6 ms·

Apple Vision Pro: The MVP for AR

52 points by feross 3y ago

p1esk 3y ago
I wonder what is the long term impact of wearing a device like this for several hours a day on one's eyesight.
- danwee 3y ago
  Well, you only have to pay $3.5K to find out!
- MayuriYami 3y ago
  As someone with already terrible eyesight from intense gaming, having a screen even closer to my eyes doesn’t sound like something I’d be interested in. Just doesn’t sound healthy at all.
  - crubier 3y ago
    There are lenses. Your eyes don't have to accommodate to a couple ft in front of you in VR, unlike with a screen. Instead they can focus on infinity or a very long distance, so it's actually wayyyyy better for myopia.
- reaperducer 3y ago
  I'm interested in seeing how it works with glasses. I know there's supposed to be some kind of custom magnetic Zeiss lenses you can pop in, but I don't fully understand how they're supposed to work — do they replace your glasses, or are they to adapt your glasses vision to an AR space. There were a few tidbits in the iOS and watchOS portions of the recent keynote focusing on vision issues, so it's nice to see Apple taking it seriously. But I don't understand the solution.
  - kitsunesoba 3y ago
    Typically pop-in lenses in AR/VR headsets serve as a replacement for your glasses.
    - concinds 3y ago
      Yes, they replace them because not only would your glasses not fit, they'd also mess up the field-of-view or the perspective according to what I've read (forgot the link). So you need custom lenses.
- kitsunesoba 3y ago
  The optics used in AR/VR headsets typically make your eyes focus as if they were looking at a point anywhere between several feet in front of you and infinity, so it shouldn't advance myopia. Hard to say about the light emitted though.
- xeromal 3y ago
  I believe most damage is done in your prepubescent years. Using this or phones really should be limited until your eyes finishing changing and then you're gucci. I recall that Singapore went from 17% myopia to around 80% in almost a generation due to the lack of changes in distances that your eyes see in your younger years.
jmye 3y ago
I think this article hits on the main point that I think has been missed by the early criticism I've read (and it's totally possible I've missed a lot of useful writing on it) - this device isn't supposed to compete with the Quest or any other current VR platform: it's supposed to be the starting point/MVP of competing with your laptop. Looking at in the frame of a gaming device, or the 'metaverse' is missing the point. And, as the article notes, I think it is an early-adopter device that isn't worth the price tag, and probably doesn't deliver on even 1/10 of what it needs to for mass adoption - but I don't think that Apple intended it to.
- k__ 3y ago
  Isn't (at least) the Hololens the starting point?
  - gonehome 3y ago
    No? HoloLens is an enterprise product barely advertised for public use. It’s not a new form of UX for general computing, it’s a niche. The hardware for ambient light AR also sucks, it’s why HoloLens, magic leap and such are not compelling. It’ll be a while before that’s a viable option (and why Apple is committed to pass through currently).
    - paxys 3y ago
      HoloLens pivoted into an enterprise product when it became clear that consumers didn't care for it.
      - WorldMaker 3y ago
        If that pivot happened it was well before Microsoft ever announced the HoloLens. Enterprise-focus was a big part of their marketing from Day One and consumer/games relevance was always an afterthought in their demos/marketing. I think Microsoft didn't have the confidence that it could be a mass market/consumer device at its price. (It is interesting that with the Disney section of the keynote, Apple seemed much more directly was flirting with consumer/mass adoption.)
jsheard 3y ago
Externalising the battery to bring the weight down is to some degree a solution to a problem Apple created by insisting on building the headset out of "premium" metal and glass. They haven't said exactly how heavy it is, but those who got to try it noted that it's pretty heavy even with the battery separated, like the AirPods Max are noticeably heavier than plastic headphones. I don't believe there's an internal buffer battery either (IIRC it was mentioned on the ATP podcast, who were told by an Apple rep) so you can't hotswap the external pack, as the article suggests you could, without completely rebooting the headset.
- kitsunesoba 3y ago
  Would people really accept a $3500 plastic headset though? It seems unlikely. As much as the Vision Pro is being lampooned now, it'd be even more intense if it didn't look and feel like a $3500 product. I fully expect the more pared-down cheaper mainstream consumer versions to be plastic though, much like the cheaper AirPods.
  - Agree2468 3y ago
    I don't know anything about the price of the stuff, but surely carbon fiber would fit the bill for this application, no?
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  disregard
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- norman784 3y ago
  > you can't hotswap the external pack I think they mentioned that the battery can be charged by usb-c, so you could potentially attach a power bank or to the wall to extend the battery life, also I hope that Apple allows 3rd party batteries so you could buy one with more capacity (but knowing Apple they might add some extra chips inside the battery render that harder).
muglug 3y ago
Who knows whether it will be successful, but (as the article says) Apple have created the first commercially-available device that has all the necessary components for an immersive VR/AR/XR experience. If this range of devices doesn’t do it for VR/AR (once the price comes down), nothing will.
- newman8r 3y ago
  Maybe we just don't have the required tech to give these a non-goofy form factor yet. I owned Google Glass and I didn't love being made into a spectacle, and that was more low profile than these things. I think some people do like that type of attention, but whether or not it reaches a critical mass where it doesn't make you stick out is what I'm waiting for.
jasonsync 3y ago
... or the "Pro" label is a hint that this is not an MVP (for the masses). Perhaps over-engineered to the point that they expect early adopter feedback will provide guidance on what can be axed. Macbook Pro vs. Macbook kind of thing.
- blensor 3y ago
  I have the same feeling. The features they packed into there is like if they had every engineer working on it write something down on a paper note and throw it into a hat and then build everything that was suggested into a single device. There is probably quite a bit of room to cut out things, first and foremost the EyeSight ( even though it's cool ) to get to a more reasonable product.
kitsunesoba 3y ago
One aspect of the Vision Pro that I think is perhaps not talked about enough (and isn't mentioned in the linked blog post) is the sheer number of apps this thing will be running from day one, and how little it takes to have a first-class visionOS app. iPad apps will run unmodified as basically virtual floating iPads which is nice, but not anything too special. What's much more interesting is that existing iPadOS apps can be transformed into first-class visionOS apps by just checking the "visionOS" checkbox in Xcode, which gets the app the full 2.5D treatment with all of the various controls taking on the expected visionOS appearance and behavior. This means that the Vision Pro is probably going to have by far the best selection of day-1 apps that any AR/MR headset has ever had. Most of these apps won't be anything revolutionary of course since they're adapted versions of existing apps, but it makes the platform much more practically usable.
- xwdv 3y ago
  This is mostly a cheap trick to inflate vanity metrics. Giant iPad screens are not what people think of when you say “spatial computing”. Only spatial computing apps matter.
  - KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago
    Yeah, I'm not sure how the "thing that no one has mentioned" is literally the USP they demoed and essentially a glorified projector. Don't get me wrong, it's cool and I'm intrigued, but 2.5D controls are about as groundbreaking as skeuomorphism.
  - mynameisvlad 3y ago
    Highly disagree. One of the clear goals of the product is to serve as an alternative to monitors. In that sense, any productivity tool (like the newly launched Final Cut Pro and Logic Studio for iPad) would immediately be extremely useful in visionOS, even if it’s not fully spatially aware. It may not be the flagship spatial computing experience, but that doesn’t mean it should be thrown out as a “cheap trick” either. It likely is the more common experience for day to day interaction with the device, which is Apple’s goal.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nightski 3y ago
I fully understand that maybe I lack the vision Apple has, but if I had to call it this is going to be a total flop. There's no vision here, it's just iPad glasses. They did not embrace spatial computing at all or build a new experience around it from the ground up.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  ur only responding to what was demoed in 2d
- Clamchop 3y ago
  There's something you can buy now if you lack Apple's vision.
nashashmi 3y ago
many of the questionable design decisions are being lauded by this article. It’s more like a fanboy article
nico 3y ago
And Apple usually doesn’t do MVPs The big Apple hits have been the perfected version of products that already had massive markets Like the iPod launching into the music/mp3 player space or the iPhone into the phone/personal device space The Vision seems to be going counter to this, launching one of the earlier products into a undeveloped market
- John23832 3y ago
  > And Apple usually doesn’t do MVPs > The big Apple hits have been the perfected version of products that already had massive markets Uh... Did you own the first iPhone? It had no apps and no horizontal typing. It didn't even have 3g. Few if any mobile sites. Small screen. Bad battery life. Did you own the first iPod? 5gb. Firewire connection (which were hard to come by). The scroll wheel was an ACTUAL wheel. You needed a mac to use. Again, bad battery life. I won't even go into the early mac desktops and laptops. Those were MVP's on the market. Where we are now with those products didn't dictate where were were then. The did the bare minimum to be considered products.
  - nico 3y ago
    Exactly Those might have been MVPs in terms of what Apple can do But the markets were already there Millions/billions of people who already owned a personal music player or a cellphone Compare the size and maturity of those markets to the current VR/AR market
    - John23832 3y ago
      The cell phone market at the time did not fit the iPhone. There was no attempt at internet connectivity. The biggest seller at the time was the razor, a flip phone. Not comparable. There was the palm pilot, but the market was minuscule compare to the iPhone market today There is an argument to be made for iPhone vs. media players. The Irivers and the like were comparable functionally. The iPhone just had a killer app… the iTunes Store.
      - 3y ago
jmull 3y ago
> 1. Wearable everywhere all the time Seems clear to me that's not a minimum requirement for viability. The ease of integrating the device into the situations where is might be useful is certainly important, but there's a sliding scale. I'm not sure where it becomes viable, but I don't think it's all the way at the end of the scale. Actually, I think this entire analysis is backwards. The question isn't how far from perfect the Vision Pro, or any other VR/AR/MR device is, but whether it does enough things well enough to be worth the trouble. (For me, it looks like the VP does not, mainly due to the price tag. That's even assuming some new major drawbacks that become apparent once it's released.)
Jemm 3y ago
Can we at least let Apple ship the damn thing before going full on fan boy.
ren_engineer 3y ago
when was the last time Apple released a product that didn't have a proven market? iPod, iPhone, iPad, watch, etc. were all basically superior versions of products that already had proven consumer demand and Apple just made a way better version of existing products. Apple going into VR seems like the first time they've taken an actual risk in a long time. I'll buy it day 1 if it allows me to create a solid virtual workspace with multiple monitors synced to my laptop. But for consumer market they are going to have to find a way to drop the price over time and get people over the negative image of wearing goggles on your head and there's the simple fact that you won't be able to wear these publicly in most major cities without getting robbed, which limits their use
- gonehome 3y ago
  It feels like iPod and iPhone to me. At the time mp3 players were a niche with crappy hardware and low capacity. The iPod was a lot more expensive and a lot better - it caused general adoption. Similar for the iPhone - smartphones were a business niche and had crappy hardware, the first iPhone was triple the price and expanded smartphones to everyone on earth. HoloLens, magic leap are niche products (the latter also being crappy hardware), meta’s hardware is better but still mediocre and constrained by their lack of computing platform. Apple’s hardware is a lot more expensive and if successful will expand the market to everyone in a few hardware revisions.
- simiones 3y ago
  > the negative image of wearing goggles on your head This isn't about image, it's about the discomfort of wearing heavy goggles pressed against your face. Doing that for anything more than an hour or so is horrible, and it's pretty bad even after ten minutes. People dislike wearing glasses if they can afford to, I don't believe you'll ever get them to wear these heavy goggles for anything except some deeply immersive gaming experiences.
penjelly 3y ago
personally i think both meta and apple will see success with their ar/vr solutions, it will take years for the ergonomics to be acceptable but they are laying the groundwork for the content and software now
javajosh 3y ago
The mass market appeal of this thing is, primarily, a portable setup with 2 4k screens and top-notch eye-tracking. The latter is very important, and I think will be a usability boon for literally every computer user, whatever they use it for, perhaps beyond what we expect. I can imagine going to the coffee shop to work on some code, and instead of using a laptop, whip this thing out, while sitting on a comfy couch sipping a latte... And if I want to play an immersive game for a bit, I can do that too.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  This is the worst future any one has predicted on HN. Also I can tell you haven’t used VR because eating while using it is nearly impossible.
  - javajosh 3y ago
    Yes, never mind the AI hellscape or the climate disaster, using this new AR/VR tool in a coffee shop is the worst thing ever predicted here.
cHaOs667 3y ago
I have a different perception; Apple Vision Pro is not the MVP for AR but just the next iteration of these devices. The original MVP for AR was Microsofts HoloLens and especially HoloLens 2. The later one has many of the AVP features already in place (hand and eye tracking, spatial awareness etc.) and has proven on a professional level to be a useful tool.
ajdude 3y ago
Who else has used a vr headset for programming? That may be my biggest use case for this. Currently I need to deal with low fidelity headsets connected to my MacBook and it's hard to read code that I'm writing with the quest. I really hope this will be my solution, a true VR computer like the Simula One (which I feel like this is competing against).
- veec_cas_tant 3y ago
  I have used the Quest Pro. I'm the ideal user, writing code on my MacBook most of the day from multiple locations, but the resolution is just too low to be comfortable for long periods. It is perfectly legible, just not sharp enough at comfortable sizes so I gave up on it. Really hoping Vision Pro fits the bill.
agentultra 3y ago
The Google Glass mention brings back memories of that launch. The tech circles were abuzz with how revolutionary that device was going to be. It would change productivity and humanity forever! Some people really did wear them everywhere. It was weird. And quickly stigmatized as I recall. I don't think this is a necessary condition for AR. Just take the computer off and put it down. Or better, don't wear it to begin with.
- angry_moose 3y ago
  From what I remember, most of the stigma was always having a camera pointed directly at the person you were talking to at all times. That was just needlessly "socially aggressive" on Google's part. The tech was definitely a cool proof-of-concept and the route I wish VR/AR would have taken. AR has so many more impactful use cases - think a navigation HUD or hands-free control of music while driving/biking or doing other things with your hands.
  - agentultra 3y ago
    The camera was one factor and the other was the person wearing the glasses being only temporarily present at any given moment.
  - CrackerNews 3y ago
    I remembering reading about a 90 degree FOV which if true, will limit its use for AR and wearing it all the time. The Glasshole style remarks probably won't go away with the Vision Pro either. Not to mention the potential of being robbed of the headset in public.
tootie 3y ago
Of note, ARKit is about 6 years old now. The Vision Pro may be an MVP for _immersive_ AR, but handheld AR has been viable for many years. Pokemon Go is also nearly 6 years old. WordLens debuted maybe 10 years ago. No one has really come up with anything more useful than those to date. Totally immersive is VR. For mobility, nothing beats a phone. This is threading a needle of immersive and mobile and I'm not sure what the value prop for that could possibly be.
angry_moose 3y ago
On one hand, if anyone is going to crack it, it's going to be Apple. They seem to have made the best possible "giant uncomfortable helmet strapped to your face". On the other, I have no interest in VR/AR until it hits a "better Google glass" level. Something that looks and feels like a normal pair of glasses, but has things like AR navigation, text message popups, or hands-free ability to change music by "looking" at a button. Unfortunately that tech seems to be ~10+ years out.
martythemaniak 3y ago
AR vs VR, spatial vs social, etc are just marketing gimmicks. Both Meta and Apple are putting out the same basic products, but they are available at different price points and different levels of quality. Why are they the same? It's a screen mounted inside a goggle that you put in front of your eyes. It shows you 3D things, they have cameras that allow you view a video stream from the outside and overlay things on top of that. Extra screen? More precise eye tracking? Higher res? Way better on Apple's headset, but also way more expensive what else would you expect? Over time Apple will put out cheaper less featureful products, and Meta will make their hand and eye tracking better etc. Meta will include better integration with Windows/Mac for work, Apple will get beat saber, etc. In the very early days of iOS v Android, the two OSs were very distinct and choosing one or the other was a significant choice. By about version 5, the OSs were at feature parity, all phone makers had different phones at different price points, etc. The excitement was gone and we had mature capable phones all around. The VR headsets will play out the same way.
sebastianconcpt 3y ago
The observed items are right. Also as I was reading that article I was feeling that we're starting to call success to a dystopian future. Like we're trying to succeed at entering in The Matrix.
nico 3y ago
Apple’s success is not about their features Apple’s success is due to their appeal For example, the iPhone was a success because it was a status symbol And having the latest one still is In contrast, having a Vision Pro is not
rf15 3y ago
Here's a controversial idea I had with some friends today while talking about it: VR/AR headsets will never succeed, and that is for the same reason 3D movies aren't worth it for most studios these days. Somewhere in people's brains there's a calculation of cool factor/utility vs convenience - and for the film industry, the cool factor carried it for quite a while. That is, until it "normalised" and people realised that 3D is irrelevant when you're immersed in the medium, and then all that remains is the inconvenience of having to put on an extra pair of glasses. and that tiny inconvenience is already too much for most people. So our conclusion was: AR/VR cannot succeed, even if it solves the performance, battery and fov problems down to the form factor of passive 3D glasses. Because a screen is less effort. And yes, that only leaves the niche of places where you can't get a good monitor, on the train or a plane maybe, where the convience of having a big screen in the form factor of a small pair of glasses outweighs the inconvenience of having to put them on.
water-data-dude 3y ago
I really want head mounted displays to get good. I’ve have an irrational burning desire to build a wearable computing rig since I read Snowcrash in college. There is no upper bound on how stupid I am willing to look to achieve this goal.

52 points by feross 3y ago

p1esk 3y ago

I wonder what is the long term impact of wearing a device like this for several hours a day on one's eyesight.

danwee 3y ago
Well, you only have to pay $3.5K to find out!
MayuriYami 3y ago
As someone with already terrible eyesight from intense gaming, having a screen even closer to my eyes doesn’t sound like something I’d be interested in. Just doesn’t sound healthy at all.
- crubier 3y ago
  There are lenses. Your eyes don't have to accommodate to a couple ft in front of you in VR, unlike with a screen. Instead they can focus on infinity or a very long distance, so it's actually wayyyyy better for myopia.
reaperducer 3y ago
I'm interested in seeing how it works with glasses. I know there's supposed to be some kind of custom magnetic Zeiss lenses you can pop in, but I don't fully understand how they're supposed to work — do they replace your glasses, or are they to adapt your glasses vision to an AR space. There were a few tidbits in the iOS and watchOS portions of the recent keynote focusing on vision issues, so it's nice to see Apple taking it seriously. But I don't understand the solution.
- kitsunesoba 3y ago
  Typically pop-in lenses in AR/VR headsets serve as a replacement for your glasses.
  - concinds 3y ago
    Yes, they replace them because not only would your glasses not fit, they'd also mess up the field-of-view or the perspective according to what I've read (forgot the link). So you need custom lenses.
kitsunesoba 3y ago
The optics used in AR/VR headsets typically make your eyes focus as if they were looking at a point anywhere between several feet in front of you and infinity, so it shouldn't advance myopia. Hard to say about the light emitted though.
xeromal 3y ago
I believe most damage is done in your prepubescent years. Using this or phones really should be limited until your eyes finishing changing and then you're gucci. I recall that Singapore went from 17% myopia to around 80% in almost a generation due to the lack of changes in distances that your eyes see in your younger years.

jmye 3y ago

I think this article hits on the main point that I think has been missed by the early criticism I've read (and it's totally possible I've missed a lot of useful writing on it) - this device isn't supposed to compete with the Quest or any other current VR platform: it's supposed to be the starting point/MVP of competing with your laptop. Looking at in the frame of a gaming device, or the 'metaverse' is missing the point. And, as the article notes, I think it is an early-adopter device that isn't worth the price tag, and probably doesn't deliver on even 1/10 of what it needs to for mass adoption - but I don't think that Apple intended it to.

k__ 3y ago
Isn't (at least) the Hololens the starting point?
- gonehome 3y ago
  No? HoloLens is an enterprise product barely advertised for public use. It’s not a new form of UX for general computing, it’s a niche. The hardware for ambient light AR also sucks, it’s why HoloLens, magic leap and such are not compelling. It’ll be a while before that’s a viable option (and why Apple is committed to pass through currently).
  - paxys 3y ago
    HoloLens pivoted into an enterprise product when it became clear that consumers didn't care for it.
    - WorldMaker 3y ago
      If that pivot happened it was well before Microsoft ever announced the HoloLens. Enterprise-focus was a big part of their marketing from Day One and consumer/games relevance was always an afterthought in their demos/marketing. I think Microsoft didn't have the confidence that it could be a mass market/consumer device at its price. (It is interesting that with the Disney section of the keynote, Apple seemed much more directly was flirting with consumer/mass adoption.)

jsheard 3y ago

Externalising the battery to bring the weight down is to some degree a solution to a problem Apple created by insisting on building the headset out of "premium" metal and glass. They haven't said exactly how heavy it is, but those who got to try it noted that it's pretty heavy even with the battery separated, like the AirPods Max are noticeably heavier than plastic headphones. I don't believe there's an internal buffer battery either (IIRC it was mentioned on the ATP podcast, who were told by an Apple rep) so you can't hotswap the external pack, as the article suggests you could, without completely rebooting the headset.

kitsunesoba 3y ago
Would people really accept a $3500 plastic headset though? It seems unlikely. As much as the Vision Pro is being lampooned now, it'd be even more intense if it didn't look and feel like a $3500 product. I fully expect the more pared-down cheaper mainstream consumer versions to be plastic though, much like the cheaper AirPods.
- Agree2468 3y ago
  I don't know anything about the price of the stuff, but surely carbon fiber would fit the bill for this application, no?
wahnfrieden 3y ago
disregard
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
norman784 3y ago
> you can't hotswap the external pack I think they mentioned that the battery can be charged by usb-c, so you could potentially attach a power bank or to the wall to extend the battery life, also I hope that Apple allows 3rd party batteries so you could buy one with more capacity (but knowing Apple they might add some extra chips inside the battery render that harder).

muglug 3y ago

Who knows whether it will be successful, but (as the article says) Apple have created the first commercially-available device that has all the necessary components for an immersive VR/AR/XR experience. If this range of devices doesn’t do it for VR/AR (once the price comes down), nothing will.

newman8r 3y ago
Maybe we just don't have the required tech to give these a non-goofy form factor yet. I owned Google Glass and I didn't love being made into a spectacle, and that was more low profile than these things. I think some people do like that type of attention, but whether or not it reaches a critical mass where it doesn't make you stick out is what I'm waiting for.

jasonsync 3y ago

... or the "Pro" label is a hint that this is not an MVP (for the masses). Perhaps over-engineered to the point that they expect early adopter feedback will provide guidance on what can be axed. Macbook Pro vs. Macbook kind of thing.

blensor 3y ago
I have the same feeling. The features they packed into there is like if they had every engineer working on it write something down on a paper note and throw it into a hat and then build everything that was suggested into a single device. There is probably quite a bit of room to cut out things, first and foremost the EyeSight ( even though it's cool ) to get to a more reasonable product.

kitsunesoba 3y ago

One aspect of the Vision Pro that I think is perhaps not talked about enough (and isn't mentioned in the linked blog post) is the sheer number of apps this thing will be running from day one, and how little it takes to have a first-class visionOS app. iPad apps will run unmodified as basically virtual floating iPads which is nice, but not anything too special. What's much more interesting is that existing iPadOS apps can be transformed into first-class visionOS apps by just checking the "visionOS" checkbox in Xcode, which gets the app the full 2.5D treatment with all of the various controls taking on the expected visionOS appearance and behavior. This means that the Vision Pro is probably going to have by far the best selection of day-1 apps that any AR/MR headset has ever had. Most of these apps won't be anything revolutionary of course since they're adapted versions of existing apps, but it makes the platform much more practically usable.

xwdv 3y ago
This is mostly a cheap trick to inflate vanity metrics. Giant iPad screens are not what people think of when you say “spatial computing”. Only spatial computing apps matter.
- KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago
  Yeah, I'm not sure how the "thing that no one has mentioned" is literally the USP they demoed and essentially a glorified projector. Don't get me wrong, it's cool and I'm intrigued, but 2.5D controls are about as groundbreaking as skeuomorphism.
- mynameisvlad 3y ago
  Highly disagree. One of the clear goals of the product is to serve as an alternative to monitors. In that sense, any productivity tool (like the newly launched Final Cut Pro and Logic Studio for iPad) would immediately be extremely useful in visionOS, even if it’s not fully spatially aware. It may not be the flagship spatial computing experience, but that doesn’t mean it should be thrown out as a “cheap trick” either. It likely is the more common experience for day to day interaction with the device, which is Apple’s goal.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nightski 3y ago

I fully understand that maybe I lack the vision Apple has, but if I had to call it this is going to be a total flop. There's no vision here, it's just iPad glasses. They did not embrace spatial computing at all or build a new experience around it from the ground up.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
ur only responding to what was demoed in 2d
Clamchop 3y ago
There's something you can buy now if you lack Apple's vision.

nashashmi 3y ago

many of the questionable design decisions are being lauded by this article. It’s more like a fanboy article

nico 3y ago

And Apple usually doesn’t do MVPs The big Apple hits have been the perfected version of products that already had massive markets Like the iPod launching into the music/mp3 player space or the iPhone into the phone/personal device space The Vision seems to be going counter to this, launching one of the earlier products into a undeveloped market

John23832 3y ago
> And Apple usually doesn’t do MVPs > The big Apple hits have been the perfected version of products that already had massive markets Uh... Did you own the first iPhone? It had no apps and no horizontal typing. It didn't even have 3g. Few if any mobile sites. Small screen. Bad battery life. Did you own the first iPod? 5gb. Firewire connection (which were hard to come by). The scroll wheel was an ACTUAL wheel. You needed a mac to use. Again, bad battery life. I won't even go into the early mac desktops and laptops. Those were MVP's on the market. Where we are now with those products didn't dictate where were were then. The did the bare minimum to be considered products.
- nico 3y ago
  Exactly Those might have been MVPs in terms of what Apple can do But the markets were already there Millions/billions of people who already owned a personal music player or a cellphone Compare the size and maturity of those markets to the current VR/AR market
  - John23832 3y ago
    The cell phone market at the time did not fit the iPhone. There was no attempt at internet connectivity. The biggest seller at the time was the razor, a flip phone. Not comparable. There was the palm pilot, but the market was minuscule compare to the iPhone market today There is an argument to be made for iPhone vs. media players. The Irivers and the like were comparable functionally. The iPhone just had a killer app… the iTunes Store.
    - 3y ago

jmull 3y ago

> 1. Wearable everywhere all the time Seems clear to me that's not a minimum requirement for viability. The ease of integrating the device into the situations where is might be useful is certainly important, but there's a sliding scale. I'm not sure where it becomes viable, but I don't think it's all the way at the end of the scale. Actually, I think this entire analysis is backwards. The question isn't how far from perfect the Vision Pro, or any other VR/AR/MR device is, but whether it does enough things well enough to be worth the trouble. (For me, it looks like the VP does not, mainly due to the price tag. That's even assuming some new major drawbacks that become apparent once it's released.)

Jemm 3y ago

Can we at least let Apple ship the damn thing before going full on fan boy.

ren_engineer 3y ago

when was the last time Apple released a product that didn't have a proven market? iPod, iPhone, iPad, watch, etc. were all basically superior versions of products that already had proven consumer demand and Apple just made a way better version of existing products. Apple going into VR seems like the first time they've taken an actual risk in a long time. I'll buy it day 1 if it allows me to create a solid virtual workspace with multiple monitors synced to my laptop. But for consumer market they are going to have to find a way to drop the price over time and get people over the negative image of wearing goggles on your head and there's the simple fact that you won't be able to wear these publicly in most major cities without getting robbed, which limits their use

gonehome 3y ago
It feels like iPod and iPhone to me. At the time mp3 players were a niche with crappy hardware and low capacity. The iPod was a lot more expensive and a lot better - it caused general adoption. Similar for the iPhone - smartphones were a business niche and had crappy hardware, the first iPhone was triple the price and expanded smartphones to everyone on earth. HoloLens, magic leap are niche products (the latter also being crappy hardware), meta’s hardware is better but still mediocre and constrained by their lack of computing platform. Apple’s hardware is a lot more expensive and if successful will expand the market to everyone in a few hardware revisions.
simiones 3y ago
> the negative image of wearing goggles on your head This isn't about image, it's about the discomfort of wearing heavy goggles pressed against your face. Doing that for anything more than an hour or so is horrible, and it's pretty bad even after ten minutes. People dislike wearing glasses if they can afford to, I don't believe you'll ever get them to wear these heavy goggles for anything except some deeply immersive gaming experiences.

penjelly 3y ago

personally i think both meta and apple will see success with their ar/vr solutions, it will take years for the ergonomics to be acceptable but they are laying the groundwork for the content and software now

javajosh 3y ago

The mass market appeal of this thing is, primarily, a portable setup with 2 4k screens and top-notch eye-tracking. The latter is very important, and I think will be a usability boon for literally every computer user, whatever they use it for, perhaps beyond what we expect. I can imagine going to the coffee shop to work on some code, and instead of using a laptop, whip this thing out, while sitting on a comfy couch sipping a latte... And if I want to play an immersive game for a bit, I can do that too.

tsunamifury 3y ago
This is the worst future any one has predicted on HN. Also I can tell you haven’t used VR because eating while using it is nearly impossible.
- javajosh 3y ago
  Yes, never mind the AI hellscape or the climate disaster, using this new AR/VR tool in a coffee shop is the worst thing ever predicted here.

cHaOs667 3y ago

I have a different perception; Apple Vision Pro is not the MVP for AR but just the next iteration of these devices. The original MVP for AR was Microsofts HoloLens and especially HoloLens 2. The later one has many of the AVP features already in place (hand and eye tracking, spatial awareness etc.) and has proven on a professional level to be a useful tool.

ajdude 3y ago

Who else has used a vr headset for programming? That may be my biggest use case for this. Currently I need to deal with low fidelity headsets connected to my MacBook and it's hard to read code that I'm writing with the quest. I really hope this will be my solution, a true VR computer like the Simula One (which I feel like this is competing against).

veec_cas_tant 3y ago
I have used the Quest Pro. I'm the ideal user, writing code on my MacBook most of the day from multiple locations, but the resolution is just too low to be comfortable for long periods. It is perfectly legible, just not sharp enough at comfortable sizes so I gave up on it. Really hoping Vision Pro fits the bill.

agentultra 3y ago

The Google Glass mention brings back memories of that launch. The tech circles were abuzz with how revolutionary that device was going to be. It would change productivity and humanity forever! Some people really did wear them everywhere. It was weird. And quickly stigmatized as I recall. I don't think this is a necessary condition for AR. Just take the computer off and put it down. Or better, don't wear it to begin with.

angry_moose 3y ago
From what I remember, most of the stigma was always having a camera pointed directly at the person you were talking to at all times. That was just needlessly "socially aggressive" on Google's part. The tech was definitely a cool proof-of-concept and the route I wish VR/AR would have taken. AR has so many more impactful use cases - think a navigation HUD or hands-free control of music while driving/biking or doing other things with your hands.
- agentultra 3y ago
  The camera was one factor and the other was the person wearing the glasses being only temporarily present at any given moment.
- CrackerNews 3y ago
  I remembering reading about a 90 degree FOV which if true, will limit its use for AR and wearing it all the time. The Glasshole style remarks probably won't go away with the Vision Pro either. Not to mention the potential of being robbed of the headset in public.

tootie 3y ago

Of note, ARKit is about 6 years old now. The Vision Pro may be an MVP for _immersive_ AR, but handheld AR has been viable for many years. Pokemon Go is also nearly 6 years old. WordLens debuted maybe 10 years ago. No one has really come up with anything more useful than those to date. Totally immersive is VR. For mobility, nothing beats a phone. This is threading a needle of immersive and mobile and I'm not sure what the value prop for that could possibly be.

angry_moose 3y ago

On one hand, if anyone is going to crack it, it's going to be Apple. They seem to have made the best possible "giant uncomfortable helmet strapped to your face". On the other, I have no interest in VR/AR until it hits a "better Google glass" level. Something that looks and feels like a normal pair of glasses, but has things like AR navigation, text message popups, or hands-free ability to change music by "looking" at a button. Unfortunately that tech seems to be ~10+ years out.

martythemaniak 3y ago

AR vs VR, spatial vs social, etc are just marketing gimmicks. Both Meta and Apple are putting out the same basic products, but they are available at different price points and different levels of quality. Why are they the same? It's a screen mounted inside a goggle that you put in front of your eyes. It shows you 3D things, they have cameras that allow you view a video stream from the outside and overlay things on top of that. Extra screen? More precise eye tracking? Higher res? Way better on Apple's headset, but also way more expensive what else would you expect? Over time Apple will put out cheaper less featureful products, and Meta will make their hand and eye tracking better etc. Meta will include better integration with Windows/Mac for work, Apple will get beat saber, etc. In the very early days of iOS v Android, the two OSs were very distinct and choosing one or the other was a significant choice. By about version 5, the OSs were at feature parity, all phone makers had different phones at different price points, etc. The excitement was gone and we had mature capable phones all around. The VR headsets will play out the same way.

sebastianconcpt 3y ago

The observed items are right. Also as I was reading that article I was feeling that we're starting to call success to a dystopian future. Like we're trying to succeed at entering in The Matrix.

nico 3y ago

Apple’s success is not about their features Apple’s success is due to their appeal For example, the iPhone was a success because it was a status symbol And having the latest one still is In contrast, having a Vision Pro is not

rf15 3y ago

Here's a controversial idea I had with some friends today while talking about it: VR/AR headsets will never succeed, and that is for the same reason 3D movies aren't worth it for most studios these days. Somewhere in people's brains there's a calculation of cool factor/utility vs convenience - and for the film industry, the cool factor carried it for quite a while. That is, until it "normalised" and people realised that 3D is irrelevant when you're immersed in the medium, and then all that remains is the inconvenience of having to put on an extra pair of glasses. and that tiny inconvenience is already too much for most people. So our conclusion was: AR/VR cannot succeed, even if it solves the performance, battery and fov problems down to the form factor of passive 3D glasses. Because a screen is less effort. And yes, that only leaves the niche of places where you can't get a good monitor, on the train or a plane maybe, where the convience of having a big screen in the form factor of a small pair of glasses outweighs the inconvenience of having to put them on.

water-data-dude 3y ago

I really want head mounted displays to get good. I’ve have an irrational burning desire to build a wearable computing rig since I read Snowcrash in college. There is no upper bound on how stupid I am willing to look to achieve this goal.