3 ms·
It’s interesting that the author does still think it’s the future despite returning it for a bunch of dealbreaking flaws that have no chance of being addressed.
by dangus 3y ago
It’s interesting that the author does still think it’s the future despite returning it for a bunch of dealbreaking flaws that have no chance of being addressed. I don’t recall a lot of people out there with a similar sentiment when they bought their first generation iPhones and Apple Watches.
They saw a future that was imminent, a future that their current device could actually possibly be a part of, at least partially. Their original iPhone eventually got things like an App Store and Microsoft Exchange support, becoming a very useful device. The vision was essentially executed on the first try, and the only things that needed to be improved were very incremental details like network speed, screen size/quality, battery life, processor power. Despite that, the device was the right size, shape, and general combination of functionality.
Sure, those first generation devices stopped being updated fairly quickly, but at the end of the day they hit their stride within a couple years of updates, many through software.
I think it’s “the future” only if the tech can move a lot faster than it has thus far. It is a major problem that after so many years of active development with industry giants sinking billions into VR/AR, this space still doesn’t seem anywhere close to the sort of cyberpunk-esque human computer that is the eventual vision of AR, the only way it will gain mass adoption.
Not only did Apple not deliver an AR headset (it’s a VR headset with video passthrough that you can’t wear without messing up your hair), even if they delivered AR glasses or whatever…that is still arguably not a good enough experience. Wearing glasses isn’t great when you don’t normally wear them. That’s much more of a commitment than putting a phone on your pocket or a watch on your wrist. Step one is convincing you to do that.
But that isn’t even really the issue here because not only did Apple not deliver something like a pair of glasses, what they delivered is so far away from that where the very idea of a Vision Pro shrinking down into a pair of Ray Bans seems physically impossible. Apple gave us one of the heaviest headsets out there despite having an external battery to keep the weight down.
When the iPhone came out you could see the device becoming extremely powerful and performant within 5 years. That path was obvious. If you look at an iPhone 5, that is a phone that really isn’t that far off from modern, mature products. It had LTE, and there isn’t really a technical reason why you couldn’t use it just like any other modern phone besides the lack of updates. The product category essentially achieved its ultimate vision within a short period of time.
But when you look at the AR market, all the major VR/AR products were coming out around 5 years ago (or longer) and we’ve barely got a better experience. The difference between the Quest 3 and the original Quest (2019) is basically just some pass through cameras and a speed bump. Incremental changes like we got with the iPhone. We’re still just playing beat saber and superhot.
The Valve Index is a similar age and still represents one of the better HMDs that you can buy. Apple’s device has worse FOV even though it’s $3500 and 5 years newer.
There is not going to be this cool AR future because the products are already in their final form. They are screens attached to your head. That’s all they’ll ever be. We have seen this because they’ve only made incremental changes in their first 5 years like an iPhone or Apple Watch, no fundamental form factor changes. The Vision Pro 5 is going to be the same device as the original, without the external battery, and with a better display. It’s going to still mess up your hair and make you wear dumb looking shit on your head.
Even the educational and enterprise features that the author imagines, while cool, don’t seem to be going anywhere. Microsoft gave up on those despite having very capable first-mover technology and a web page full of enterprise client success stories. I personally guess that it’s just very hard to make useful AR experiences. They’re difficult to develop compared to making a web page, a CRUD app, training video, etc. Hell, they might not even be as cost effective as hands-on apprentice-style training. Between buying the hardware and developing a fully immersive 3D app…the applications for that level of effort are limited, IMO.
- asadotzler 3y agoStrapping something that needs to press against your face is a nonstarter for anyone that cares about hair and makeup. This will never iterate into something mainstream. I said it up page, but this is the DynaTAK(+), not even the StarTAK, and a DynaTAK+ cannot go mainstream or evolve into something mainstream. We require new technologies to take these HMDs from DynaTAK to StarTAK and that's when I expect people will start to care but it won't be until the tech lets us go from DynaTAK to StarTAK to (original) iPhone. Then it will be minimally sufficient to show people the possible future and then adoption will get out of the single digit millions into the double digit millions and have a path to hundreds of millions or billions. But that day is not this day.
- seec 3y agoI completely agree and all that seems obvious if you think about it for more than 30 seconds. Apple or not the whole product category has a hard limit governed by physics that won't get "solved" anytime soon and it's pretty clear that what can be done with that tech won't change, probably forever... That considered we are back to the usual niche applications of VR and then the price is just not even close to reasonable, no matter how cutting edge the actual hardware is (only the displays are really worth mentioning in the end, and the reason others don't use them is because they are too expensive to justify). At 500 bucks, it was already a hard sale, but at least it can be a gift for nerds or something that won't get used very frequently but is ok to splurge on for entertainment; what Apple has made is fashion for fanboys... All that is before talking about the fact that with today's knowledge none of this will ever be truly mobile. The external battery pack is already a bit of a travesty but even more when you consider that they put the compute (that is already limited) inside the damn thing, even though for serious applications, it would need much more. However, considering how bad the GPU story on Apple Silicon is, it is clear that Apple doesn't even envision proper games on this thing even though it is one major application! For this price they had to provide a MUCH better computer, not just the compute capabilities of a diminished iPad (because a good amount has to be used for the spatial features). Since efficiency gains are vanishingly small it should have been clear that the compute requirement would only go up and then putting it all inside the thing isn't a viable strategy. It should have been either an affordable headset that would connect to Mac or iPad or a complete standalone compute platform where instead of connecting to just a battery, it would connect to full computing box (upgradable/swappable at least). Then again, under Cook's leadership we got the 2013 Mac Pro and saying it was shortsighted is an understatement. It's basically the same thing, but even worse, because at least a Mac Pro has a clearly defined use case for its price, even though it might have long term shortcomings as a platform...