5 ms·

I think 'killer app' is missing the point. Looking for a killer app you are looking at this to be a traditional VR or even AR device, that is not what this is.

I think 'killer app' is missing the point. Looking for a killer app you are looking at this to be a traditional VR or even AR device, that is not what this is. This is about having a screen anywhere, multiple screens and turning anything into a screen and any environment into one, hence the name Vision Pro, that is how Apple are trying to sell it. If you watched the keynote I think that was clear, everyone else seems to missing the point and comparing this to traditional headsets. The fact when they showed gaming, it wasn't a VR or AR game, it was a traditional game on an AR screen says it all.

charcircuit 3y ago
>This is about having a screen anywhere, multiple screens and turning anything into a screen and any environment into one Which is what traditional VR and AR devices offer. Being able to use apps in VR or AR isn't new.
- Gareth321 3y ago
  Exactly. The Quest 2 has offered this for years and cost $300 at launch.
  - shawabawa3 3y ago
    Theoretically yes, you can have large multiple screens on the quest 2 In reality, they are worthless, it's like looking at a CRT from 1995 At a certain point higher resolution changes how you can use it
    - op00to 3y ago
      No, you’re still just displaying traditional apps on a headset. They just look better. You still have a big dumb headset on.
      - malka 3y ago
        I dont care about about wearing a big headset. I just want to display fake screen, in HD, everywhere in my environment. The quest does not have high enough resolution for this.
- jayd16 3y ago
  Not really. The passthrough and resolution is not quite good enough on the quest 2 or the pro for it.
kwanbix 3y ago
I don't see myself wearing that huge thing on your face if not for a brief moment and a killer app. Much less for 3500 (+ TAX!!!!) dollars.
- f6v 3y ago
  > Much less for 3500 (+ TAX!!!!) dollars. You overestimate the purchasing power of 3500 these days.
PostOnce 3y ago
But that's silly, it can do all that and also have a killer app. I can already do all that traditional stuff on a macbook or ipad, and "have a screen anywhere", and those things are more portable because I can just sit it on the table instead of having to untangle A CABLE from my clothing and then find somewhere to place a headset that doesnt sit flat like an ipad or macbook. Then there's the fact that ipads and macbooks have keyboards. With no killer app, this is a boondoggle, I think.
- dnh44 3y ago
  The 3D FaceTime with eye contact could end up being the killer app.
  - atchoo 3y ago
    With creepy rendered avatars? No thanks.
    - easytiger 3y ago
      Sounds like a mental illness and behavioural illness generation device
    - aembleton 3y ago
      Are they creepy though? The linked article didn't think so.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Looking at the WWDC video, for me it looks like it's gone through uncanny valley and reached the final climb towards realism, but it's still not quite right. I've noticed different people have the valley in different places, so I'm not at all surprised if it creeps some people out.
      - candiddevmike 3y ago
        The linked article is effectively an advertisement
suction 3y ago
[dead]
magnusmundus 3y ago
That comparison comes with the form factor though -- it's a headset. It's not something you can wear and mostly forget about. It needs a purpose to make me want to wear it, otherwise it's just an iPad without the nice tactile association.
easytiger 3y ago
Paradigmatically that's of little to no value to anyone beyond an amusement. It's Project Looking Glass 2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass
- Fnoord 3y ago
  I suppose Project Looking Glass was more of a demo of Java. Maybe because Java on the desktop had a bad name? Such DEs and WMs already existed (3DWM, for example), and Compiz was also taking off back then. However, Vision Pro is by Apple. The first iteration is probably as useless as the first iPhone and first Apple Watch. Its for early adopters, and it just has to be Good Enough (tm), with prospect to become better. Compared to say AirPower, the hurdles were purely technical, and couldn't be solved for the first iteration to be Good Enough (tm); so it was canned. Also, once its a commodity, Apple seems to shy away. See AirPort.
  - gtirloni 3y ago
    > Also, once its a commodity, Apple seems to shy away Apple only works on something after it's a commodity that they can polish better than others and overprice it. Which is why I'm amazed about statements that they are the ones that introduced personal computing, mobile computing and other stuff. The reality distortion field pays off really well.
op00to 3y ago
It could have a million screens, if there’s nothing good on the screens what’s the point?
- true_religion 3y ago
  Most of what I do with computers is reading browser windows. Merely being able to do that on a nice screen is enough for me. I don’t want to or need to get directions for assembling my furniture. Heck, in real life, I like many people will just fiddle with the furniture and read no directions at all…
  - signatoremo 3y ago
    What if just not instructions, but instructions from the perspective of your eyes? Imagine an interactive instruction that guides you step by step according to your progress
    - philistine 3y ago
      Imagine putting a floating PDF in the air next to the pile of parts and you get 90% of the experience for 10% of the dev effort. That's what Apple is clearly focused on. Making your regular computer use functional while wearing techno googly eyes. That's Apple's killer app. AR is not going to get a lot of those experience investments because it makes no monetary sense. It's a massive money and time sink for a very fickle audience. Disney announced exactly what you're asking for, but it's crystal clear that we'll get something like four things a year. Maybe next season of Captain America gets a cool interactive border when looking at it. You can put Disney World on your kitchen table. No one will care and studios are going to explore this field until they converge on a cheap but good enough standard to enhance their regular content. Maybe it will be a projection of the color palette of the scene outside the viewport. Maybe they will scan the surroundings of the scene and project it. But I'm pretty sure they'll just tout the quality of the 3D experience and that'll be good enough.
      - op00to 3y ago
SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
I don’t think it’s about having a screen everywhere though: I would be uncomfortable going out in public with it, for fear of being mugged for it.
- mleo 3y ago
  This happened early in the life of the iPad. Insurance companies wouldn’t include it in personal articles since there was high theft rate. That subsided over time due to ubiquity and software security.
makeitdouble 3y ago
> everyone else seems to missing the point and comparing this to traditional headsets. I think most people are trying to find better value in the product. Headsets focused on providing a screen already exists, NReal is a decently selling product. Sure the Vision Pro has way better resolution, but we're also assuming that NReal and co will have better resolution in their next iterations. To jest, if a VR screen dedicated device comes to market in 2024 with a tad lower resolution than the Vision Pro at half or a third of the price, will the Vision Pro still have a market as a virtual screen ? At that point it will need to justify the price with all the other things, the hand tracking, the surroundings integration etc. All the stuff people are trying to find value in outside of it being a screen.
- elcritch 3y ago
  I own a pair of NReal. They'd need to do serious improvements in reducing jitter and improving AR tracking. Now I like their glasses form factor better, but I doubt they'll be able to match Apples polish. Even if it's just due to not being able to purchase ARM chips as powerful as Apple's.

charcircuit 3y ago

>This is about having a screen anywhere, multiple screens and turning anything into a screen and any environment into one Which is what traditional VR and AR devices offer. Being able to use apps in VR or AR isn't new.

Gareth321 3y ago
Exactly. The Quest 2 has offered this for years and cost $300 at launch.
- shawabawa3 3y ago
  Theoretically yes, you can have large multiple screens on the quest 2 In reality, they are worthless, it's like looking at a CRT from 1995 At a certain point higher resolution changes how you can use it
  - op00to 3y ago
    No, you’re still just displaying traditional apps on a headset. They just look better. You still have a big dumb headset on.
    - malka 3y ago
      I dont care about about wearing a big headset. I just want to display fake screen, in HD, everywhere in my environment. The quest does not have high enough resolution for this.
jayd16 3y ago
Not really. The passthrough and resolution is not quite good enough on the quest 2 or the pro for it.

kwanbix 3y ago

I don't see myself wearing that huge thing on your face if not for a brief moment and a killer app. Much less for 3500 (+ TAX!!!!) dollars.

f6v 3y ago
> Much less for 3500 (+ TAX!!!!) dollars. You overestimate the purchasing power of 3500 these days.

PostOnce 3y ago

But that's silly, it can do all that and also have a killer app. I can already do all that traditional stuff on a macbook or ipad, and "have a screen anywhere", and those things are more portable because I can just sit it on the table instead of having to untangle A CABLE from my clothing and then find somewhere to place a headset that doesnt sit flat like an ipad or macbook. Then there's the fact that ipads and macbooks have keyboards. With no killer app, this is a boondoggle, I think.

dnh44 3y ago
The 3D FaceTime with eye contact could end up being the killer app.
- atchoo 3y ago
  With creepy rendered avatars? No thanks.
  - easytiger 3y ago
    Sounds like a mental illness and behavioural illness generation device
  - aembleton 3y ago
    Are they creepy though? The linked article didn't think so.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Looking at the WWDC video, for me it looks like it's gone through uncanny valley and reached the final climb towards realism, but it's still not quite right. I've noticed different people have the valley in different places, so I'm not at all surprised if it creeps some people out.
    - candiddevmike 3y ago
      The linked article is effectively an advertisement

suction 3y ago

[dead]

magnusmundus 3y ago

That comparison comes with the form factor though -- it's a headset. It's not something you can wear and mostly forget about. It needs a purpose to make me want to wear it, otherwise it's just an iPad without the nice tactile association.

easytiger 3y ago

Paradigmatically that's of little to no value to anyone beyond an amusement. It's Project Looking Glass 2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass

Fnoord 3y ago
I suppose Project Looking Glass was more of a demo of Java. Maybe because Java on the desktop had a bad name? Such DEs and WMs already existed (3DWM, for example), and Compiz was also taking off back then. However, Vision Pro is by Apple. The first iteration is probably as useless as the first iPhone and first Apple Watch. Its for early adopters, and it just has to be Good Enough (tm), with prospect to become better. Compared to say AirPower, the hurdles were purely technical, and couldn't be solved for the first iteration to be Good Enough (tm); so it was canned. Also, once its a commodity, Apple seems to shy away. See AirPort.
- gtirloni 3y ago
  > Also, once its a commodity, Apple seems to shy away Apple only works on something after it's a commodity that they can polish better than others and overprice it. Which is why I'm amazed about statements that they are the ones that introduced personal computing, mobile computing and other stuff. The reality distortion field pays off really well.

op00to 3y ago

It could have a million screens, if there’s nothing good on the screens what’s the point?

true_religion 3y ago
Most of what I do with computers is reading browser windows. Merely being able to do that on a nice screen is enough for me. I don’t want to or need to get directions for assembling my furniture. Heck, in real life, I like many people will just fiddle with the furniture and read no directions at all…
- signatoremo 3y ago
  What if just not instructions, but instructions from the perspective of your eyes? Imagine an interactive instruction that guides you step by step according to your progress
  - philistine 3y ago
    Imagine putting a floating PDF in the air next to the pile of parts and you get 90% of the experience for 10% of the dev effort. That's what Apple is clearly focused on. Making your regular computer use functional while wearing techno googly eyes. That's Apple's killer app. AR is not going to get a lot of those experience investments because it makes no monetary sense. It's a massive money and time sink for a very fickle audience. Disney announced exactly what you're asking for, but it's crystal clear that we'll get something like four things a year. Maybe next season of Captain America gets a cool interactive border when looking at it. You can put Disney World on your kitchen table. No one will care and studios are going to explore this field until they converge on a cheap but good enough standard to enhance their regular content. Maybe it will be a projection of the color palette of the scene outside the viewport. Maybe they will scan the surroundings of the scene and project it. But I'm pretty sure they'll just tout the quality of the 3D experience and that'll be good enough.
    - op00to 3y ago

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago

I don’t think it’s about having a screen everywhere though: I would be uncomfortable going out in public with it, for fear of being mugged for it.

mleo 3y ago
This happened early in the life of the iPad. Insurance companies wouldn’t include it in personal articles since there was high theft rate. That subsided over time due to ubiquity and software security.

makeitdouble 3y ago

> everyone else seems to missing the point and comparing this to traditional headsets. I think most people are trying to find better value in the product. Headsets focused on providing a screen already exists, NReal is a decently selling product. Sure the Vision Pro has way better resolution, but we're also assuming that NReal and co will have better resolution in their next iterations. To jest, if a VR screen dedicated device comes to market in 2024 with a tad lower resolution than the Vision Pro at half or a third of the price, will the Vision Pro still have a market as a virtual screen ? At that point it will need to justify the price with all the other things, the hand tracking, the surroundings integration etc. All the stuff people are trying to find value in outside of it being a screen.

elcritch 3y ago
I own a pair of NReal. They'd need to do serious improvements in reducing jitter and improving AR tracking. Now I like their glasses form factor better, but I doubt they'll be able to match Apples polish. Even if it's just due to not being able to purchase ARM chips as powerful as Apple's.