78 ms·

First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

• thatsso1999 3y ago
  This is the first actual hands-on demo I’ve seen, and apparently it’s actually really good. Really want to try out the auto 3d-scanning tech.
  • threeseed 3y ago
    I assume it is derived from their RoomPlan research: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/RoomPlan https://developer.apple.com/documentation/RoomPlan https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/roomplan https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/roomplan
  • WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    Apple is notorious for retaliating against “news” companies giving them bad reviews especially for demo and preview. At this point, an article is worth approximately as much as a marketing copy straight from them.
  • reportgunner 3y ago
    It's clearly an advertisement.
• GeekyBear 3y ago
  How well the new user interaction method works (eye and hand tracking) was the thing I was most interested in. > I’ve used essentially every major VR headset and AR device since 2013’s Oculus DK1 right up through the latest generations of Quest and Vive headsets. I’ve tried all of the experiences and stabs at making fetch happen when it comes to XR. Here’s what Apple got right that other headsets just couldn’t nail down: The eye tracking and gesture control is near perfect. https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/05/first-impressions-yes-apple-vision-pro-works-and-yes-its-good/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/05/first-impressions-yes-appl...
  • seydor 3y ago
    But how precise is it? Eye tracking may be good enough for foveated rendering, hand tracking good enough for pushing buttons, but how does it compare to handheld controllers for drawing something in Photoshop?
    • MrScruff 3y ago
      Marques Brownlee picks out the quality of the eye tracking as a standout feature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFvXuyITwBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFvXuyITwBI
      • amoss 3y ago
        It depends on task though. Selection is easy to do using eye-tracking as you just have to shift your attention onto the object long enough to click. Drawing is a task that is more like aiming - attempting to hold your gaze at a precise location for a period of time. It is possible, but you are fighting against the natural saccade pattern of your eye and it becomes tiring very quickly. You can expect fatigue / eye-strain within a few minutes.
        • MrScruff 3y ago
          Agreed I would want to do something like drawing with the eye tracking. I would expect the hand tracking would be used for that.
        • GeekyBear 3y ago
          > Drawing is a task that is more like aiming A new platform certainly doesn't have to be better at every task. Even 20 years ago, a professional digital illustrator wouldn't try to draw everything on screen with a mouse, they would have a tool more suited to the task, like a Wacom tablet.
• orbital-decay 3y ago
  I'm sure it's good enough with that resolution and other high tech stuff. But can you work in it for extended periods of time? I never wear wristwatches or smart watches unless I have to (hiking, running etc) because I dislike any trinkets that touch the skin 24/7, regardless of the material. This thing is almost like a diving mask, just not airtight. How about wearing it several hours straight?
  • threeseed 3y ago
    People ski and snowboard for multiple days at a time. And the mask is typically not the limiting factor. And most people can wear glasses, wedding rings and watches all day without issue.
    • Laremere 3y ago
      Weight placed on the face makes a qualitative difference. More weight means bigger straps and more pressure against the face to keep it there. If the Apple vision is light enough then it might not be an issue, but the size of the strap they're using hints that it's much more significant than most everyday wearable objects.
      • threeseed 3y ago
        * Oakley Flight Deck Ski Goggles = 370g * Quest 2 = 503g Apple's headset has no battery and they are pretty good with weight management so likely to be on par with a pair of ski goggles. Which again people typically wear for many days at a time.
        • bennyelv 3y ago
          It’s not a completely valid comparison - the ski goggles are much closer to your face so have less of a moment on your neck. While the vision pro notionally looks like a set of goggles from the front, the side view shows that they’re just as big as every other VR headset. I don’t think we’re really going to know what they feel like until someone not from Apple puts them on their head!
• andrewstuart 3y ago
  At USD$3500, who is it for? And who will develop software for something with such a small user base?
  • GeekyBear 3y ago
    It's priced just like Microsoft's Hololens and aimed at the same target audience that the first version of Hololens was: developers and early adopters. The cheaper mass market consumer version comes later. They've been iterating for years now on something in a thick framed glasses form factor, and haven't gotten anything they think is worth shipping so far. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses
    • WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      But HoloLens has pretty much entirely abandoned the consumer market and is now targeting the lucrative segment of professional usage where there is obvious gain to me made using AR, a segment Apple has always been mostly uninterested in.
      • throwanma 3y ago
        Just like windows phone vs iphone?
        • GeekyBear 3y ago
          It always struck me as insane that Microsoft tried to target Windows Phone at general consumers and not Enterprise users.
      • GeekyBear 3y ago
        Hololens 2 attempted to target factory workers, but given that Microsoft has laid off the Hololens team, it looks like they have given up. >Microsoft’s HoloLens 2: a $3,500 mixed reality headset for the factory, not the living room https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/24/18235460/microsoft-hololens-2-price-specs-mixed-reality-ar-vr-business-work-features-mwc-2019 https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/24/18235460/microsoft-holole... > Microsoft has laid off entire teams behind Virtual, Mixed Reality, and HoloLens https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/microsoft-has-laid-off-entire-teams-behind-virtual-mixed-reality-and-hololens https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/microsoft-has-laid-... I'm sure Apple's habit of iterating on and improving a new platform year after year without giving up would have served them better.
• trafficante 3y ago
  It’s quite obvious that this will effectively duplicate 1440p monitors since the much lower resolution Quest Pro is (mostly) able to do so with 1080p. Hopefully it can do even better than 1440p, but honestly that might be “good enough” when comboed with multiple virtual displays. Multiple effectively-1080p virtual displays don’t really cut it on the QP, but it’s annoyingly close. My bigger concern is comfort. Ski mask style HMDs went the way of the dinosaur for a good reason: they’re nightmarishly awful to use for extended periods of time. I did see an image of an attachable side-to-side head strap, which implies Apple is aware of the problem but prioritized aesthetics. Also for anyone interested in FoV: this guy on Twitter mentioned that it’s similar to the Quest Pro [1]. Lower than I’d like for that price, especially with an enclosed face gasket. 1. https://twitter.com/benz145/status/1665894522658910213?s=20 https://twitter.com/benz145/status/1665894522658910213?s=20
  • GeekyBear 3y ago
    > It’s quite obvious that this will effectively duplicate 1440p monitors since the much lower resolution Quest Pro is (mostly) able to do so with 1080p. It doesn't sound like prior efforts work well for that use case at all. > The resolution means that text is actually readable. Apple’s positioning of this as a full on computing device only makes sense if you can actually read text in it. All of the previous iterations of ‘virtual desktop’ setups have relied on panels and lenses that present too blurry a view to reliably read fine text at length. In many cases it literally hurt to do so. Not with the Apple Vision Pro – text is super crisp and legible at all sizes and at far ‘distances’ within your space. https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/05/first-impressions-yes-apple-vision-pro-works-and-yes-its-good/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/05/first-impressions-yes-appl...
    • trafficante 3y ago
      > It doesn't sound like prior efforts work well for that use case at all. Fwiw, this is essentially correct for all consumer grade HMDs prior to the end of 2022. Fresnel lenses meant you could only achieve (relative) text clarity inside a small sweet spot. Pancake optics made this more of a question of panel resolution due to their nearly edge-to-edge clarity. The problem is that the two currently available pancake lens devices are the Pico 4 and the Quest Pro: neither of which have quite enough underlying pixels to make the “working in headset” dream viable. I absolutely DON’T recommend the Quest Pro as a replacement monitor for that very reason. It CAN reasonably approximate a 1080p monitor, but not at a visual distance most people would be comfortable with using for extended times. Similar experience to using a large TV as a monitor (though not quite THAT bad). When you’re that up close and personal with your virtual display, adding extra desktops doesn’t really help much. “Vision Pro” has pancake optics and a very dense display panel so the “sitting in front of a TV” thing shouldn’t be an issue. I’m very excited to try one out.
• sowbug 3y ago
  24 million pixels across the two panels, orders of magnitude more than any headsets most consumers have come in contact with The Quest 2 has about 4 million, which is undoubtedly more than 0.24 million. Has "order of magnitude" joined "exponential" as another math expression stolen as a synonym for "rilly rilly rilly"?
  • olliej 3y ago
    But in base 2 it’s many orders :D :D More seriously the repeated quote-the-marketing in this article was annoying. You’re explaining your use of it, and your experience is the only thing that matters. Everyone has read the specs at this point.
  • lstamour 3y ago
    I think the problem is the plural. You could convincingly say that 24 is _an_ order of magnitude bigger than 4, even if technically log(24) is 1.38 … it’s a close enough approximation.
  • 7e 3y ago
    It's more than one order magnitude, less than two. So, plural!
    • eesmith 3y ago
      It's less than one order of magnitude. 4 million vs. 24 million is a factor of 6, not 10.
      • pproe 3y ago
        I guess in that case you could still say its 0.6 orderS of magnitude... So not entirely false.
        • eesmith 3y ago
          It still wouldn't be 'more than one order magnitude'.
• nbittich 3y ago
  Same pattern over and over, futuristic hardware, closed source software. This looks boring to me. I don't expect anything ground breaking from it. It's gonna be an iphone sticked to your eyes. Those big tech companies remove all the fun and excitement we used to have with new hardware. We know how it's gonna behave and it's limitation before it's released to the public.
  • eternityforest 3y ago
    When Apple does something new, everyone else generally has it in a few years. There's gonna be Android for Eyeballs eventually and anyone will be able to make their app have virtual space widgets or something. Of course that doesn't guarantee anyone will actually do anything cool with it, but they'll be able to.
    • jdironman 3y ago
      I think with the Oculus, at least when developing with Unity, you target the Android platform. I'll admit I've never actually looked at what is under the hood in the Quest.
      • jayd16 3y ago
        Yep, just Android. Uses the android SDK and tools.
    • RobotToaster 3y ago
      >There's gonna be Android for Eyeballs eventually Google glass?
      • eternityforest 3y ago
        Yeah, like that, but a version that people actually want!
      • XorNot 3y ago
        Glass had the misfortune of a limited rollout and landed at exactly the wrong moment for people to lose their mind about a camera being "on". Because fast forward to now and the horse has bolted into the glue factory.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• marsven_422 3y ago
  [dead]
• Animats 3y ago
  The display resolution is apparently acceptable for the simulated monitor case. So that threshold has been reached. Still too bulky, though. It's niche at this size. Washington Post negative review.[1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/05/apple-goggles-vision-pro-vr-ar/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/05/apple-gog...
  • ftth_finland 3y ago
    It appears to be an opinion piece, not a review. The author carefully avoids saying they haven’t actually used it.
• USB5 3y ago
  Did they really say "Jim Cameron?" Lol.
• 7e 3y ago
  Has Apple solved the existing "lack of a light field screwing up children's brains" issue with VR?
  • deadbolt 3y ago
    Can you elaborate?
    • 7e 3y ago
      https://www.audioholics.com/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health https://www.audioholics.com/editorials/warning-3d-video-haza...
      • krageon 3y ago
        This is specifically for children under seven, and presumably (I have not yet read the actual study) only when a certain percentage of time is spent immersed in VR. I would be very surprised if this was solved, this looks more like a "just don't do this". That's eminently reasonable for the first seven years.
  • khazhoux 3y ago
    They did not mention this topic in the keynote
• joak 3y ago
  It could be that in 3-5 years a mass market emerges from this. Or it could be like apple's newton handheld computer, released in the early 1990s and discontinued without successor. The smartphone eventually arrived but a good decade later.
  • JellyBeanThief 3y ago
    I'm seriously hoping it's a success. I grew up on Apple, but five years ago I jumped to Linux and ThinkPads and haven't looked back until now. I want a Linux-based XR environment, but that won't happen unless the hardware becomes cheap and common and hackable enough for a developer community to even think about seriously trying for it. So the range of headsets that have been offered until now have left me disheartened, focused as they are on entertainment. The HoloLens gave me some hope, but Microsoft can't touch Apple for hardware, and they wisely limited themselves to specialized use cases. Apple isn't playing, though. They're targeting all use cases--entertainment, socializing, and working, even collaboratively. They don't want this just in the office, they want it in the home. If they succeed (on the second generation, mind you) then Microsoft and PC makers will be in the same position phone makers were when the iPhone took hold. They'll have to work together if they want to catch up, and they'll have to work fast, which means working openly. So I'm hoping. But I ain't betting.
    • willis936 3y ago
      >They're targeting all use cases Except for the one use case where there has actually been demand for VR: gaming. Apple's plan is to eat Meta's lunch. Meta's lunch consists of two peas and a leaf of wilted lettuce.
      • sebzim4500 3y ago
        What makes you think they aren't targeting gaming? They just didn't have anything to show yet, since none of the studios have one of these and Apple don't make games. I would imagine gaming with this will be great, you get all the benefits of VR without having to use one of those stupid motion controllers.
• PostOnce 3y ago
  I don't understand why there is no AR or VR killer app for this thing. Their sales pitch was "it makes it amazing to read articles in safari"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYkq9Rgoj8E&t=5410s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYkq9Rgoj8E&t=5410s $3500 to... look at a floating web browser? Surely they can come up with something. Give me UV/IR vision, let me see the pipes under the ground, show me how to assemble the furniture I'm looking at, give me a template to paint by numbers of a real canvas -- why is this basic concept of "a $3500 novelty device should enable me to do something _new_" so hard for a 3 trillion dollar company to grasp? Are they just hoping someone comes up with all the above in the next 6 months? If they did, would anyone care? $3500 is relatively a lot of money if you're already giving them iPhone and Macbook money. The supermajority of the world doesn't make more then 60k a year, pre-tax. Actually, the supermajority makes vastly less than that. I guess I'll wait and watch and see if they prove me wrong, but I suspect no matter how good it is, it'll flop.
  • stocknoob 3y ago
    You don’t make money targeting those without money to spend. By that logic, Tesla shouldn’t be the top selling car, why would you buy them instead of a 25k Corolla? Many are willing to pay a premium for a best-in class-experience, which is what this headset is. There’s a lot, lot of disposable income in the world, but not held by the supermajority.
    • Demmme 3y ago
      Car prices like Tesla are a no brainer because the market was already here. With iphones you suddenly had a multipurpose device for relative little. With this, we know the market and it's not strong by any means
    • diffeomorphism 3y ago
      That kinda misses the question. It might very well be the best in class headset (at that price it kinda needs to be). The question was: okay, the hardware is great, but what is need-to-have app? Other headsets highlighted gaming, metaverse, industrial/medical applications,....
  • 3y ago
• jojobas 3y ago
  They claim 4k resolution over some 120x70 degrees FoV. This makes for some ~800x600 resolution for a focus area such a page of text in the middle of the field. How can it be sharp enough? Does it use some sort of uneven pixel distribution?
  • kaba0 3y ago
    I believe they can use practically uneven pixel distribution by lenses. So if they render the “middle” over a larger area and later correct for that with lenses than in effect that part will be of higher pixel density.
    • jojobas 3y ago
      I highly doubt it. The average pixel density is 33 pixels per degree (compared 60+ ppd of a no-frills monitor at a typical desk distance). Concentrating pixels in the centre to make a reasonable display would leave something like 10ppd for the periphery, which is like 1/5 of eye's resolution.
• jve 3y ago
  To everyone complaining about the price, let's add Steve Ballmer to the studio, he will give some weight to your words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qycUOENFIBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qycUOENFIBs
  • ricardobayes 3y ago
    It never made sense back then and neither does now. The new iPhone is what, the best part of 1300 Euros here in Spain. A full monthly salary...
    • jve 3y ago
      > It never made sense back then and neither does now Well, Apple was the first 1T company. I don't know which grade they were learning me that companies maximize profits and minimize expenses. Until it works for Apple, they will happily put whatever price tag. It makes no sense to complain. People will either complain with wallet (not able to buy it) or Apple will just continue to be a behemot.
    • spaceman_2020 3y ago
      Here in India, they've been handing out discounts. Got a new iPhone 14 after exchange for $600. The competition is almost the same price. The Macbooks look expensive too until you compare them to similar Windows laptops with equivalent screens, trackpads, and battery life.
      • op00to 3y ago
        “After exchange”. What’s the total price before the value of the trade in phone? Jeez.
        • spaceman_2020 3y ago
          Before any discounts, exchanges or offers, the Galaxy S23 is $925. The iPhone 14 is $986.
• sfpotter 3y ago
  Apple Watch was useless but looks cool and is just a watch so people bought it as a fashion accessory. This is useless but looks dumb so will flop.
  • npteljes 3y ago
    >Apple Watch was useless Apple Watch 7 and SE 2022 scored on the top for tracking sleep data[0]. So it's very far from useless, we bought it for this functionality alone. [0] https://youtu.be/ogJ8uEUjW_8?t=1009 https://youtu.be/ogJ8uEUjW_8?t=1009
  • blitzar 3y ago
    Apple Watch told the time. That itself made it a viable product - you remove the thing you were wearing to tell the time before and add their thing.
• nabla9 3y ago
  How many degrees field of vision? Somehow this is not mentioned by Apple or reviewers.
• makeitdouble 3y ago
  > Namely, 5,000 patents filed over the past few years and an enormous base of talent and capital to work with. It was mentionned in the keynote as well...should Apple really brag about their patent minefield in a field that is in need of more players and more efforts to push it forward ? > In many cases it literally hurt to do so. Not with the Apple Vision Pro – text is super crisp and legible at all sizes and at far “distances” within your space. That's the part I was most intrigued with, and on one size given the 4K resolution per eye, text being readable was expected, but I can't wait to have more details on how "crisp and legible at all sizes" it is. I have no idea of what's M.Panzerino's threshold is for "crisp", hope it's better than just Full HD level.
  • frant-hartm 3y ago
    They advertise the "4K per eye" as some kind of an advantage. They need to do this to have 3D vision, but it doesn't improve the resolution, it's still just 4K. And the 4K is across your whole FOV, I would like to see a comparison with some standard monitors (4K at 27" and 32") at particular distances from your eyes. I suppose because they didn't publish anything it is still significantly worse than hi-res monitors (just better than all previous headsets).
    • lhl 3y ago
      At 90-100 degrees, a 4K/eye display will likely end up being around 35-40 PPD (pixels per degree). This is about equivalent to what a FHD display would like like (27" monitor at 60cm: https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/ https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/). There are a lot of other factors like fill factor (screen door effect) and there are definitely some optical designs that can increase PPD as well. Apple bought Limbak recently, btw, it's possible they use a similar design as what is described here: https://simulavr.com/blog/ppd-optics/ https://simulavr.com/blog/ppd-optics/
      • amoss 3y ago
        Could you expand on your numbers a little? Assuming 4k resolution per eye and 120 degree FoV would give 3840*2/120 = 64 ppd. Using the link that you gave a 4k screen at 60cm is 73 ppd, so it is reasonably close. Apple haven't said what the FoV is yet, so I'm guessing 120 based on the pi-max and an early impressions video from mkbd. The horizontal range isn't clear either: 23 megapixels would be about three 4k screens so it depends on the overlap region between the eyes. It's not that far off 4k, and when sitting that close to a 28" 4k screen I find the pixels barely noticeable, i.e. I can see them if they are aliased but would not notice them when the colour gradient is smooth.
• mike_tyson 3y ago
  Interesting to see hardly any comments on the 2hr battery life. I think any other company would get roasted on that.
  • jansan 3y ago
    It's an external battery anyway, so you can use an arbitrarily large battery or multiple backup batteries. It's not really a problem, but the battery being external is.
    • madeofpalk 3y ago
      If you swap the battery does the device shut down?
• spaceman_2020 3y ago
  I like the MKBHD review he just posted. It seems more balanced and nuanced.
• machdiamonds 3y ago
  I'm curious if anyone's tried using the Varjo VR-3 as a monitor replacement? The Vision Pro seems like it might be in the same league. It's got this unique setup where the central focus area (27° x 27°) is a uOLED display with 70ppd and 1920 x 1920 px per eye, while the rest of the view is over 30ppd on an LCD display with 2880 x 2720 px per eye. While they're not directly competing (given that the Varjo is entirely wired and lacks the key attraction of Apple's software and ecosystem), they do seem to be somewhat comparable in terms of price and resolution. https://varjo.com/products/vr-3/ https://varjo.com/products/vr-3/
  • auggierose 3y ago
    Apple says they have 23 millions pixels, the Varjo seems to have only about 7 million pixels? That's quite a difference just in terms of resolution.
    • machdiamonds 3y ago
      Yeah, but given that the central focus display is 70 PPD on the Varjo, it's probably higher PPD compared to the Vision Pro in that part of the screen. So, I'm curious if that 70 PPD area truly matches up to the clarity of a real monitor.
    • makeitdouble 3y ago
      The Varjo would be more around 12 million per eye, but I think the actual feeling could be affect by the optics and how the central focus area is handled. The central 70ppd feels like a pretty solid number. Funnily enough it's price not that far from Apple's headset.
      • auggierose 3y ago
        1920 * 1920 ≈ 3.6 million pixels per eye, what's your calculation for the 12 million per eye?
        • makeitdouble 3y ago
• sazz 3y ago
  Is anything known about health risks? I could imagine that if the eye no longer has to focus on distance, that this could lead to refractive errors more quickly with excessive use. Or did I miss here something?
  • charcircuit 3y ago
    >if the eye no longer has to focus on [different distances] The same problem exists with monitors. The recommendation is take breaks to focus at different distances.
    • sazz 3y ago
      I don't know - monitors are physical objects in space that you are aware of. I would classify Vision Pro more as glasses. I wear glasses myself. And sometimes I forget to take them off because they become part of my perception. That doesn't happen to me with my monitors :-D
  • Etheryte 3y ago
    As covered in the original announcement discussion, it has lens inserts that increase the focal distance.
  • makeitdouble 3y ago
    It's a risk mostly to small children as far as I understand. There's been a few case of semi-permanent eye issue I think in pretty young kids (6 or so ?), and temporary issues in older kids (10-13?), but I can't find the papers back. Since these studies, it has become harder to experiment on small kids as it would be unethical, but on the other hand there's no specific report on kids older than 13 if I remember well. Then a decent number of adults have been using the headsets for prolonged periods without anything critical reported at this point. It should still be used with awareness of potential risks, but I don't think there's any strong evidence of long term effects.
• rowanG077 3y ago
  Honestly if this can replace my valve index in addition to my monitors I'm sold.
• Gareth321 3y ago
  I'm waiting for the rumoured AR glasses in reading glasses format in 2026. That seems useful for me; integrating computing into my typical workflow. I won't be wearing this thing around the office or for any extended period of time.
  • layer8 3y ago
    That won’t be happening this decade, and maybe not even the next.
• sgt101 3y ago
  Target market : young people (so not the majority of commentators) Target market : rich people (again...) Enterprise market : military / financial services & trading / cyber defence I think that they will hit the intersection of rich and young; and they will also get traction from their enterprise niches. This will create a beach head for developers and an onramp that doens't rely on someone just pouring money into it all endlessly. If the market doesn't grow and evolve then it'll be clear that consumers don't want this, there will be no excuses like "wait for better kit, better designs, a functioning market"...
• theklr 3y ago
  I think I’m noticing what people do all the time with Apple launches, not listen to the marketing. They told you exactly where they’re positioning this. Spatial computing. Not quite tvOS not quite iPadOS. If they’re lucky this is the watch all over again. If they’re truly lucky, this the new iPlatform. I’m just excited they’ve now confirmed this will be a market for at least another decade. I am bummed to see though that it is a queued release and not a global preorder.
• lvl102 3y ago
  I see big potentials for this device with DIY contents among others. Imagine putting this on to fix your car? It can guide you through exploded views and help you pin point problems. That could be big in professional settings too. HOWEVER, I still believe it will be very niche. It’s still putting on a sizable headset and placing two screens right up your eye balls. We don’t yet know the health effects from doing that for an extended period. I imagine it is not good at all.
  • Olreich 3y ago
    Unless there’s some radio wave danger, I don’t see how headsets could be harmful. Your eyes are not actually focusing on a close screen, they’re focused however far away the objects appear to be. Is there a danger to letting your eyes be unfocused and placing an iPhone right next to them (letting the screen be blurry, not trying to focus on it). Maybe it’s the inner ear that is going to get hurt after prolonged disorientation, but astronauts should surely have that worse and I haven’t heard of any studies about it. Maybe something will show up about it. I don’t see an obvious mechanism where this is harmful and VR headsets have been around long enough that this should be a well-understood safety space.
• gizzlon 3y ago
  Looking forward to trying this. Could be great! But: - Why are no of the other people in the meeting using a Vision? :P https://www.youtube.com/live/GYkq9Rgoj8E?feature=share&t=5608 https://www.youtube.com/live/GYkq9Rgoj8E?feature=share&t=560... - The see-through of your eyes from the outside looks super creepy.
  • bees_buzz 3y ago
    > Why are no of the other people in the meeting using a Vision? Check out Marques Brownlee's video on this - they probably _were_, it renders your face using the internal cameras in real time and displays that.
    • gizzlon 3y ago
      Huh? You see their cloths and environment .. Do you mean the avatar thingy?
• throwaway485 3y ago
  This reminds me of the problems I saw using Simula VR as a daily driver. Being able to spawn windows in midair at any angle is cool, but because of the odd angles it's not comfortable for viewing text. I'm a text-heavy person. The 4k screens per-eye might change this. Wasn't expecting micro-oled either, and I love OLED. I don't want to spend time arranging windows around me at ideal viewing angles. I wanted the device or windowing system to align windows (at least vertically), perpendicular to my view. Straight up and down. I wanted to walk around them like phantom objects in this space, with silly stuff like the memory/resource usage and metadata about the window on the back of it. What I really wanted to see here was a virtual workspace augmented by the physical space around you. I want to snap or 'throw' a window to a wall or a ceiling or tile them across my floor and walk around like I'm touring miniature golf. I'm sure the gestures and virtual anchors or snaps to do this will appear over time. 1st-generation woes I suppose. As an alternative I wanted to create a series of nesting-doll-like orbs around myself, where windows fix themselves with equal gaps at optimum viewing angles around this orb and I'm only moving them around inside this sphere-layer, and up/down layers to inner/outer spheres. "Move to back" / "Move to front", etc. Apple's probably further than any OS on preserving application state. Not just window geometry/placement, but application state. I want to put on these goggles and see 10+ windows "surface" from beneath the physical world around my room. I love the idea of my house/office being like the movie "Her" where it looks minimal and devoid of technology and putting on these goggles brings the virtual world out. Even just having dynamic art persist on the walls when virtual. Further thought: I want to see 2+ of these goggles in action viewing the same content and applications and allowing for simultaneous/group/mesh controlling. Can I get 2 of these and have my boyfriend and I watch the same movie? Play the same game? I really hope it's something like wifi-direct or mesh networking for local AR stuff. I think this is the start of something really pivotal and done with enough polish to launch the industry - finally. I just want more sooner, and I'm puzzled why they announced it so early if it's marketed next year. Asahi Linux for Vision Pro soon? In at least 1 of the Apple videos I saw a window fixed to a wall. Linux needs devs that can build this AR/gesture/interface/compositor stuff. I actually love the oddly buggy/bubbly design of the goggles. I like how they hid the cameras, and try to reproduce the face of the person, and the fade-in effect to show someone outside the goggles interacting with you. I'm really hoping the downward-facing cameras + sensors allow for speedy typing on a table surface with a virtual keyboard. I was so shocked I could type 80wpm on an iPad virtual keyboard when those were new. I love keyboards, but I want the movie Her with minimal/no tech visible. They've got my purchase if I can play some reasonable percentage of Steam games on this thing. Vampire Survivors <3
• jmull 3y ago
  I think headsets like this one, will replace screens for sit-down cases… working at your computer, watching movies, browsing the internet, etc. But it’s going to take time. The uptake on this particular device will be small due to the price (very small by Apple’s standards). For V2 maybe they can save a chunk of money by dropping the wearer pass-through display, and just indicate the wearer’s status with some LEDs (You’ve got a big headset on. People around you being able to see a representation of your eyes isn’t going to make them feel more comfortable/connected to you.)
• treprinum 3y ago
  All these optimistic articles without showing a single AR application - is Apple allowing access to devices only to pre-vetted publishers that would never criticize their products? 4k per eye sounds good but if it's only used for displaying 2D stuff it's kinda pointless as the resolution is still too low for that and the GPU is too weak for 3D stuff at that resolution (that would need like a minimized 5090 to make it work).
  • cal85 3y ago
    How do you know the resolution is too low, and what do you think is needed? I find the Oculus Quest 2 (1920x1832 per eye) to be passable for working on virtual monitors. Not great, but feels 60% of the way there. I would expect 4K per eye to be a huge difference.
    • treprinum 3y ago
      I have HP Reverb G2 which is 2048x2048 per eye and it's great for the MS Flight Simulator 2020 or Automobilista 2 but utterly terrible for virtual desktop. Imagining 2x denser pixels still doesn't cut it for working with text, i.e. one still will see jagged lines/edges. Also the lens are unfocused towards edges which would require head movement instead of eye movement to keep focused area sharp. Imagine programming a foot away from a 55" monitor. Vision Pro is supposed to be 23Mpx so let's assume it's evenly distributed per eye, making it 11.5Mpx per eye, and with a square resolution per eye, so that's approximately 3391x3391, i.e. 1.65x denser than Reverb.
    • reportgunner 3y ago
      Parent is right. VR/AR looks amazing on a physical display in a youtube video but looks terrible through the headset.
  • dorkwood 3y ago
    They showed an AR application. It was dragging a 3D object from iMessage onto the desk in front of you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENtxJcI5Ll4&t=1088s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENtxJcI5Ll4&t=1088s
• sensanaty 3y ago
  Thank you, Generic Advertisement Camouflaged as an Article for Shiny New Thing from MegaCorp Inc! Those conspiracy theories about chemicals in American tapwater must be onto something if people are genuinely (aka not obvious shills) excited about this clownery.
• gigatexal 3y ago
  Both John Gruber (daringfireball.net) and Ben Thompson (Stretechery et. al) showed strong praise for the headset after trying it at the event. John was a skeptic but he was won over. Ben, much more bullish on the headset, was also blown away. This bodes well.
• mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Homepod for the eyes.
• dangus 3y ago
  What remains to be seen is whether this is the greatest product in a product category with mainstream appeal, or whether this is the greatest product in a niche category that many people feel no need to be a part of. Most of Apple’s other successful products are part of the former. Music players were a proven market. Headphones were a proven market. Cell phones were a proven market. Watches, fitness trackers, and jewelry were a proven market. VR and AR are really not that. That market has sold an impressive amount of units mostly on the back of a cheap $300 device that its owners consider to be a toy, but the volume is nothing compared to all the other devices I mentioned. This could very easily be the next HomePod (1st generation): an over-engineered niche product with a price that is too high to be palatable. One thing is certain: people are getting fired over at Meta.
• dreamcompiler 3y ago
  This thing reminds me of the Segway. 1. Seems quite cool in the demo but dorky in the real world. 2. Solves a problem no one really has. 3. Costs 10x more than most people are willing to spend. 4. Actual use case: Mall cops and tourists. 5. Some rich fanboy will buy out the entire inventory, use it outdoors, and fall off a cliff.
  • portpecos 3y ago
    If augmented reality can provide me with step-by-step guidance on diagnosing and fixing a car leak, replacing a diverter valve on a faucet, installing roof-customized solar panels, and various other DIY tasks, while also showing me the necessary tools, then I would be inclined to purchase this product. I'm growing weary of watching YouTube videos for car repairs and struggling to align the locations of bolts or parts with my own vehicle. The concept of augmented reality also appeals to me when it comes to recipes. I've been considering investing in a Thermomix device, which costs around $1500, because I appreciate the convenience of their on-screen guided instructions rather than attempting to figure out the correct temperature, cooking time, slice size. If augmented reality can guide me through cooking two or three dishes simultaneously, that would be a very convenient time saver. For example, while the onions are sautéing for 5 mins, the software knows that I have enough time to prepare a 2nd dish like chopping romaine leaves for a salad. I’d end my subscription to Soylent pretty quick for something like that.
    • dreamcompiler 3y ago
      You bring up some good points. Mainly that teaching you to work on your car, your house, or cook is highly specific to your particular environment. Maybe that's an example of the missing killer app for XR. OTOH these also sound like things a remote teacher could help you with if they could talk to you in an earpiece provided they could immerse themselves in your environment. So the remote teacher would be wearing the AR headset. But now maybe you'd need a robot avatar in your kitchen. Just brainstorming here but these might be business opportunities.
      • portpecos 3y ago
• SecretDreams 3y ago
  Maybe it's not obvious, but this thread is lowkey being brigaded lol. Some of the use cases people are espousing and the timelines are.. ambitious. So far, this product looks like it was made for stockholders to go try to sell to the general public lol.
  • 542458 3y ago
    "Brigaded" usually means (in an online context) a coordinated attack from an outside source. I don't think there's any evidence of that - just sounds like a bunch of independent commenters who like the Apple or VR (both groups are common on HN) and want to say good things.
    • SecretDreams 3y ago
      I guess I used brigaded loosely. To me, it looks like a somewhat coordinated effort to give positive vibes to a relatively pointless (in its current state) product that likely nobody in this thread has had a chance to use. Maybe it's not even coordinated - just a lot of like minded simps.
• pid_0 3y ago
  [dead]
• BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  The author says he used all the VR systems that exist under the sun, but he doesn't mention SimulaVR. Since for my use case it's the most direct competitor (using VR as working tool, not gaming), anybody got a comparison of the early test devices for both?
  • cesarb 3y ago
    > The author says he used all the VR systems that exist under the sun, but he doesn't mention SimulaVR. I don't think SimulaVR counts, since all they have so far is a few prototypes and a single pre-release build sent to an external reviewer (https://simulavr.com/blog/review-unit-in-transit/ https://simulavr.com/blog/review-unit-in-transit/). And unless the author is that reviewer (or works for SimulaVR), he can't have used it.
• snarfy 3y ago
  They mention 12ms, which is 83.3fps. It's a bit too slow for my tastes at $3500 price tag. It might be good for more stationary images, but anything moving will have ghosting/stutter. I'll wait for gen2/3. Still, I'm very happy there is new competition in this field.
  • ryanwaggoner 3y ago
    My understanding is that the latency is 12ms, but that's orthogonal to the framerate. You could be updating at 240fps (doubtful, admittedly), but those frames are 12ms delayed from what's entering the camera.
    • snarfy 3y ago
      Yes you are right. It's not clear what the 12ms represents, input delay or framerate or something else. Hopefully we will get better tech specs soon.
      • Terretta 3y ago
        The way it was described was the outside in vision to viewing loop (while layered with app frames), which felt like they were describing the latency or reality lag. Given refresh rate technology on iPhone and iPad, and the microOLED, I'd expect a ProMotion-like framerate handling: https://www.trustedreviews.com/explainer/what-is-promotion-4132359 https://www.trustedreviews.com/explainer/what-is-promotion-4... For what it's worth, some controller lags: - Xbox One S Wired OC (1k) - 5.2ms - Xbox Series X Wired OC (1k) - 5.5ms - Xbox Series X Wireless Adapter - 5.9ms - Xbox One S Wireless Adapter - 7.1ms - Xbox One S Bluetooth - 7.6ms - Dualsense Wired - 11.1ms - Thrustmaster eSwap Pro Wired - 11.4ms - Xbox Series X Bluetooth - 12ms - Dualshock 4 Wired - 13.6ms Meanwhile, OLED TV input lags via https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag - 5ms game mode at 120Hz - 10ms game mode at 60Hz - 50ms - 90ms outside of game mode To have camera in, layer compositing, and rendering to your eyeballs, in 12ms, would be pretty quick.
• javier_e06 3y ago
  The words that comes to mind when I see the pictures of a person wearing that in a room with another person: Prank. Carnival. Grotesque. Dystopian. My prediction is this device is joining the hall of fame of technological misdirection's along with such products like the NES Power Glove.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• suddenexample 3y ago
  It's interesting that HN seems so divided on Vision Pro. Lots of skepticism, and also lots of acknowledgement that Apple has a habit of shutting down its doubters. Personally, I'm still skeptical. They announced 2 hours of battery life, which basically means this needs to always be plugged in. And while this is much more useful and technologically superior to everything that came before, it suffers in other ways. It looks goofier and more dystopian than Google Glass (though maybe Apple's brand status can carry it through this), and is heavier and has a weaker exclusive value prop than Meta's Quest headsets. For all the hate it gets, Meta at least has a core use case for its Quest headsets - VR gaming. If you want to play VR games, get a Quest. If you want to ??? get a Vision Pro. Still not sure what belongs there. Watch a movie in VR instead of on your TV? See your monitors in VR instead of on your desk? Record precious memories that you want to relive over and over with a huge chunk of tech strapped over your face instead of living and enjoying the moment with those around you? I guess it's the HomePod strategy on steroids - release an ultra-premium device, then release the mass market version later, once you figure out what people actually want from it. Either way, there's only so much that speculation can cover. Right now, no one can speak to very basic factors like comfort over extended periods of time, which can make or break this product.
• kaicianflone 3y ago
  The fact that Tim Cook didn’t wear the display once during the demo is all I needed to create my opinion on the device. They also didn’t show any developers using the device - why? Probably because this is a glorified iPad and Apple continues to artificially lock down their Apple Silicon on some devices to not cannibalize the lower-tier MacBook offerings.
  • jackdeansmith 3y ago
    My guess is Tim Cook didn't wear one because Apple's media team didn't want every news article to use the screen grab as the header image (which is what happened with Zuc). They want the their manicured marketing material front and center.
• mmlkrx 3y ago
  >I was HIGHLY doubtful that Apple could pull off a workable digital avatar based off of just a scan of your face using the Vision Pro headset itself. Doubt crushed [...] It’s not totally perfect, but they got skin tension and muscle work right,[...] and the brief interactions I had with a live person on a call [...] did not feel creepy or odd. It worked. One of the things that shocked me most from the keynote, was the Persona avatar demo. Meta has demoed what they call codec avatars[1] which are super impressive, but still very much in development and not anywhere on the horizon yet. To see Apple demonstrate realistic avatars was honestly super impressive and will be imo one of the features that you just need experience to truly realize the world of a difference it makes to talk to someone on a flat video screen or feel like you're in the same space together thanks to these avatars and spatial audio. Immersion is so powerful in VR, I can't wait to hang out with friends and family abroad, play tabletop games, watch a show together, or just shoot the sht. [1]: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=SDxMZ9zjqMs https://yewtu.be/watch?v=SDxMZ9zjqMs
• skimdesk 3y ago
  They should have branded it as "headphones for your eyes". To me, this seems like the closest analogy of what the value of the product is.
• ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
  Well there is the in-house proprietary market. Imagine how billion dollar companies coulf leverage this. It's not really for mass consumption, just like microsofts AR glasses too. Army bought a bunch of those and make in-house killer apps