5 ms·

The $3500 price tag and closed ecosystem is self-sabotaging, so MZ doesn't need to be worried at all. Carmack's vision was a cheap device that could hit mass ma

by juunpp 3y ago

The $3500 price tag and closed ecosystem is self-sabotaging, so MZ doesn't need to be worried at all. Carmack's vision was a cheap device that could hit mass market, and that's where the real game still is. Also, games.

teeray 3y ago
You underestimate Apple fans throwing ungodly amounts of money at new products. The early-adopters always generate FOMO among the not-quite-so-early adopters and it snowballs from there.
Fezzik 3y ago
The same was said of the iPad and Apple Watch… this may be their big miss, but based on the reviews I’ll keep betting on Apple.
- microtonal 3y ago
  It seems that they nailed the hardware. Sure, the battery life can be improved, the price can be reduced through mass production. It is now mostly a question of people will accept/like carrying a head set. I am mildly optimistic, even the initial Vision Pro won't be much more expensive than a well-spec'ed MacBook Air plus 5k display. So at least I think Vision is attractive to pro Mac users as a very portable workstation with a lot off screen estate.
  - pzo 3y ago
    The only things missing for Pro users (especially Devs) are tools - ipad is useless for Software Dev as main machine. They can't force other companies to port Intellij or VSCode to iOS/iPadOS but you would expect they provided Xcode to iPad by now. Even if IDE is there then how about Python and Nodejs modules in such restricted environment. I Hope Meta will switch to Linus and Valve will stick with Linux where you can run any legacy software currently available including many Pro tools.
    - golergka 3y ago
      You connect it to a MacBook and use IDE with a physical keyboard, while keeping browser windows with Jira and Slack open on the sides.
      - pzo 3y ago
        Sure but this looses appeal for me. I still need macbook nearby and both devices need to be charged. If I'm in plane i dont want to remove my laptop from hand luggage or draining both batteries. This is just slightly better than someone connecting ipad to external monitor and logging with remote desktop to cloud computer and pretending ipad is good for software development.
brandall10 3y ago
But they're different classes of devices in a way. It's a new (primarily) standalone computing platform vs. just a peripheral. As far as vision, Meta's ultimate goal is to be the modern version of Linden Lab while Apple is providing the next step in personal computing. Meta's product is the metaverse. Apple's product is this device bolstered by their ecosystem. Give it a couple iterations and you'll have something that costs $2k many will purchase in lieue of another Macbook. It will be lighter/more compact, with somewhat palatable battery life. There have been reports Apple is also working on a simpler version, so there could be an Air in a few years that starts just north of $1k. If this platform is successful, that is. I have my doubts everyone will want to strap a device to their head a large chunk of the day, every day, no matter how incredible.
- seanhunter 3y ago
  For sure. This is the key insight imo: > Meta's product is the metaverse. Apple's product is this device bolstered by their ecosystem. One way or another, that's the bet here. 1) Apple didn't mention the metaverse at all (as far as I can remember) 2) The user experience looked great, without those moments that would make someone who was neutral think "Err, ... that's a bit .... creepy"
  - brandall10 3y ago
    The technology is incredibly compelling - which is the main thing, that people are exciting about it - but there are definitely things about it that area creeping people out... I've noticed these pop up in discussions - The isolation aspects of consuming TV/movies (Mark has a point here IMO) - The whole taking 3d images/videos of your children with a headset on - The uncanny valley Facetime avatars - The external screen that gives a window to your eyes in AR mode
    - seanhunter 3y ago
      Agree with all of those. I think the interaction between people with headsets on and no headset on is one of the things we'll really need to see play out to see how it works in a real social context once the device itself isn't a novelty. At the moment it seems incredibly distopian at best. Apple is the first attempt to actually try to address that it seems (eg by fading people who are in your periphery into the picture in the headset so you at least see them and fading an image of your face onto the outside of the headset so they at least sort of see you). But it's still weird af, no question. I was specifically speaking about the interface, which when meta introduced theirs had all these weird things "Why has nobody got legs? Why does it look like absolute arse? etc". It didn't have those. It looked slick, like you would expect from Apple.
websap 3y ago
$3500 is pretty cheap for the HW it provides. An iPhone 14 Pro Max starts at $1100 and has nowhere near the HW that this device has, let alone the economics of scale.
- pzo 3y ago
  lots of technologies in those vision Pro are similar components as in those iphones and ipads. If you take 2 iphone 14 pro (total cost 2x$1000=$2000) you get: - 2x OLED screens - 2x lidar camera - 2x truedepth camera module - 2x4=8 RGB cameras with very high spec - 2x A15 chip - 2x accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, barometer, proxmity, ambient sensors - 2x gps, wifi, bluetooth, nfc, uwb, 3g/4g/5g - 2x flash led - 2x batteries - 2x stereo speakers - 2x3=6 microphones They already have crazy profit margin on iphones. I think if they would price it at $2500 this would make more sense. If they would allow to run full MacOS on this thing and I could use it just as Mac Mini replacement and attach physical external display via hdmi out then I could easier stomach $3500 price.
  - gorbypark 3y ago
    I kind of think having the compute power combined with the external battery would have been pretty slick. An AR head unit combined with a portable Mac mini would be pretty compelling at $3500. Give it the ability to be a MacOS desktop when plugged into a regular monitor and I would buy one for sure!
  - zimpenfish 3y ago
    > 2x OLED screens Not quite the same ballpark, is it? iPhone 14 Pro resolution is 2556×1179 at 460ppi. Vision Pro is believed to have 3800x3000 at 3400ppi. That's almost an order of magnitude improvement in density over the iPhone screens (and 3x the density of the Quest Pro or the PSVR2.)
    - pzo 3y ago
      Sure those are very hight DPI screens I agree. So then take the price of ipad pro 11. Even cheaper than iphone 14 pro and has most of those components I mentioned above (excluding 3g/4g/5g). 2x ipad pro 11 == 2x $800 = $1600. Does it really cost apple ~$1000 or even $500 per such 3400ppi screen to justify such price? And regarding screen resolution very old Sony Experia 1 (from 2019) had 4k resolution (1644 x 3840 pixels at 650dpi): https://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_1-9543.php https://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_1-9543.php
hagbarth 3y ago
No it's not. It wasn't for any of the products Apple make.

by juunpp 3y ago

teeray 3y ago

You underestimate Apple fans throwing ungodly amounts of money at new products. The early-adopters always generate FOMO among the not-quite-so-early adopters and it snowballs from there.

Fezzik 3y ago

The same was said of the iPad and Apple Watch… this may be their big miss, but based on the reviews I’ll keep betting on Apple.

microtonal 3y ago
It seems that they nailed the hardware. Sure, the battery life can be improved, the price can be reduced through mass production. It is now mostly a question of people will accept/like carrying a head set. I am mildly optimistic, even the initial Vision Pro won't be much more expensive than a well-spec'ed MacBook Air plus 5k display. So at least I think Vision is attractive to pro Mac users as a very portable workstation with a lot off screen estate.
- pzo 3y ago
  The only things missing for Pro users (especially Devs) are tools - ipad is useless for Software Dev as main machine. They can't force other companies to port Intellij or VSCode to iOS/iPadOS but you would expect they provided Xcode to iPad by now. Even if IDE is there then how about Python and Nodejs modules in such restricted environment. I Hope Meta will switch to Linus and Valve will stick with Linux where you can run any legacy software currently available including many Pro tools.
  - golergka 3y ago
    You connect it to a MacBook and use IDE with a physical keyboard, while keeping browser windows with Jira and Slack open on the sides.
    - pzo 3y ago
      Sure but this looses appeal for me. I still need macbook nearby and both devices need to be charged. If I'm in plane i dont want to remove my laptop from hand luggage or draining both batteries. This is just slightly better than someone connecting ipad to external monitor and logging with remote desktop to cloud computer and pretending ipad is good for software development.

brandall10 3y ago

But they're different classes of devices in a way. It's a new (primarily) standalone computing platform vs. just a peripheral. As far as vision, Meta's ultimate goal is to be the modern version of Linden Lab while Apple is providing the next step in personal computing. Meta's product is the metaverse. Apple's product is this device bolstered by their ecosystem. Give it a couple iterations and you'll have something that costs $2k many will purchase in lieue of another Macbook. It will be lighter/more compact, with somewhat palatable battery life. There have been reports Apple is also working on a simpler version, so there could be an Air in a few years that starts just north of $1k. If this platform is successful, that is. I have my doubts everyone will want to strap a device to their head a large chunk of the day, every day, no matter how incredible.

seanhunter 3y ago
For sure. This is the key insight imo: > Meta's product is the metaverse. Apple's product is this device bolstered by their ecosystem. One way or another, that's the bet here. 1) Apple didn't mention the metaverse at all (as far as I can remember) 2) The user experience looked great, without those moments that would make someone who was neutral think "Err, ... that's a bit .... creepy"
- brandall10 3y ago
  The technology is incredibly compelling - which is the main thing, that people are exciting about it - but there are definitely things about it that area creeping people out... I've noticed these pop up in discussions - The isolation aspects of consuming TV/movies (Mark has a point here IMO) - The whole taking 3d images/videos of your children with a headset on - The uncanny valley Facetime avatars - The external screen that gives a window to your eyes in AR mode
  - seanhunter 3y ago
    Agree with all of those. I think the interaction between people with headsets on and no headset on is one of the things we'll really need to see play out to see how it works in a real social context once the device itself isn't a novelty. At the moment it seems incredibly distopian at best. Apple is the first attempt to actually try to address that it seems (eg by fading people who are in your periphery into the picture in the headset so you at least see them and fading an image of your face onto the outside of the headset so they at least sort of see you). But it's still weird af, no question. I was specifically speaking about the interface, which when meta introduced theirs had all these weird things "Why has nobody got legs? Why does it look like absolute arse? etc". It didn't have those. It looked slick, like you would expect from Apple.

websap 3y ago

$3500 is pretty cheap for the HW it provides. An iPhone 14 Pro Max starts at $1100 and has nowhere near the HW that this device has, let alone the economics of scale.

pzo 3y ago
lots of technologies in those vision Pro are similar components as in those iphones and ipads. If you take 2 iphone 14 pro (total cost 2x$1000=$2000) you get: - 2x OLED screens - 2x lidar camera - 2x truedepth camera module - 2x4=8 RGB cameras with very high spec - 2x A15 chip - 2x accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, barometer, proxmity, ambient sensors - 2x gps, wifi, bluetooth, nfc, uwb, 3g/4g/5g - 2x flash led - 2x batteries - 2x stereo speakers - 2x3=6 microphones They already have crazy profit margin on iphones. I think if they would price it at $2500 this would make more sense. If they would allow to run full MacOS on this thing and I could use it just as Mac Mini replacement and attach physical external display via hdmi out then I could easier stomach $3500 price.
- gorbypark 3y ago
  I kind of think having the compute power combined with the external battery would have been pretty slick. An AR head unit combined with a portable Mac mini would be pretty compelling at $3500. Give it the ability to be a MacOS desktop when plugged into a regular monitor and I would buy one for sure!
- zimpenfish 3y ago
  > 2x OLED screens Not quite the same ballpark, is it? iPhone 14 Pro resolution is 2556×1179 at 460ppi. Vision Pro is believed to have 3800x3000 at 3400ppi. That's almost an order of magnitude improvement in density over the iPhone screens (and 3x the density of the Quest Pro or the PSVR2.)
  - pzo 3y ago
    Sure those are very hight DPI screens I agree. So then take the price of ipad pro 11. Even cheaper than iphone 14 pro and has most of those components I mentioned above (excluding 3g/4g/5g). 2x ipad pro 11 == 2x $800 = $1600. Does it really cost apple ~$1000 or even $500 per such 3400ppi screen to justify such price? And regarding screen resolution very old Sony Experia 1 (from 2019) had 4k resolution (1644 x 3840 pixels at 650dpi): https://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_1-9543.php https://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_1-9543.php

hagbarth 3y ago

No it's not. It wasn't for any of the products Apple make.