8 ms·

Apple’s Vision Pro Is a $3,500 Ticket to Nowhere

48 points by madmanweb 3y ago

camillomiller 3y ago
I’ve been in tech and business media for over 15 years. These articles appear, identical and similarly framed, every time Apple launches a product in a new category. They’ve always been rubbish, written mostly by people who haven’t tried the product. This piece pertains exactly to that sub-genre of punditry. Wasted bytes is all.
- CodeWriter23 3y ago
  eMate Newton Apple III G4 Cube Lisa
  - flashback2199 3y ago
    Don't forget Pippin!
    - CodeWriter23 3y ago
      And butterfly switch keyboard
- fumeux_fume 3y ago
  Perhaps if companies stopped releasing useless crap set to become obsolete within months we wouldn't see such articles over and over again, no?
  - balls187 3y ago
    What makes something useless? Innovation always need’s early adopters before technology is fully baked. Remember the original iphone had no app store, and ran on the slower (at the time) Edge network.
  - filoleg 3y ago
    > Perhaps if companies stopped releasing useless crap set to become obsolete within months we wouldn't see such articles over and over again, no? Is that what happened all previous times Apple released a new product category in the past decade, and such articles about it came out? For how much inevitable near-future death people forecasted on Apple's new product categories, they all seemed to have avoided the "useless crap that will become obsolete in a month" trap (iphone, ipad, airpods, apple watch come to mind). Am I missing something? The "become obsolete within months" part is especially inane, given iPhone 5s received a security update earlier this January, and it is a phone from 2013.
    - LanceH 3y ago
      One way is to look at the series of products Apple has produced, and they've been successful. The other way to look at it is the series of 3d vision devices (both tv and goggles) and view how successful those have been. So, is this the time an Apple product fails big, or is this the time that immersive 3d takes off? It seems a lot easier to say that VR has largely been rejected and it will continue to be rejected, even if Apple is doing it.
- stuff4ben 3y ago
  It's considered cool and edgy to hate on Apple, so of course this is going to get clicks which is all Vice cares about. I don't even need to click on this to know it's not a real review and that it's just about clickbaiting people.
- brk 3y ago
  Your observation is certainly true, but it is also based on the premise that Apple never makes a wrong move, which seems statistically unlikely. I think this could be considered the first major post-Jobs product launch. We are coming up on 13 years since Jobs' death, and what truly major things have Apple released in that time? Mostly we have seen new phones, tablets, computers, and some smaller things like Airpods. The Apple Watch is maybe the best example of an all-new product, but in a category (watches and wearables) that was already kind of a "thing". As of right now, I'm on the side of VR/AR glasses being more like 3D TVs than smart watches. I think it doesn't solve enough problems (and creates new ones in terms of an uncomfortable wearable thing people aren't generally used to). Time will certainly tell, but this thing is going to need a TON of ecosystem support to break through into a major product line for Apple IMO.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Apple makes wrong moves all the time. However, post jobs return, they are one of the few companies that stick with their core products long enough to course correct. Emphasis on core because someone will send me a list of ancillary stuff that got cut as part of the course corrections. Imho this doesn’t have to be an Apple only thing, but other companies tend to throw in the towel much quicker. That’s why people remember Apple products as successful and defunct competitors as not. The competitors often got out at the low instead of iterating another few generations. I’m actually really impressed at Meta sticking through with their devices for so long despite the heavy losses they’re incurring YoY.
  - camillomiller 3y ago
    That wasn’t my point. Apple makes wrong moves like any other company, and I’ve written my share of criticism, but always only after being briefed, or touching first hand. What I was lamenting is the custom of writing long pensive pieces of punditry with absolutely no previous expertise on Apple, not knowing the company well enough to go past the marketing smoke screen, and, above all else, with no direct experience whatsoever of the product you’re criticizing. Edit: by the way, it’s maybe not a product per se, but the switch to Arm with Apple Silicon is a feat no other company has ever achieved with this degree of complexity and with this degree of success. If I had to pick a move defining the legacy of post-Jobs Apple, the transition is certainly up there.
- Brendinooo 3y ago
  I guess if you say everything is bad (or everything is good), you'll be right at least sometimes.
Brendinooo 3y ago
Commentary feels a bit lazy. Seems to operate on the assumption that it's not different than previous AR/VR offerings in any way. If they can find a million people to watch movies on flights and/or use it as a monitor replacement, and if it works well for those use cases, then Apple will net $3.5B of revenue and have a solid foundation to build on. I don't think the first generation needs to do a whole lot more than that.
- adabyron 3y ago
  I don't read Vice but a while ago I noticed every article that's been pushed my way from them has been a lazy take on tech, specifically AI. I had to ban the publisher from one of my news readers because every single day was a new Vice article with a low quality article on AI being the end of the world. I'm fine with that opinion but not a daily new article with no substance.
- neom 3y ago
  The article can be summed up as: It's expensive. This is a bullshit device nobody will use because nobody wants VR/AR. It's technically extremely impressive. It's expensive. Nobody will use this except super rich bored people and tech bros. It's expensive.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    > Nobody will use this except super rich bored people and tech bros. It's expensive. Funny how we are so used to groundbreaking tech being so "cheap" now. Remember when the Apple II launched at about $6,200 for the base model after inflation? Heck, the Atari 2600 cost almost $1,000 today after inflation. Also, if you want to know how scary the inflation is, here's why your Nintendo Switch still costs $299 new: $299 in 2017 is about $369 today. You had a $70 price cut you didn't even notice.
    - neom 3y ago
      Adjusted for inflation: the original iPhone cost $720 in 2007, the average cell phone cost in 2007 was around $130... When the iPhone came out it was insanely expensive for "normal people" https://www.marketingdive.com/ex/mobilemarketer/cms/news/research/1085.html https://www.marketingdive.com/ex/mobilemarketer/cms/news/res... (2007 prices)
ozten 3y ago
Steve Ballmer laughing at the iPhone as "the world's most expensive phone" type of moment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U
- scj 3y ago
  I keep thinking about the Newton as a distant ancestor of the iPhone. The germ of the idea was there, but the use cases and tech (specifically networking) weren't even close. How close to prime time is AR? It's hard to judge that without hands on experience. Close or not, unlike the mid-90s, Apple can likely afford to burn money for a while on a big gamble. Trying to open up a new product category that plays to Apple's strengths is probably the correct strategy, so long as there isn't a better viable product. I doubt this will storm the world the same way the iPhone did, so it'll likely be a while before it can be judged as a success or failure.
  - ozten 3y ago
    I don't think MixedReality will ever go mainstream, but I think it will have a long tail of niches that it is extremely successful in (Training, 3D Design, Gaming, exercise, etc). For general productivity, I feel that the laptop and external monitor is the sweet spot for the peak of computing. All other optimizations have given diminishing returns. For consumption, the mobile phone is the sweet spot. I put up with a lot of jank and discomfort with my VR headset, because the feeling of Presence is so transformative in gaming, exercise, and entertainment for me. I don't think the majority of people will choose that trade-off on a regular basis, especially in social environments.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  This is a pretty lazy analogy. Mobile phones were already carried by a large majority of adults when the iPhone came out. The iPhone didn't prove that everyone needed a cell phone, or even that smart phones / camera phones were a valid market (remember Blackberry? Palm Treo? Windows Mobile? Sidekick?) it just made a much better phone and mobile OS than anyone else had up to that point. And it introduced a number of killer features that were immediately apparent: -GPS for navigation (almost immediately made Tom Toms in cars obsolete) with Google Maps -Pinch to zoom for the pre-responsive mobile web, with full HTML websites on device -Glass touch haptics with gestures: pinch, double tap, swipe up/down/right/left, etc -Unlimited data back when it was unheard of -Unlimited text messaging back when it was rare -Solid camera experience with both front and back facing camera -Complete iPod replacement with built-in iTunes, a killer app at the time with no peer -Visual voicemail -A usable touch screen keyboard, with intuitive multi-touch controls -HTML email -YouTube app built-in -Accelerometer for orientation-based controls -Proximity and ambient light sensors -Apps, apps, apps. Although App Store wasn't immediately ready for 1st gen iPhone, it was apparent that apps were coming and that they would be amazing, with plenty of built-in 1st and 3rd party apps at launch. Every other mobile phone that implemented apps up to that point did so with a ton of red tape and licensing fees When the iPhone was announced by Jobs in 2007, it was 5 years ahead of any other phone on the market. The Vision Pro, on the other hand, pitches itself as a $3500 monitor replacement, I guess? It doesn't even have one killer app. You could feel the hype and excitement for the original iPhone on day one. Maybe Vision Pro will evolve into something killer in the 2nd or 3rd generation offering. But as it stands, I'm not seeing the vision.
balls187 3y ago
It’s odd when an author links to their own tweets on the subject for social proof.
pcurve 3y ago
"expensive novelty bullshit for rich people." Yes. Then it will will turn into moderately priced novelty bullshit for normal people in a few years. At lower price, I'll be buying it just for the immersive FaceTime and Photos browsing experience. This will be the new fancy iPad and Apple will make a lot of money off of it.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  When did Apple pricing ever trend downwards over time?
  - cycrutchfield 3y ago
    When they added different price tiers for “Pro” vs regular
  - danpalmer 3y ago
    The iPod, the iPhone, the Mac... All started with a high priced offering and introduced lower priced options over time, at least accounting for inflation. Individual Apple product lines trend upwards, seemingly faster than inflation although I'm not actually sure that's the case. However they regularly introduce cheaper product lines to open up to new markets.
    - fomine3 3y ago
      iPad, iPod, iPhone, etc were affordable for average joe without much hassle if they want to buy. It's not the Vision Pro case. I think only Macintosh is the case but it's too old days. It was quite expensive but price declined. Newton is another case for expensive but it was dead end.
  - electroly 3y ago
    They do it by introducing lower-cost models rather than lowering the price of their flagship models. e.g. iPhone SE, Macbook Air, iPad. Right out of the gate they've signaled that they're going to do this by calling this the "Vision Pro"--expect a non-Pro later.
microtonal 3y ago
I think it's really too early too tell. If this article turns out to be wrong, we'll deride it and put it in the same bin as Steve Ballmer's iPhone bashing moment (or 'less storage than a Nomad'), if fails we'll laud it for cutting through the hype. Apple has the integration and hardware expertise to have a good shot at this. But only time can tell if people want it if it is good enough, or whether it turns out to be silly. Which depends not only on technological factors, but also social (eg. will it get the same 'glasshole' perception that killed the Google Glasses), do people actually want to sit with goggles at home/work, etc. If it does succeed, it also has large implications. Like, can open alternatives get a good chunk out of the market this time, or will we have another duopoly like smartphones.
- CmdrLoskene 3y ago
  Spot on. The question is whether Vision Pro is the next iPhone or the next Newton, and I have no clue.
  - fundad 3y ago
    The Newton was no iPhone but what killed the Newton was Apple killing it. Apple killed it by zeroing out the budget. Vision will be around as long as their’s budget.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
> no normal human being wants to wear goofy-ass goggles so they can attend work meetings in Minecraft. I certainly do! But yeah, this article feels lazy. Its uncharacteristic of the Vice Motherboard I know (knew?)
PaulHoule 3y ago
It's significant in that it takes a very different approach to AR (passthrough camera) as opposed to products like Hololens and Magic Leap which are physics-challenged. Apple Vision can do things optical AR cannot, such as blocking out objects in the real world. My first take is that you won't get perfect visual acuity for the real world, but optical AR systems definitely waste a lot of light and introduce distortion in the optics. Sufficiently developed, computational AR might improve on your vision, particularly if you are older and presbyopic. Apple Vision has many of the challenges other AR/VR platforms have had but it is sufficiently different that Hololens and Magic Leap don't imply an automatic death sentence. I think it's critical that "metaverse" adjacent experiences are available cross-platform, I make these cards https://mastodon.social/@UP8/110499039556572469 https://mastodon.social/@UP8/110499039556572469 that have QR codes to point to the web. I'd admit that the "web side" is the weakest link in my 3-sided cards right now but really that code should take AR headset users to a "land" or bring some object into the space but there still has to be an experience for phone users which could very much be of an AR nature as you can overlay images from the camera. As dreary as it is Decentraland has a workable experience with a web browser and something like Horizon Worlds would need one to make it worth the effort for individuals and brands to invest in the platform.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Battle field applications would be like sensor fusion (overhead drone cameras, thermal, radar, lidar) combined with the gamer experience of hacked graphics drivers and aimbot kits. I'm sure there will be lots of similar applications but for the civilian space, where the price of a Vision Pro is just peanuts. Previously such applications would have to create their own custom kit or modify existing. Now they have a trusted partner which can (hopefully) be trusted to iterate over and improve their product.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
I haven’t seen anything about whether this is usable for walking or biking around IRL. The fact that it’s not being demoed like that tells me they still can’t do “everywhere” AR (IR sensors and Sun aren’t friendly) and don’t want to open that can of worms.
willio58 3y ago
> So if not for awkwardly embodying legless avatars, what—and who—is Vision Pro for? I'm not going to buy gen 1 or even gen 2 of this headset due to cost. But by gen 3 I could see it being a strong device for working from home. I picture having multiple windows of safari open around me full of documentation as I code in VScode via the connection to my mac. The price is going to be too much for most people right now. Apple knows that. Comparing this to a quest is like comparing an iPhone to an Android. But in this case the specs far exceed the other headsets out there. There's a freaking wrap-around display on the outside of the device! The vision pro version 1 is big, heavy, and kinda clunky. But imagining what Vision Pro 5 will be gets me really excited.
thrill 3y ago
If Vice hates it, then it's a strong buy signal.
dagmx 3y ago
A subtle irony that a company filing for bankruptcy is nay-saying the business logic of probably one of the most successful businesses. Not that Vice can’t be right here, they might be. But the writing of the article isn’t very substantive of any real argument, let alone from anyone who’s tried the product.
pixelbath 3y ago
Author has not tried the product, and their main points seem to be: 1. Meta makes VR headsets and failed. 2. Vision has a lot of fancy tech, but I don't understand how that helps Apple. 3. People who are excited about Vision also liked Google Glass, a failed product. 4. Big televisions are cheaper. 5. Apple didn't mention motion sickness, so maybe that's a problem. Hope this saves at least someone from a very clickbaity article.
- xela79 3y ago
  Apple's AR/VR headset was not demo-ed by more than one person wearing it; so this makes it so that it remains an isolating experience, as it ever was; not ground breaking social features added that are worth it; so the target audience who might consider this 4k headset, will be the exact same that Meta is targetting at a fraction of the cost.
- ghusto 3y ago
  I don't think that's accurate. His main point is that there is no market for this, and the points you mentioned are just digs he gets in whilst Apple's on the ground.
  - babelchips 3y ago
    Just like the market for tablets before the iPad and the market for smartwatches before the Apple Watch?
    - _zzaw 3y ago
      Agreed. "There's no obvious market for X" could also mean "all versions of X have sucked so far". I'm not a VR enthusiast—I don't own any headsets, and will probably not be buying this one—but this is a profoundly lazy article, and not one I'd take seriously as far as judging the merits of Vision.
    - ghusto 3y ago
      Who is buying those, and what for? I'm genuinely curious.
herbturbo 3y ago
Most articles I've seen have echoed this sentiment, often conflating VR and AR as they go off about Meta and such. I guess with regards to the average consumer they are right about it being overpriced for what it does, but that feels shortsighted. My view is that this Vision Pro is aimed at exactly that - pros who are going to find and develop creative uses for it. Those people will spend the money just to experience next-gen technology. I know I will. If that produces a big ecosystem of new apps and products then Apple can continue developing the cheaper Vision Air or whatever and sell that to consumers. It seems to me Apple has made a nice step forwards in making this technology something I'd want to use. That might put me in the minority, but I don't think a lot of people got the Mac right away either.
rib3ye 3y ago
The irony of VICE publishing a piece about a “ticket to nowhere” is very hard to ignore.
micromacrofoot 3y ago
we've been through this commentary all before with the iPod, iPhone, iPad... the people they have write these articles are always too young to remember in 5 years this thing will be the same price as a mid-range laptop
scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
Pretty sure this is just gasoline for everyone to have a flame war over. Right down to the ever so slightly incorrect facts and emotionally charged language. Only thing that’s in anyway correct is the bit about the type of people excited by these devices - I feel seen. But is that so bad? Also, there really are markets for these devices - they’re just often not that visible for the average consumer. I work in medical simulation training for instance.
xnx 3y ago
Has anyone attempted to estimate the bill of materials for the headset? The amount of tech they pack in is bonkers: multiple processors, multiple screens, cameras, microphones, speakers, etc. etc. etc.
jve 3y ago
> repeatedly failed to make a compelling use case for VR over the past decade Well, including me - I'v never wanted to try one as I associated them with games or some meta world I'm not interested. But I haven't been a target for their ads, so I may not know feature set for those. Seeing Apple device, I want to try it out as I immediately see the value in having a nice workspace :) I think everything will depend on execution. If we compare 1 feature between pre-iPhone and iPhone era: touch. The touch was based on resistive technology and you had to physically push the screen for it to feel. It was unreliable. It was disgusting to work with. Saying that some pre-iPhone touch phone and iPhone touch phone has same feature set or even iPhone was lacking... sure. But the ease of use. If this actually works reliably - no lags, no artifacts, no pixels, controls (eyes/fingers/voice) works as advertised - I think it will be ticket to somewhere, even if it was only extension to your pc/tablet. But this has the potential to be more than an extension.
- fundad 3y ago
  Agreed. This week began the first decade of modern AR. I think all the optimism is confidence that Apple will be developing this product on the way to achieving high volume sales. Then they own yet another new major platform. 10 years may not be too long a slog if you OWN another major platform on the other side.
shmatt 3y ago
Now lets hear the writers opinion on an iPhone with no App Store, no copy - paste, no video recording, and no front facing camera. Kind of like the original one, which we now can't imagine a world without
- chrisco255 3y ago
  All of those features were implemented within roughly one year of the original iPhone's launch. It even got to the point where jailbroken iPhones already had much of those features before the 3G version. The App Store was announced, just not ready. Meanwhile, there were at least a dozen other killer apps built in to the original iPhone: GPS w/ Google Maps, Wifi, YouTube with widescreen orientation, accelerometers, visual voicemail, unlimited data, multi-touch gestures, full HTML/JS web browser with pinch to zoom for pre-responsive web, full iPod replacement with built-in iTunes, unlimited text, etc. The killer app for this seems to be: block out the real world entirely, even from your peripheral vision.
hellbanTHIS 3y ago
I know I'm not that good at predictions, I didn't really understand the Watch at first, the iPhone I knew was cool right away but still didn't think it deserved the massive hype the first version got... still I have to say if I had the Vision Pro sitting next to me right now I probably wouldn't be using it, that's the difference. It's not even about the price, I'd have used the 1st gen Watch and iPhone or pretty much anything else Apple ever made if didn't cost anything, I'd wear it or carry it around even if they didn't do much. I wouldn't want to wear this thing even if it were incredibly useful, it would be a chore.
tqwhite 3y ago
No wonder Vice is on the rocks. To say it is too early to tell is a ridiculous understatement. Comparing this to Oculus and the rest is just lazy. The Harvard guy who ran Grace Hopper's lab in 1941 famously said, "Only six electronic digital computers would be required to satisfy the computing needs of the entire United States." Had Vice been published then, they would have praised his perspicacity. I imagine few people today would agree. Vision is a new platform. I can think of plenty of uses for it. Helping physically limited people and replacing my painfully small video screen are only the most obvious. Add travel and you have a market. Add industrial use and, well, the world is a pretty succulent oyster. I don't know if it will win but I do know that declaring it DOA is stupid. I felt bad giving this dope a click. The article a waste of time and the whole Apple Vision is bullshit crowd are idiots.
GaggiX 3y ago
A giant TV can also be shared with many people. The only use case I see for this thing is if I wanted to watch something on a big (fake) screen when I'm out, even though I didn't see this use case in the commercial maybe it's just a bit awkward using it outside.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Watching videos while laying down without craning your neck or holding the device in an uncomfortable position has always seemed like an obvious VR use case to me. I also spend tons of time reading in bed, a headset could make that much more comfortable. Seems pretty obvious that having an extremely portable monitor is quite valuable.
pzo 3y ago
Don't things only rich people will buy it e.g. I think it can be very useful for blind people especially those who recently got blind and haven't adapted yet. I would be happy to hear opinion of any developer here on HN that is blind if they might find this tech appealing and useful.
ghusto 3y ago
His point is that there's no market for it, so honest question: If it came down to say $1,000, would any of your buy it, and what for? Personally I think he's right, but then I also thought the iPad was a stupid product with no market.
jmull 3y ago
I don't know if Apple's "vision" will catch on. But this article is at the "Old Man Yelling at Clouds" level of analysis. Many new platforms, form-factors, gadgets, categories of devices , etc. start as "expensive novelty bullshit for rich people". Yet some move past that (and some don't). The author might want to think, for a few seconds at least, about why some do and some don't and whether this one could. The comparison to Google Glass is particularly lazy. The approach and tech is so different I don't think there's really anything to learn. Any why even write something like this: "no matter how much they boost it, no normal human being wants to wear goofy-ass goggles so they can attend work meetings in Minecraft." Hur dur! I think this refers to Meta's clunky/crappy VR meeting software. Apple's approach is obviously different, right? And perhaps Apple will figure out how to make it less clunky and crappy? (Meta may too eventually, but doesn't have that track record). BTW, nobody wants to attend work meetings. Neither VR goggles nor other tech are really the reason. I guess this is just a long way to say this is a thoughtless throwaway article.
ppetty 3y ago
This is how some commentary on anything new starts, shallow opinionated "bullshit" to use the author's language. Time will tell if the audience trends to be rich people, even when the presumably non-Pro version launches. But I think there might be use cases the author isn't aware of, like people with disabilities who might flock to a device that let's them experience computing in a different way. The fact that you can insert prescription lenses, detect nearby objects & people, and possibly improve your vision is compelling to some people who might think of this in a different way. There might be other use cases that help people, like maybe a doctor in one country getting realtime feedback in an operating room from a doctor who remotely can advise during an operation by seeing what local doctor sees (hopefully that's under dire circumstances). But Vision Pro probably won't give you an open mind or a good imagination.

48 points by madmanweb 3y ago

I’ve been in tech and business media for over 15 years. These articles appear, identical and similarly framed, every time Apple launches a product in a new category. They’ve always been rubbish, written mostly by people who haven’t tried the product. This piece pertains exactly to that sub-genre of punditry. Wasted bytes is all.

CodeWriter23 3y ago
eMate Newton Apple III G4 Cube Lisa
- flashback2199 3y ago
  Don't forget Pippin!
  - CodeWriter23 3y ago
    And butterfly switch keyboard
fumeux_fume 3y ago
Perhaps if companies stopped releasing useless crap set to become obsolete within months we wouldn't see such articles over and over again, no?
- balls187 3y ago
  What makes something useless? Innovation always need’s early adopters before technology is fully baked. Remember the original iphone had no app store, and ran on the slower (at the time) Edge network.
- filoleg 3y ago
  > Perhaps if companies stopped releasing useless crap set to become obsolete within months we wouldn't see such articles over and over again, no? Is that what happened all previous times Apple released a new product category in the past decade, and such articles about it came out? For how much inevitable near-future death people forecasted on Apple's new product categories, they all seemed to have avoided the "useless crap that will become obsolete in a month" trap (iphone, ipad, airpods, apple watch come to mind). Am I missing something? The "become obsolete within months" part is especially inane, given iPhone 5s received a security update earlier this January, and it is a phone from 2013.
  - LanceH 3y ago
    One way is to look at the series of products Apple has produced, and they've been successful. The other way to look at it is the series of 3d vision devices (both tv and goggles) and view how successful those have been. So, is this the time an Apple product fails big, or is this the time that immersive 3d takes off? It seems a lot easier to say that VR has largely been rejected and it will continue to be rejected, even if Apple is doing it.
stuff4ben 3y ago
It's considered cool and edgy to hate on Apple, so of course this is going to get clicks which is all Vice cares about. I don't even need to click on this to know it's not a real review and that it's just about clickbaiting people.
brk 3y ago
Your observation is certainly true, but it is also based on the premise that Apple never makes a wrong move, which seems statistically unlikely. I think this could be considered the first major post-Jobs product launch. We are coming up on 13 years since Jobs' death, and what truly major things have Apple released in that time? Mostly we have seen new phones, tablets, computers, and some smaller things like Airpods. The Apple Watch is maybe the best example of an all-new product, but in a category (watches and wearables) that was already kind of a "thing". As of right now, I'm on the side of VR/AR glasses being more like 3D TVs than smart watches. I think it doesn't solve enough problems (and creates new ones in terms of an uncomfortable wearable thing people aren't generally used to). Time will certainly tell, but this thing is going to need a TON of ecosystem support to break through into a major product line for Apple IMO.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Apple makes wrong moves all the time. However, post jobs return, they are one of the few companies that stick with their core products long enough to course correct. Emphasis on core because someone will send me a list of ancillary stuff that got cut as part of the course corrections. Imho this doesn’t have to be an Apple only thing, but other companies tend to throw in the towel much quicker. That’s why people remember Apple products as successful and defunct competitors as not. The competitors often got out at the low instead of iterating another few generations. I’m actually really impressed at Meta sticking through with their devices for so long despite the heavy losses they’re incurring YoY.
- camillomiller 3y ago
  That wasn’t my point. Apple makes wrong moves like any other company, and I’ve written my share of criticism, but always only after being briefed, or touching first hand. What I was lamenting is the custom of writing long pensive pieces of punditry with absolutely no previous expertise on Apple, not knowing the company well enough to go past the marketing smoke screen, and, above all else, with no direct experience whatsoever of the product you’re criticizing. Edit: by the way, it’s maybe not a product per se, but the switch to Arm with Apple Silicon is a feat no other company has ever achieved with this degree of complexity and with this degree of success. If I had to pick a move defining the legacy of post-Jobs Apple, the transition is certainly up there.
Brendinooo 3y ago
I guess if you say everything is bad (or everything is good), you'll be right at least sometimes.

Brendinooo 3y ago

Commentary feels a bit lazy. Seems to operate on the assumption that it's not different than previous AR/VR offerings in any way. If they can find a million people to watch movies on flights and/or use it as a monitor replacement, and if it works well for those use cases, then Apple will net $3.5B of revenue and have a solid foundation to build on. I don't think the first generation needs to do a whole lot more than that.

adabyron 3y ago
I don't read Vice but a while ago I noticed every article that's been pushed my way from them has been a lazy take on tech, specifically AI. I had to ban the publisher from one of my news readers because every single day was a new Vice article with a low quality article on AI being the end of the world. I'm fine with that opinion but not a daily new article with no substance.
neom 3y ago
The article can be summed up as: It's expensive. This is a bullshit device nobody will use because nobody wants VR/AR. It's technically extremely impressive. It's expensive. Nobody will use this except super rich bored people and tech bros. It's expensive.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  > Nobody will use this except super rich bored people and tech bros. It's expensive. Funny how we are so used to groundbreaking tech being so "cheap" now. Remember when the Apple II launched at about $6,200 for the base model after inflation? Heck, the Atari 2600 cost almost $1,000 today after inflation. Also, if you want to know how scary the inflation is, here's why your Nintendo Switch still costs $299 new: $299 in 2017 is about $369 today. You had a $70 price cut you didn't even notice.
  - neom 3y ago
    Adjusted for inflation: the original iPhone cost $720 in 2007, the average cell phone cost in 2007 was around $130... When the iPhone came out it was insanely expensive for "normal people" https://www.marketingdive.com/ex/mobilemarketer/cms/news/research/1085.html https://www.marketingdive.com/ex/mobilemarketer/cms/news/res... (2007 prices)

ozten 3y ago

Steve Ballmer laughing at the iPhone as "the world's most expensive phone" type of moment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U

scj 3y ago
I keep thinking about the Newton as a distant ancestor of the iPhone. The germ of the idea was there, but the use cases and tech (specifically networking) weren't even close. How close to prime time is AR? It's hard to judge that without hands on experience. Close or not, unlike the mid-90s, Apple can likely afford to burn money for a while on a big gamble. Trying to open up a new product category that plays to Apple's strengths is probably the correct strategy, so long as there isn't a better viable product. I doubt this will storm the world the same way the iPhone did, so it'll likely be a while before it can be judged as a success or failure.
- ozten 3y ago
  I don't think MixedReality will ever go mainstream, but I think it will have a long tail of niches that it is extremely successful in (Training, 3D Design, Gaming, exercise, etc). For general productivity, I feel that the laptop and external monitor is the sweet spot for the peak of computing. All other optimizations have given diminishing returns. For consumption, the mobile phone is the sweet spot. I put up with a lot of jank and discomfort with my VR headset, because the feeling of Presence is so transformative in gaming, exercise, and entertainment for me. I don't think the majority of people will choose that trade-off on a regular basis, especially in social environments.
chrisco255 3y ago
This is a pretty lazy analogy. Mobile phones were already carried by a large majority of adults when the iPhone came out. The iPhone didn't prove that everyone needed a cell phone, or even that smart phones / camera phones were a valid market (remember Blackberry? Palm Treo? Windows Mobile? Sidekick?) it just made a much better phone and mobile OS than anyone else had up to that point. And it introduced a number of killer features that were immediately apparent: -GPS for navigation (almost immediately made Tom Toms in cars obsolete) with Google Maps -Pinch to zoom for the pre-responsive mobile web, with full HTML websites on device -Glass touch haptics with gestures: pinch, double tap, swipe up/down/right/left, etc -Unlimited data back when it was unheard of -Unlimited text messaging back when it was rare -Solid camera experience with both front and back facing camera -Complete iPod replacement with built-in iTunes, a killer app at the time with no peer -Visual voicemail -A usable touch screen keyboard, with intuitive multi-touch controls -HTML email -YouTube app built-in -Accelerometer for orientation-based controls -Proximity and ambient light sensors -Apps, apps, apps. Although App Store wasn't immediately ready for 1st gen iPhone, it was apparent that apps were coming and that they would be amazing, with plenty of built-in 1st and 3rd party apps at launch. Every other mobile phone that implemented apps up to that point did so with a ton of red tape and licensing fees When the iPhone was announced by Jobs in 2007, it was 5 years ahead of any other phone on the market. The Vision Pro, on the other hand, pitches itself as a $3500 monitor replacement, I guess? It doesn't even have one killer app. You could feel the hype and excitement for the original iPhone on day one. Maybe Vision Pro will evolve into something killer in the 2nd or 3rd generation offering. But as it stands, I'm not seeing the vision.

balls187 3y ago

It’s odd when an author links to their own tweets on the subject for social proof.

pcurve 3y ago

"expensive novelty bullshit for rich people." Yes. Then it will will turn into moderately priced novelty bullshit for normal people in a few years. At lower price, I'll be buying it just for the immersive FaceTime and Photos browsing experience. This will be the new fancy iPad and Apple will make a lot of money off of it.

bluescrn 3y ago
When did Apple pricing ever trend downwards over time?
- cycrutchfield 3y ago
  When they added different price tiers for “Pro” vs regular
- danpalmer 3y ago
  The iPod, the iPhone, the Mac... All started with a high priced offering and introduced lower priced options over time, at least accounting for inflation. Individual Apple product lines trend upwards, seemingly faster than inflation although I'm not actually sure that's the case. However they regularly introduce cheaper product lines to open up to new markets.
  - fomine3 3y ago
    iPad, iPod, iPhone, etc were affordable for average joe without much hassle if they want to buy. It's not the Vision Pro case. I think only Macintosh is the case but it's too old days. It was quite expensive but price declined. Newton is another case for expensive but it was dead end.
- electroly 3y ago
  They do it by introducing lower-cost models rather than lowering the price of their flagship models. e.g. iPhone SE, Macbook Air, iPad. Right out of the gate they've signaled that they're going to do this by calling this the "Vision Pro"--expect a non-Pro later.

microtonal 3y ago

I think it's really too early too tell. If this article turns out to be wrong, we'll deride it and put it in the same bin as Steve Ballmer's iPhone bashing moment (or 'less storage than a Nomad'), if fails we'll laud it for cutting through the hype. Apple has the integration and hardware expertise to have a good shot at this. But only time can tell if people want it if it is good enough, or whether it turns out to be silly. Which depends not only on technological factors, but also social (eg. will it get the same 'glasshole' perception that killed the Google Glasses), do people actually want to sit with goggles at home/work, etc. If it does succeed, it also has large implications. Like, can open alternatives get a good chunk out of the market this time, or will we have another duopoly like smartphones.

CmdrLoskene 3y ago
Spot on. The question is whether Vision Pro is the next iPhone or the next Newton, and I have no clue.
- fundad 3y ago
  The Newton was no iPhone but what killed the Newton was Apple killing it. Apple killed it by zeroing out the budget. Vision will be around as long as their’s budget.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

> no normal human being wants to wear goofy-ass goggles so they can attend work meetings in Minecraft. I certainly do! But yeah, this article feels lazy. Its uncharacteristic of the Vice Motherboard I know (knew?)

PaulHoule 3y ago

It's significant in that it takes a very different approach to AR (passthrough camera) as opposed to products like Hololens and Magic Leap which are physics-challenged. Apple Vision can do things optical AR cannot, such as blocking out objects in the real world. My first take is that you won't get perfect visual acuity for the real world, but optical AR systems definitely waste a lot of light and introduce distortion in the optics. Sufficiently developed, computational AR might improve on your vision, particularly if you are older and presbyopic. Apple Vision has many of the challenges other AR/VR platforms have had but it is sufficiently different that Hololens and Magic Leap don't imply an automatic death sentence. I think it's critical that "metaverse" adjacent experiences are available cross-platform, I make these cards https://mastodon.social/@UP8/110499039556572469 https://mastodon.social/@UP8/110499039556572469 that have QR codes to point to the web. I'd admit that the "web side" is the weakest link in my 3-sided cards right now but really that code should take AR headset users to a "land" or bring some object into the space but there still has to be an experience for phone users which could very much be of an AR nature as you can overlay images from the camera. As dreary as it is Decentraland has a workable experience with a web browser and something like Horizon Worlds would need one to make it worth the effort for individuals and brands to invest in the platform.

actionfromafar 3y ago
Battle field applications would be like sensor fusion (overhead drone cameras, thermal, radar, lidar) combined with the gamer experience of hacked graphics drivers and aimbot kits. I'm sure there will be lots of similar applications but for the civilian space, where the price of a Vision Pro is just peanuts. Previously such applications would have to create their own custom kit or modify existing. Now they have a trusted partner which can (hopefully) be trusted to iterate over and improve their product.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

I haven’t seen anything about whether this is usable for walking or biking around IRL. The fact that it’s not being demoed like that tells me they still can’t do “everywhere” AR (IR sensors and Sun aren’t friendly) and don’t want to open that can of worms.

willio58 3y ago

> So if not for awkwardly embodying legless avatars, what—and who—is Vision Pro for? I'm not going to buy gen 1 or even gen 2 of this headset due to cost. But by gen 3 I could see it being a strong device for working from home. I picture having multiple windows of safari open around me full of documentation as I code in VScode via the connection to my mac. The price is going to be too much for most people right now. Apple knows that. Comparing this to a quest is like comparing an iPhone to an Android. But in this case the specs far exceed the other headsets out there. There's a freaking wrap-around display on the outside of the device! The vision pro version 1 is big, heavy, and kinda clunky. But imagining what Vision Pro 5 will be gets me really excited.

thrill 3y ago

If Vice hates it, then it's a strong buy signal.

dagmx 3y ago

A subtle irony that a company filing for bankruptcy is nay-saying the business logic of probably one of the most successful businesses. Not that Vice can’t be right here, they might be. But the writing of the article isn’t very substantive of any real argument, let alone from anyone who’s tried the product.

pixelbath 3y ago

Author has not tried the product, and their main points seem to be: 1. Meta makes VR headsets and failed. 2. Vision has a lot of fancy tech, but I don't understand how that helps Apple. 3. People who are excited about Vision also liked Google Glass, a failed product. 4. Big televisions are cheaper. 5. Apple didn't mention motion sickness, so maybe that's a problem. Hope this saves at least someone from a very clickbaity article.

xela79 3y ago
Apple's AR/VR headset was not demo-ed by more than one person wearing it; so this makes it so that it remains an isolating experience, as it ever was; not ground breaking social features added that are worth it; so the target audience who might consider this 4k headset, will be the exact same that Meta is targetting at a fraction of the cost.
ghusto 3y ago
I don't think that's accurate. His main point is that there is no market for this, and the points you mentioned are just digs he gets in whilst Apple's on the ground.
- babelchips 3y ago
  Just like the market for tablets before the iPad and the market for smartwatches before the Apple Watch?
  - _zzaw 3y ago
    Agreed. "There's no obvious market for X" could also mean "all versions of X have sucked so far". I'm not a VR enthusiast—I don't own any headsets, and will probably not be buying this one—but this is a profoundly lazy article, and not one I'd take seriously as far as judging the merits of Vision.
  - ghusto 3y ago
    Who is buying those, and what for? I'm genuinely curious.

herbturbo 3y ago

Most articles I've seen have echoed this sentiment, often conflating VR and AR as they go off about Meta and such. I guess with regards to the average consumer they are right about it being overpriced for what it does, but that feels shortsighted. My view is that this Vision Pro is aimed at exactly that - pros who are going to find and develop creative uses for it. Those people will spend the money just to experience next-gen technology. I know I will. If that produces a big ecosystem of new apps and products then Apple can continue developing the cheaper Vision Air or whatever and sell that to consumers. It seems to me Apple has made a nice step forwards in making this technology something I'd want to use. That might put me in the minority, but I don't think a lot of people got the Mac right away either.

rib3ye 3y ago

The irony of VICE publishing a piece about a “ticket to nowhere” is very hard to ignore.

micromacrofoot 3y ago

we've been through this commentary all before with the iPod, iPhone, iPad... the people they have write these articles are always too young to remember in 5 years this thing will be the same price as a mid-range laptop

scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago

Pretty sure this is just gasoline for everyone to have a flame war over. Right down to the ever so slightly incorrect facts and emotionally charged language. Only thing that’s in anyway correct is the bit about the type of people excited by these devices - I feel seen. But is that so bad? Also, there really are markets for these devices - they’re just often not that visible for the average consumer. I work in medical simulation training for instance.

xnx 3y ago

Has anyone attempted to estimate the bill of materials for the headset? The amount of tech they pack in is bonkers: multiple processors, multiple screens, cameras, microphones, speakers, etc. etc. etc.

jve 3y ago

> repeatedly failed to make a compelling use case for VR over the past decade Well, including me - I'v never wanted to try one as I associated them with games or some meta world I'm not interested. But I haven't been a target for their ads, so I may not know feature set for those. Seeing Apple device, I want to try it out as I immediately see the value in having a nice workspace :) I think everything will depend on execution. If we compare 1 feature between pre-iPhone and iPhone era: touch. The touch was based on resistive technology and you had to physically push the screen for it to feel. It was unreliable. It was disgusting to work with. Saying that some pre-iPhone touch phone and iPhone touch phone has same feature set or even iPhone was lacking... sure. But the ease of use. If this actually works reliably - no lags, no artifacts, no pixels, controls (eyes/fingers/voice) works as advertised - I think it will be ticket to somewhere, even if it was only extension to your pc/tablet. But this has the potential to be more than an extension.

fundad 3y ago
Agreed. This week began the first decade of modern AR. I think all the optimism is confidence that Apple will be developing this product on the way to achieving high volume sales. Then they own yet another new major platform. 10 years may not be too long a slog if you OWN another major platform on the other side.

shmatt 3y ago

Now lets hear the writers opinion on an iPhone with no App Store, no copy - paste, no video recording, and no front facing camera. Kind of like the original one, which we now can't imagine a world without

chrisco255 3y ago
All of those features were implemented within roughly one year of the original iPhone's launch. It even got to the point where jailbroken iPhones already had much of those features before the 3G version. The App Store was announced, just not ready. Meanwhile, there were at least a dozen other killer apps built in to the original iPhone: GPS w/ Google Maps, Wifi, YouTube with widescreen orientation, accelerometers, visual voicemail, unlimited data, multi-touch gestures, full HTML/JS web browser with pinch to zoom for pre-responsive web, full iPod replacement with built-in iTunes, unlimited text, etc. The killer app for this seems to be: block out the real world entirely, even from your peripheral vision.

hellbanTHIS 3y ago

I know I'm not that good at predictions, I didn't really understand the Watch at first, the iPhone I knew was cool right away but still didn't think it deserved the massive hype the first version got... still I have to say if I had the Vision Pro sitting next to me right now I probably wouldn't be using it, that's the difference. It's not even about the price, I'd have used the 1st gen Watch and iPhone or pretty much anything else Apple ever made if didn't cost anything, I'd wear it or carry it around even if they didn't do much. I wouldn't want to wear this thing even if it were incredibly useful, it would be a chore.

tqwhite 3y ago

No wonder Vice is on the rocks. To say it is too early to tell is a ridiculous understatement. Comparing this to Oculus and the rest is just lazy. The Harvard guy who ran Grace Hopper's lab in 1941 famously said, "Only six electronic digital computers would be required to satisfy the computing needs of the entire United States." Had Vice been published then, they would have praised his perspicacity. I imagine few people today would agree. Vision is a new platform. I can think of plenty of uses for it. Helping physically limited people and replacing my painfully small video screen are only the most obvious. Add travel and you have a market. Add industrial use and, well, the world is a pretty succulent oyster. I don't know if it will win but I do know that declaring it DOA is stupid. I felt bad giving this dope a click. The article a waste of time and the whole Apple Vision is bullshit crowd are idiots.

GaggiX 3y ago

A giant TV can also be shared with many people. The only use case I see for this thing is if I wanted to watch something on a big (fake) screen when I'm out, even though I didn't see this use case in the commercial maybe it's just a bit awkward using it outside.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Watching videos while laying down without craning your neck or holding the device in an uncomfortable position has always seemed like an obvious VR use case to me. I also spend tons of time reading in bed, a headset could make that much more comfortable. Seems pretty obvious that having an extremely portable monitor is quite valuable.

pzo 3y ago

Don't things only rich people will buy it e.g. I think it can be very useful for blind people especially those who recently got blind and haven't adapted yet. I would be happy to hear opinion of any developer here on HN that is blind if they might find this tech appealing and useful.

ghusto 3y ago

His point is that there's no market for it, so honest question: If it came down to say $1,000, would any of your buy it, and what for? Personally I think he's right, but then I also thought the iPad was a stupid product with no market.

jmull 3y ago

I don't know if Apple's "vision" will catch on. But this article is at the "Old Man Yelling at Clouds" level of analysis. Many new platforms, form-factors, gadgets, categories of devices , etc. start as "expensive novelty bullshit for rich people". Yet some move past that (and some don't). The author might want to think, for a few seconds at least, about why some do and some don't and whether this one could. The comparison to Google Glass is particularly lazy. The approach and tech is so different I don't think there's really anything to learn. Any why even write something like this: "no matter how much they boost it, no normal human being wants to wear goofy-ass goggles so they can attend work meetings in Minecraft." Hur dur! I think this refers to Meta's clunky/crappy VR meeting software. Apple's approach is obviously different, right? And perhaps Apple will figure out how to make it less clunky and crappy? (Meta may too eventually, but doesn't have that track record). BTW, nobody wants to attend work meetings. Neither VR goggles nor other tech are really the reason. I guess this is just a long way to say this is a thoughtless throwaway article.

ppetty 3y ago

This is how some commentary on anything new starts, shallow opinionated "bullshit" to use the author's language. Time will tell if the audience trends to be rich people, even when the presumably non-Pro version launches. But I think there might be use cases the author isn't aware of, like people with disabilities who might flock to a device that let's them experience computing in a different way. The fact that you can insert prescription lenses, detect nearby objects & people, and possibly improve your vision is compelling to some people who might think of this in a different way. There might be other use cases that help people, like maybe a doctor in one country getting realtime feedback in an operating room from a doctor who remotely can advise during an operation by seeing what local doctor sees (hopefully that's under dire circumstances). But Vision Pro probably won't give you an open mind or a good imagination.