5 ms·

I do hope this is successful. The cult-like behavior that Apple inspires may be the big push needed to help VR become adopted by the general public. If it fails

• ssgodderidge 3y ago
  I’m curious to see the type of adoption here. I think this is more of an enthusiast device than anything. I suspect true success of the Vision Pro will be the introduction of a smaller, cheaper headset aimed at the masses, rather than wide-spread adoption of a $3k+ device
  • Eric_WVGG 3y ago
    well that's gotta be why it's called the Vision Pro and not the Vision, right?
  • deadbabe 3y ago
    Why can’t Meta Quest 3 be that device?
    • TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
      Because no one trusts Meta anymore. With anything. Reputational damage.
      • deadbabe 3y ago
        It’s so good though
      • jwells89 3y ago
        Also from the dev side the platform (which is Android with some AR bits bolted on) isn’t compelling enough to be locked into, even if the hardware is decent. If Facebook were to make a play to make their Android variant the Windows of AR and license it out to other manufacturers, that might work but nobody is interested in them trying to be Apple with Oculus stuff.
    • matwood 3y ago
      It may be unfair, but no one thinks 'great hardware' when they think of Meta/Facebook. At best they think neutral, at worst they think about no leg avatars and online toxicity.
    • tguedes 3y ago
      Because that has additional hardware instead of using your hands and does not allow seamless transition between the real world and virtual.
    • acdha 3y ago
      Low resolution displays are okay for gaming but anything oriented at professional use is going to be held back by fuzzy text.
      • ssgodderidge 3y ago
        Text sharpness is really critical, IMO. Also, if text moves at all with any head movement, its a deal breaker
      • deadbabe 3y ago
        I think quest 3 is reasonably sharp so something sharper than that eventually will be pretty sweet. Personally I’m more put off by the bulkiness of the device, something very light is necessary!
    • vel0city 3y ago
      Because I distance myself from Meta as much as possible. I'd buy the latest Quest in a heartbeat if it wasn't associated with Meta.
    • bilalq 3y ago
      I think the pricing and marketing of Meta Quest 3 position it as a device that is fit for the general public. But VR just isn't good enough yet. The Apple device will also be not good enough, but because the average person won't buy it, the air of exclusivity will keep intrigue. Maybe in another decade, we'll have something really amazing.
  • bilalq 3y ago
    I think adoption being limited because of price is useful here. If it was cheaper, more people would buy it and be disappointed. As it stands, only wealthy early adopters or die-hard Apple fans who can see them do no wrong will buy it. It selects for an audience that is less likely to be critical.
    • beardyw 3y ago
      That is probably scarily true. How did it come to this.
      • tguedes 3y ago
        Cause the features in this are the features that are needed to make this widely adoptable. Using the finger gestures instead of needing additional control hardware is key but expensive. Being able to switch between the virtual world and the real world seamlessly is key but expensive. The hope is that enough people hear about it and think it's cool that is forces the R&D to push down the price on this tech to be able to make it more widely accessible. Because without those kinds of features, AR/VR will always be niche.
  • matwood 3y ago
    > I think this is more of an enthusiast device than anything. Of course it's a v1 enthusiast device. Not that it'll ever be as big as the Apple Watch or iPhone, but the v1s of those were also enthusiast devices.
  • __m 3y ago
    Companies and institutions will be a big customer
    • ssgodderidge 3y ago
      With what use case, do you think?
• akmittal 3y ago
  I can't remember any big product which failed in long time. A
• seanalltogether 3y ago
  I hope that this is the big push needed to solve wireless displays. It feels like there are a lot of computing possibilities that open up when one device with a display can defer it's computing power to another device nearby wirelessly. Whether it's used for desktop->VR or phone->monitor or whatever.
• akmarinov 3y ago
  This won't be successful, the $3500 price tag alone assures it. It will hopefully lead to something that's actually meant for end users, though.
  • ayewo 3y ago
    > This won't be successful, the $3500 price tag alone assures it. It will hopefully lead to something that's actually meant for end users, though. How can you be so sure about a company that makes a monitor stand that sells for $1000? Don’t forget Steve Ballmer famously mocked Apple because he thought iPhones were too expensive at $500 a pop. Today, Apple sells $1000+ iPhones.
    • jprete 3y ago
      Ballmer didn't understand that phones would become a very strong consumption device. If we were just talking about productive work and phone calls he'd be right. What niche do VR headsets fill in user demand that is currently unfilled? There may well be one - I'm not posting for the sake of making Ballmer's exact mistake - but I don't know what it is.
      • ayewo 3y ago
        My point was if the Vision Pro does in fact fail, it wouldn’t be because of its price tag. Apple already knows how to sell “overpriced” consumer hardware since they have a $5,000 Pro XDR monitor and $1,000 stand to go with that “overpriced” monitor in their line up. The monitor is not a hit so there’s no reason to assume that $3,500 Vision Pro will be an (instant) hit, since it was intentionally priced to be out of reach of many people. I guess people assume because it’s Apple, or perhaps because of the amount of buzz they generated with the reveal for the Vision Pro, every product they make has to be a hit
    • DoughnutHole 3y ago
      The Mac Pro & Mac Studio made up 10% of Mac sales, which are in turn only 10% of the business. What percentage of those users bought the Pro Display? And what percentage of those bought the pro stand? It's an overpriced peripheral for an already incredibly niche $5,000 monitor. It's already established that smartphones are a huge market, and people are willing to pay a lot for what for most people is their main computer. Android manufacturers like Samsung are also selling $1,000 flagship smartphones. No one's claimed that no one is going to buy the vision-pro. But there's no demonstrated huge existing demand for an extremely high-end VR headset. It's unlikely that a product nobody asked for costing $3,500 is going to give the technology mass market appeal or kick off widespread adoption.
• adastra22 3y ago
  Serious question: why do you expect VR to take off with the general public? A decade into VR experiments, and nobody has come up with good non-gaming applications better than cartoony chat apps. It’s got a worse track record than blockchain.
  • freeone3000 3y ago
    Space is limited, screens are expensive and hard to transport, and people are more mobile than ever. Having your multi-monitor setup at a coffeeshop just as it is at home is a huge gain. I’m not expecting this to replace monitors for most people now. But next monitor upgrade, if you already work on a Macbook, it might be a better option than an external display for some people.
    • jprete 3y ago
      It would be easier and simpler to use a portable LCD monitor. They do exist and are simpler, smaller, and cheaper than a VR headset. Tablets could have been used for the same use case. But...they aren't. People don't want it. What they want is a computer so light that it's always available. Most people seem to carry phones for consumption and sometimes lightweight laptops for work.
      • vel0city 3y ago
        I've seen a few people bust out portable secondary displays or use a tablet in screen mirroring mode. Personally, I find the experience still pretty clumsy. The monitors are still not at an ideal height, they're usually smaller than I'd like, they take up a lot of table space. I'm not sure VR headsets are going to take off from this use case, but if the VR headset is good enough, I'd imagine the experience of the floating screens would be far better than having a portable monitor. Busting out a portable wireless keyboard and putting on an HMD would be pretty neat IMO, if the HMD was good enough.
      • adastra22 3y ago
        Or just multiple virtual displays on your laptop? There are plenty of laptops with 4K of better resolution, which is what the Vision has. VR lets you swivel your head to get more real estate, but it doesn’t let you look at more pixels at once. Not unless you zoom out, which is what exposé already does. But sure, you can strap a couple kilos of hardware to your face and take on that neck strain, disconnect yourself from the environment around you, and introduce motion sickness just to avoid pressing F3.
• HumblyTossed 3y ago
  > The cult-like behavior that Apple inspires may be the big push needed to help VR become adopted by the general public. It's just not going to happen. The general public are not going to put this stuff on their face for anything other than short periods of time (if at all) and only for entertainment purposes (if they do at all). You're not going to see general public families sitting on a couch watching a movie together with these things on their face. Joe and Jane Smith don't want this.
  • cljacoby 3y ago
    I kind of agree with you, but to play devil's advocate, AirPods basically reset the baseline perspective around bluetooth headsets. Before AirPods, bluetooth headsets were definitely not cool, and mostly just utilitarian. I mostly associated them with either business-y people in suits, or people exercising like running. I think if there is a company that could really kick of mainstream VR/AR headset adoption, Apple probably has the best brand to do it. That being said I have a Quest 2 with a couple years of accumulated dust in a closet, so who knows.
    • seec 3y ago
      AirPods success have nothing to do with the actual technology involved and everything to do with the ability to display wealth, or social status. Just like the mediocre included earbuds with iPods were very popular even as a replacement or for other devices even though there were countless much better choices at the same price. I owned AirPods and not only they are undeserving of the hype but for the price they are extremely mediocre and have a pretty big longevity problem. People keep buying them because everybody knows how much they cost and how often you have to change them, which makes you part of a de facto well-off group. The biggest Apple products might be the social engineering around their products but for this to work they need people to not be too aware, so I guess it will stay that way...
      • avalys 3y ago
        The idea that anyone is signaling wealth or status with a $150 electronics purchase is kind of ludicrous. I feel like people who believe other people are buying Apple products merely as a status symbol, are projecting their own insecurities and thought processes onto others.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]