a version that offloads more compute to that and bring costs down even more. Their goal is to show this is a new type of product that works at the level people expect for a completely new Apple product. They can probably afford to wait for a much lower priced mass consumer product.
- briandear 3y ago
  Considering what I paid for my Apple XDR display, $3500 is a bargain.
  - billti 3y ago
    It's also the "entry point" price for a HoloLens (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy). Businesses will spend that on an AR/VR device that adds value to their use-cases. It seems pretty clear this is not intended for "mass market consumer adoption" at this point in time.
  - raydev 3y ago
    The Vision Pro is arguably less useful than your XDR since the VP can't run macOS. :p
  - sgt 3y ago
    It's really about priorities. People don't mind paying $1000 for a bed or a phone, but 3x for something truly revolutionary? ...One can also translate it into coffees. Just 700 coffees! Ok, better not.

SparkyMcUnicorn 3y ago

> ... bring the powerful capabilities of their Mac into Vision Pro wirelessly, creating an enormous, private, and portable 4K display with incredibly crisp text. If this "incredibly crisp text" is true, then I want it. Nobody has done this yet.

zamadatix 3y ago
With a resolution of slightly over 4k resolution per eye for the entire view, on top of lenses and warping when rendering it into the space, I just can't see how this is actually possible. It may be better than many previous solutions but they were all so far off in text clarity that's not saying much. Of course, they could just set the zoom way up on Safari/the UI and say "look, it's so clear!" and be technically correct.

afavour 3y ago

People are going to reply to you and say "what made the iPod different from the Nomad"... inarguably the iPod was hugely successful where the Nomad wasn't. I don't think it's a great comparison. The MP3 players in the pre-iPod era were all made by tiny players no-one had heard of. The Oculus in particular has absolutely massive backing and still hasn't amounted to a lot. I suspect the differentiator will be software, not hardware. In particular the willingness of third parties to create software. Apple has a good record there at least.

fzzzy 3y ago
Tiny companies nobody has heard of like Sony? Cmon.
- cmiles74 3y ago
  My recollection is that Sony's Memory Stick based products of this era all had weird DRM requirements that were a big hassle.
- afavour 3y ago
  IIRC Sony were an absolute mess at the time. Didn't want to cannibalise their Minidisc sales, had weird DRM... even in the geeky crowds I ran in (where Nomads definitely were seen) Sony MP3 players were a rarity.
  - ambrose2 3y ago
    Agree, they were really big on the Minidisc players at this time (I had one).
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  At the time early media players were relevant, and to the community they were relevant (people very into music tech), Sony was known as "that company that installs rootkits on your computer if you buy their CD"
  - 3y ago

zamadatix 3y ago

The sweat box is actively cooled this time. I'm concerned about the price as well though, even if it is fantastic beyond all expectations of what was presented that's a really hard price for most to justify for the feature set shown. Showing things like true and proper Disney+ integration day 1 gives hope for big name support vs just special one off demos for headsets of the past though. At the same time, they are going to need a lot more properly integrated apps for it to reach success status.

beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago

I think the: - existing apple ecosystem; - the fact that this looks far more AR focused than the VR focused stuff I've currently seen; - the public's perception of the Apple brand and its build quality (questionable if real, but an undeniable public perception nonetheless) could get around the "ugly sweat box" vibe you've described; - the willingness for app-makers to build for the ecosystem; - the 4k and (apparent) visual quality; ...could make this successful, or at least iPad-like in terms of dominating a market. Hard to know for sure though until we get some actual reviews and footage of people wearing it.

steveoscaro 3y ago

I have an Oculus2 and a PSVR2, and the Apple headset seems like an entirely different thing. It's meant to replace your mac computer and your tv. Yes with the headsets I have, you can surf the web and technically try to write code, but it's not a good experience. And those displays basically still suck. You can see the pixels, and the lenses create weird effects. If Apple has solved this, and the presence of the screen and lenses is just "forgotten", it's going to be a huge step forward. It'll be a device to actually be productive on, let alone watch movies and play games, IMO.

drrotmos 3y ago
IMHO this really is what's gonna make or break this product. Will the screens have good enough fidelity and not strain my eyes in such a way that I will want to wear the headset for my entire work day.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  People always drag out this line but how much time in VR do you actually have? I have hundreds of hours in VR, doing fiddly simulator things, and it's not an enjoyable experience, but rather something you put up with to get to experience something you wouldn't otherwise get to experience, like flying a real as it gets plane. A couple really nice monitors are $500. A laptop with a really nice built in screen is $2000, even if you want the apple logo on it. Having infinite floating windows in VR is actually pretty useless. Either they are all tiny and unreadable because you need INSANE resolution to get 1080p quality at normal viewing distance, or you have one giant screen pressed against your face and your eyes find that very uncomfortable. VR is tiring on your eyes, worse than looking at a screen all day. I wish rich kids would stop trying to attain a minority report style dream of computation and focus on making actual, usable, good UIs that are enjoyable, easy, and productive to work with. This is none of those.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    >Having infinite floating windows in VR is actually pretty useless. Either they are all tiny and unreadable because you need INSANE resolution to get 1080p quality at normal viewing distance, or you have one giant screen pressed against your face and your eyes find that very uncomfortable. VR is tiring on your eyes, worse than looking at a screen all day. Apple seem to think they have solved these issues. We'll see.

jansan 3y ago

The difference is the AR, which will eventually make it wearable in everyday life. When setting the perimeter, the Oculus already shows the surrounding using it's integrated cameras. This will be the future. I don't think the first version of Apple's AR mask will be a huge success, because it still looks too dorky. But in a few years you will see many people wearing sunglasses that double as phone screens all the time.

kjreact 3y ago
I don’t think the dorky mask look will change any time soon. There’s just too much electronics to fit into the system for it to shrink down to a pair of regular glasses. When the Apple Watch was introduced, I thought that the form factor would change after a few years. It’s almost been ten years and it doesn’t seem like Apple will be making any big form factor changes to the product. Apple will just have to make it fashionable to wear dorky scuba masks everywhere. Maybe the price tag will be sufficient…
- jansan 3y ago
  You may be right. Remember when they used someone with extra large hands for presenting the first iPhone in order to make it look small? Now you can get the iPhone 14 is large and very large. We may get used to this if the product is sufficiently useful.
- ambrose2 3y ago
  I mean, nice ski goggles don't look uncool on the mountain, I don't see how it's impossible for people to get used to Vision goggles on people's faces.
  - danans 3y ago
    Context is important. Ski googles look OK because they make functional sense, because everyone needs some kind of eye protection while skiing. You'd look ridiculous wearing them anywhere but at a ski resort. It's an open question whether these will fit into their intended social contexts, whether that's the office, home, or public. If anywhere, I'd guess they wouldn't look weird in an office or on a single person at home (since there is nobody to look at them), but not in public or in a family setting.

kjreact 3y ago

My take would be that it would be Apples track record of making software work well with the hardware, more seamlessly than either Samsung or Meta. Just look at the virtual avatar they demoed compared with Meta’s. Apple went with a more professional looking avatar instead of a cartoony one. Another app that was shown was a Birds Eye view of a basketball game. I’d love to be able to watch a sporting event live from that perspective (if I could stomach the entry fee for the experience). I was on the fence about this product, thinking that there wouldn’t be many good use cases, but their presentation gave some activities that I’d want to try on the hardware. Whereas Meta’s presentation didn’t show anything I was interested in. Apple is giving developers 6+ months to make even more interesting apps. I think there’s a good chance that this could be a successful product. But I should hold my judgement until I’ve seen the caveats of this device (ie comfort, battery life, display quality, etc). I’m sure we’ll see more in-depth looks in the coming months. We can judge it more fairly when these reviews come out.

ncallaway 3y ago
> Another app that was shown was a Birds Eye view of a basketball game Is there anything specific to the Vision Pro in that feature? Couldn’t they just offer that as something that you could choose to watch on TV?
- skc 3y ago
  Yes.
- EA 3y ago
  When you watch live TV, you watch what one person decides you should be watching. With eye and head tracking in the headset, you can watch what you want to watch during live events and eventually in interactive motion pictures/motion environments.
  - snapdeus 3y ago
    Literally no one wants to do that. That's why it's someone's job to do this. This is just like how grocery stores have made us all become cashiers. I'm not doing that, it's work, and I'm not going to do work.

tkanarsky 3y ago

I've said this before, but Apple's attention to detail might finally bridge the uncanny valley to actually good AR. I can elaborate a bit more when I get on my computer.

jolux 3y ago

No controllers, no waving your arms about. Eye tracking and hand gestures for navigation. Screen on the front that shows your face to make it feel less isolating. I don't know that it'll be a success but it's a lot more than just putting an Apple logo on it.

SirMaster 3y ago

Probably the fact that this uses microOLED at a much higher resolution than anything before. And that it's very light weight and more comfortable fitting and probably wont be a sweatbox.

ilaksh 3y ago

Thr fact that the battery is separate should be a huge improvement for comfort because one of the biggest problems with most existing devices is their weight. Another thing to check is how much heat the device transfers to the user. Or in general the comfort. Also the fact that you can easily see you surroundings should help.

EnragedParrot 3y ago

What compelling use cases did the average consumer see for carrying around a computer in their pocket before Apple released the iPhone? There were a bunch of devices on the market all kinda doing what iPhone did, but Apple made it make sense for the average consumer.

balaji1 3y ago

Gaming could be much be better on a VR/AR device, and a reason to put on a "ugly sweat box" initially. Apple did not go deep into that, only a brief segment about the Unity collab. Maybe gaming is not their forte right now. Apple Vision v3 will not be a sweat box. And even right now, Occulus interface has to evolve to match this. Controller has to be optional. It has to be AR.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> What's different about it compared to Occulus or Samsung Gear or any other existing attempts at this? It's sexy. Also, it's Apple, which means–given the price tag–it's unlikely to be shit, and if it is, I'll have some semblance of support.

caconym_ 3y ago

> What about slapping an Apple logo on it and pricing it even further out of reach changes that in your mind? Probably the fact that Apple has an excellent track record of entering nascent consumer electronics markets late (e.g. iPod, iPhone, Apple Watch) at high price points, nailing the execution, and eventually dominating said markets with arguably superior products. It's the same story again and again. If you've already decided Apple is charging $3000 for "slapping an Apple logo on it" and nothing else, you may as well have been one of the people back in ~2001 who swore up and down that the iPod was just an overpriced late entry in a market full of mature, attractive offerings like the Archos Jukebox line. In retrospect, to be clear, you would have looked quite silly. I'm not saying this thing is absolutely going to be a success, but the problem with previous attempts at virtual displays has been that the execution is always shit, and Apple's greatest strength is nailing the execution. I don't think betting against them here is a good bet.