5 ms·

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

by 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.)
      - gonehome 3y ago
        Yeah there definitely was no public pivot - it was never available as a device for the general public or even advertised that way.
  - k__ 3y ago
    I remember some mind blowing Minecraft demos that didn't look enterprise-y to me.
simiones 3y ago
The iPad was also supposed to compete with your laptop, and it has partly succeeded, though nowhere near as much as the most hopeful fans were expecting. The VisionPro is a far less comfortable, far less portable, more power-hungry version of an iPad, with a few gimmicky 2.5D/3D stuff built in, for $3500. Is it really going to take anyone away from a laptop? Perhaps, but not that many people.
- ladberg 3y ago
  I personally think it'll come a lot closer to replacing my laptop than my iPad did. I used my iPad on a daily basis in college for taking notes and doing homework but largely haven't touched it in the few years since. My work setup is basically just ssh + VSCode Remote + browser (on multiple screens) so it could easily be ported over to Vision Pro in a way that the iPad with its single screen couldn't support.
  - CrackerNews 3y ago
    My question is how easily portable a laptop experience is to Vision Pro? At the very least you might have to be tethered to a Mac, and that seems like barely scratching the surface compared to porting iPad apps to visionOS.
    - ladberg 3y ago
      For the use case I described you don't have to be tethered to a Mac but I do all my development on a remote linux box so I wouldn't really be compiling or accessing the command line on a Vision Pro. Tbh I think that just a web browser is enough for most of what people do on a daily basis. I mean, how often do you use an application on your laptop that's not the browser, Electron apps, or something that's already fully ported to iPad? For me personally that only leaves out local development for side projects, but the rest is easily translatable.
TillE 3y ago
Yeah the price point is their way of explicitly saying that this is not a finished consumer product. The next few years will be key, as third-party developers build stuff and Apple evolves the OS and hardware. They could pivot into gaming, that's not a bad bet, especially if they manage to shove an M5 Max or whatever into the headset eventually.
zarzavat 3y ago
Apple’s game porting toolkit is there because they realize that the primary use of this is gaming. But they have hardly any games yet. The current “executive toy” vision is, I believe, just a stop-gap measure until they get the hardware cheaper and games ported. I don’t believe anyone wants to work in 2D with a thing strapped to their face for hours on end. Sure you get a bigger screen but it’s also super uncomfortable, especially this metal and glass conception. It’s only worth it if you are doing something in 3D, like playing a game.

by jmye 3y ago

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.)
    - gonehome 3y ago
      Yeah there definitely was no public pivot - it was never available as a device for the general public or even advertised that way.
- k__ 3y ago
  I remember some mind blowing Minecraft demos that didn't look enterprise-y to me.

simiones 3y ago

The iPad was also supposed to compete with your laptop, and it has partly succeeded, though nowhere near as much as the most hopeful fans were expecting. The VisionPro is a far less comfortable, far less portable, more power-hungry version of an iPad, with a few gimmicky 2.5D/3D stuff built in, for $3500. Is it really going to take anyone away from a laptop? Perhaps, but not that many people.

ladberg 3y ago
I personally think it'll come a lot closer to replacing my laptop than my iPad did. I used my iPad on a daily basis in college for taking notes and doing homework but largely haven't touched it in the few years since. My work setup is basically just ssh + VSCode Remote + browser (on multiple screens) so it could easily be ported over to Vision Pro in a way that the iPad with its single screen couldn't support.
- CrackerNews 3y ago
  My question is how easily portable a laptop experience is to Vision Pro? At the very least you might have to be tethered to a Mac, and that seems like barely scratching the surface compared to porting iPad apps to visionOS.
  - ladberg 3y ago
    For the use case I described you don't have to be tethered to a Mac but I do all my development on a remote linux box so I wouldn't really be compiling or accessing the command line on a Vision Pro. Tbh I think that just a web browser is enough for most of what people do on a daily basis. I mean, how often do you use an application on your laptop that's not the browser, Electron apps, or something that's already fully ported to iPad? For me personally that only leaves out local development for side projects, but the rest is easily translatable.

TillE 3y ago

Yeah the price point is their way of explicitly saying that this is not a finished consumer product. The next few years will be key, as third-party developers build stuff and Apple evolves the OS and hardware. They could pivot into gaming, that's not a bad bet, especially if they manage to shove an M5 Max or whatever into the headset eventually.

zarzavat 3y ago

Apple’s game porting toolkit is there because they realize that the primary use of this is gaming. But they have hardly any games yet. The current “executive toy” vision is, I believe, just a stop-gap measure until they get the hardware cheaper and games ported. I don’t believe anyone wants to work in 2D with a thing strapped to their face for hours on end. Sure you get a bigger screen but it’s also super uncomfortable, especially this metal and glass conception. It’s only worth it if you are doing something in 3D, like playing a game.