6 ms·

again, the issue is development dollars. Its great that its high resolution displays, the question is if your company wants to dump hundreds of thousands of dev

again, the issue is development dollars. Its great that its high resolution displays, the question is if your company wants to dump hundreds of thousands of development dollars making something for the vision pro when its not clear there's a consumer market for them, or who the target market is. Sure apple could sell 100,000 anything. The question is are you going to be able to make any money developing for apple's $3500 VR headset or not. I don't think that these can be used for desktop replacements makes them worth it as desktop replacements. $3500 is an "out there" price with no ecosystem level market, in my opinion.

Retric 3y ago
I think 3rd party developers are largely irrelevant for it’s initial success. It’s like the original iPhone, if the hardware and built in apps are compelling then people will buy it which will eventually create an ecosystem. That’s IMO why VR has largely failed, out of the box there hasn’t been a compelling reason to get one and there isn’t enough software to keep people interested.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  I really can't imagine built-in apps being enough to carry a VR/AR headset specifically. If it doesn't have third party games, it'll sink.
  - jclardy 3y ago
    As someone with a VR headset that supports all the games, those headsets are already sunk. Right now, gaming is all that exists in the VR world, because all headsets currently are horrendous for any other task other than gaming. I own a Quest Pro and have attempted to use it for work, but the poor resolution horrible passthrough make it quite uncomfortable to use. For games, it’s great. I’ll be ordering a Vision Pro primarily to use as a display for my Mac, but also for development purposes. It is definitely a niche product at launch, but I think it’ll grow into the consumer space over time - it is really only niche because of the price tag. Games will come, but gaming is the “easy” part of VR because you control the entire environment. AR interactions are what will make this into a viable computing platform that actually moves beyond the current 2D paradigm.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  The iPhone had some very clear and straightforward use case which were appealing to some extent to every person who had a phone and used internet. To me VR seems closer to where PCs were in the 80s at this point.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Being able to work/watch a movie with great sound and effectively a 100” screen while on a long airplane/train/bus ride seem rather compelling IMO. Not worth 3,500$ alone, but it doesn’t need to solve every problem for every person just be worth using for enough people to get things rolling. I doubt anyone is going to be using one of this in a spin class any time soon, but there’s plenty of situations where a laptop/phone/tablet don’t really work well.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    And people (including my parents) paid close to $3000 for a full Apple // setup back then - in 1986 dollars…
rektide 3y ago
Apple has been smart to present it as a desktop replacement (as opposed to some ar/vr/metaverse device), which is something they can deliver that will let users bring their existing apps to the new medium without adaption. Ideally yes apps should update themselves, tailor the experience. But the main focus so far has been pretty conventional app like experiences, which happen to be hovering in space. Where-as most headsets have tried to create entirely new ecosystems from nothing, and that would have been a huge mountain to climb.
- LegitShady 3y ago
  I don't think presenting it as a desktop replacement was "smart" so much "the only possible way to justify the asking price", but I don't think its going to work out that way personally. Having tried many VR headsets I can't think of any I want to wear all day. They can sell 100k of them and crow about being sold out, but I don't think even apple has figured out who this is for - thats what I got from their presentation on it. The only answer they have so far is "people who will spend $3500 on a vr headset" which isn't a use case. For the most part we got marketing level "watch people emote joy as they do things with this device" and all the use cases sucked.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >Apple has been smart to present it as a desktop replacement It means that now you are competing against desktops which have been iterated upon for decades and have a lot of value already. Instead of standing out by having apps that are only possible in VR people will way if they would rather use the app outside of VR.
  - rektide 3y ago
    To me it comes down to which Apple can more reliably deliver, that will see regular use. I have a hard time knowing what unique VR experience would keep people coming back day after day. But we know for a fact people use screens for desktop-like concerns for many hours a day. And we have lots of experience developing those experiences.
  - dagmx 3y ago
MBCook 3y ago
“Out there” for who? Apple has customers who will buy multiple $15,000 configuration Mac Pros without batting an eye. That’s the price of the tool and for what they’re working on (perhaps a $250,000,000 movie) it’s justified. The Vision Pro, as announced, clearly isn’t much of a consumer product. The price is too high. But that’s not surprising, it does have ‘Pro’ in the name. When the Vision or Vision Air. come out in a few years for $1000-$1500, that will be the (higher end) consumer move. And by then software will exist. For now it seems more for executives. Maybe travelers. On The Talk Show Gruber and Panzarino were talking about how useful it would be for working on secret designs or private financial information or HIPAA information in public. You could be in an airline seat or at Starbucks or whatever and work on the information without anyone else being able to see it, unlike a laptop screen. And it’s not hard to imagine how it might be very useful to architects or certain other businesses that might be willing to spend the money for an expensive tool to buy expensive software if it really helped them out. I don’t think Apple will have problems selling them, even at $3500. Is it the next iPod? No. But right now, they have got to be 109% constrained on those insane displays. Nothing else in the headset seems anywhere near as hard to manufacture.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  << The Vision Pro, as announced, clearly isn’t much of a consumer product. The price is too high. But that’s not surprising, I would absolutely buy this argument were it not for Apple's own portrayal of it during unveiling that shown a person watching movies, which is not commonly a professional role ( as in, it is intended as a consumer product ). That is not to say that I think it is a bad idea. I am not an apple fanboy and I want to get my hands on it if I can convince wife it is not a waste.
  - criddell 3y ago
    Apple recently released Logic Pro and Final Cut for the iPad. It wouldn’t surprise me if that work was done in part to support those apps on the headset at release. It may have looked like that person in the demo was watching a movie, but maybe they were making a movie…
criddell 3y ago
If a company is risk averse or doesn’t have the resources to make a big commitment, they don’t have to. Their iOS app will probably work in the headset with fairly small changes. If they see big demand, then they have the option of developing something more tailored to the headset.
hedora 3y ago
They’ve been slowly shipping pieces of the ecosystem for a while. The iPhone has had AR for years, and tvOS has moved to 3D icons already (you can move your finger on the remote touchpad to see the parallax and material reflections. Also, iPad has had lidar for a while, which you can use to 3d scan stuff when building out AR apps. I hope someone will find more compelling use cases for the hardware, but it will definitely have an ecosystem on day one.

Retric 3y ago

I think 3rd party developers are largely irrelevant for it’s initial success. It’s like the original iPhone, if the hardware and built in apps are compelling then people will buy it which will eventually create an ecosystem. That’s IMO why VR has largely failed, out of the box there hasn’t been a compelling reason to get one and there isn’t enough software to keep people interested.

mcpackieh 3y ago
I really can't imagine built-in apps being enough to carry a VR/AR headset specifically. If it doesn't have third party games, it'll sink.
- jclardy 3y ago
  As someone with a VR headset that supports all the games, those headsets are already sunk. Right now, gaming is all that exists in the VR world, because all headsets currently are horrendous for any other task other than gaming. I own a Quest Pro and have attempted to use it for work, but the poor resolution horrible passthrough make it quite uncomfortable to use. For games, it’s great. I’ll be ordering a Vision Pro primarily to use as a display for my Mac, but also for development purposes. It is definitely a niche product at launch, but I think it’ll grow into the consumer space over time - it is really only niche because of the price tag. Games will come, but gaming is the “easy” part of VR because you control the entire environment. AR interactions are what will make this into a viable computing platform that actually moves beyond the current 2D paradigm.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
The iPhone had some very clear and straightforward use case which were appealing to some extent to every person who had a phone and used internet. To me VR seems closer to where PCs were in the 80s at this point.
- Retric 3y ago
  Being able to work/watch a movie with great sound and effectively a 100” screen while on a long airplane/train/bus ride seem rather compelling IMO. Not worth 3,500$ alone, but it doesn’t need to solve every problem for every person just be worth using for enough people to get things rolling. I doubt anyone is going to be using one of this in a spin class any time soon, but there’s plenty of situations where a laptop/phone/tablet don’t really work well.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  And people (including my parents) paid close to $3000 for a full Apple // setup back then - in 1986 dollars…

rektide 3y ago

Apple has been smart to present it as a desktop replacement (as opposed to some ar/vr/metaverse device), which is something they can deliver that will let users bring their existing apps to the new medium without adaption. Ideally yes apps should update themselves, tailor the experience. But the main focus so far has been pretty conventional app like experiences, which happen to be hovering in space. Where-as most headsets have tried to create entirely new ecosystems from nothing, and that would have been a huge mountain to climb.

LegitShady 3y ago
I don't think presenting it as a desktop replacement was "smart" so much "the only possible way to justify the asking price", but I don't think its going to work out that way personally. Having tried many VR headsets I can't think of any I want to wear all day. They can sell 100k of them and crow about being sold out, but I don't think even apple has figured out who this is for - thats what I got from their presentation on it. The only answer they have so far is "people who will spend $3500 on a vr headset" which isn't a use case. For the most part we got marketing level "watch people emote joy as they do things with this device" and all the use cases sucked.
charcircuit 3y ago
>Apple has been smart to present it as a desktop replacement It means that now you are competing against desktops which have been iterated upon for decades and have a lot of value already. Instead of standing out by having apps that are only possible in VR people will way if they would rather use the app outside of VR.
- rektide 3y ago
  To me it comes down to which Apple can more reliably deliver, that will see regular use. I have a hard time knowing what unique VR experience would keep people coming back day after day. But we know for a fact people use screens for desktop-like concerns for many hours a day. And we have lots of experience developing those experiences.
- dagmx 3y ago

MBCook 3y ago

“Out there” for who? Apple has customers who will buy multiple $15,000 configuration Mac Pros without batting an eye. That’s the price of the tool and for what they’re working on (perhaps a $250,000,000 movie) it’s justified. The Vision Pro, as announced, clearly isn’t much of a consumer product. The price is too high. But that’s not surprising, it does have ‘Pro’ in the name. When the Vision or Vision Air. come out in a few years for $1000-$1500, that will be the (higher end) consumer move. And by then software will exist. For now it seems more for executives. Maybe travelers. On The Talk Show Gruber and Panzarino were talking about how useful it would be for working on secret designs or private financial information or HIPAA information in public. You could be in an airline seat or at Starbucks or whatever and work on the information without anyone else being able to see it, unlike a laptop screen. And it’s not hard to imagine how it might be very useful to architects or certain other businesses that might be willing to spend the money for an expensive tool to buy expensive software if it really helped them out. I don’t think Apple will have problems selling them, even at $3500. Is it the next iPod? No. But right now, they have got to be 109% constrained on those insane displays. Nothing else in the headset seems anywhere near as hard to manufacture.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
<< The Vision Pro, as announced, clearly isn’t much of a consumer product. The price is too high. But that’s not surprising, I would absolutely buy this argument were it not for Apple's own portrayal of it during unveiling that shown a person watching movies, which is not commonly a professional role ( as in, it is intended as a consumer product ). That is not to say that I think it is a bad idea. I am not an apple fanboy and I want to get my hands on it if I can convince wife it is not a waste.
- criddell 3y ago
  Apple recently released Logic Pro and Final Cut for the iPad. It wouldn’t surprise me if that work was done in part to support those apps on the headset at release. It may have looked like that person in the demo was watching a movie, but maybe they were making a movie…

criddell 3y ago

If a company is risk averse or doesn’t have the resources to make a big commitment, they don’t have to. Their iOS app will probably work in the headset with fairly small changes. If they see big demand, then they have the option of developing something more tailored to the headset.

hedora 3y ago

They’ve been slowly shipping pieces of the ecosystem for a while. The iPhone has had AR for years, and tvOS has moved to 3D icons already (you can move your finger on the remote touchpad to see the parallax and material reflections. Also, iPad has had lidar for a while, which you can use to 3d scan stuff when building out AR apps. I hope someone will find more compelling use cases for the hardware, but it will definitely have an ecosystem on day one.