27 ms·

I think the description of the VisionPro as a dev kit is spot on. It's also a beta product in many way. Apple know full well that this is not a mass market pro

I think the description of the VisionPro as a dev kit is spot on. It's also a beta product in many way. Apple know full well that this is not a mass market product, they have made no attempt to make it even remotely affordable to most people. But they also know that every aspect of the hardware will improve over the next decade, and as it does they will have ironed out many of the problems with how we use AR/VR and will be ready for it, based on the real life experiences of actual owners, rather than years of in-house testing. The screen will get bigger (I hear FoV is pretty poor at the moment), the CPU/power/thermal performance will improve, battery density goes up, cameras and sensors get better and cheaper and many parts will get smaller/lighter. And in that time they will learn by doing, making it better/cheaper/lighter and working on the software and interaction model. Hopefully at the same time it will really spur on the rest of the industry and we will see more competition and experimentation. I can't see myself buying something like this for the next 10 years at least. But something like the VPro that is better, smaller and lighter and doesn't cost the earth could be quite tempting for late adopters like me.

fouronnes3 3y ago
Hopefully you're right, but the cynic in me thinks we've been saying the same thing about every VR headset that has come out in the last ten years.
- 65 3y ago
  I'll only buy a VR device if it's in the form of glasses, not big goggles I need to strap to my face.
  - dvngnt_ 3y ago
    glasses won't take over your entire fov though so it suck for VR. maybe better for AR
    - someguydave 3y ago
      Yeah but glasses are probably fine for the display replacement market
      - int_19h 3y ago
        If all you want is display replacement, you don't even need VR with head tracking.
        someguydave 3y ago
        Indeed, so I think that will likely become more popular when apple-like resolution is widely available
    - lolinder 3y ago
      There's nothing that says that a pair of glasses can't have panels on the sides and top to provide full coverage [0]. The main obstacle is miniaturizing the necessary compute and display technology. [0] A random example: https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Driving-Around-Sunglasses-Polarized/dp/B07M6L8YDQ/ https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Driving-Around-Sunglasses-Pola...
  - hedora 3y ago
    My main concern with the vision pro is that all use cases I know of (other than gaming) work better with some sort of pass through HUD display like the HoloLens. They spent a ton of company resources, weight and power making the wrong form factor emulate the right form factor, and are shipping with zero killer apps. You can’t even let your friends play with it without getting it re-fit to their head at the Apple Store, which basically kills social/word of mouth marketing. It certainly isn’t a fashion item / status symbol to be seen in public like all their other stuff. Maybe the “real” product is sitting in the wings and will be ready to ship in a few years, but the current form factor seems like a non-starter to me.
    - basch 3y ago
      But their work on the software side transfers seamlessly to a pass through device later. It still serves its purpose as a beta (beta meaning data collection and improvement process, not its modern “we just don’t support this” definition.
    - outworlder 3y ago
      > and are shipping with zero killer apps. That's ok. That's exactly why they released the 'pro' first.
      - lolinder 3y ago
        "Pro" is a misnomer here, though. "Pro" normally means "with extra features for professionals", where here it means "it's more of a dev kit than it is an actual product".
    - j2bax 3y ago
      My opinion, and its very naive because I've only really tried the Vision Pro for this type of content, but immersive video is the current killer app for the Vision Pro. Sitting in the studio with Alicia Keys warming up for her tour was almost equal parts uncomfortable and amazing.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      The main use case Apple presented, productivity, works much better with an opaque screen, not pass-through. There's a reason we don't make transparent screens, nor transparent windows on our screens: text and images are much easier to read if they are opaque.
- mettamage 3y ago
  First Oculus headset versus Quest 3 right now? Quest 3 wins. There's progress. Perhaps not as fast as we'd want. There is progress though. I suspect that progress will continue.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Even Quest 1 vs Quest 3 has very visible improvements in terms of image quality, FOV, and overall comfort.
    - mettamage 3y ago
      I went from Quest 2 to Quest 3. Even just that! Having a pass through at all is near revolutionary for my use cases
- gpm 3y ago
  The cynic in you is overly cynical. Ten years ago was pre oculus rift. We weren't saying anything about VR headsets. Five years ago was pre valve index. We didn't have CPUs in a headset. Nor a battery. Cameras were only used for tracking. The things we were saying would improve is "screen door effect" and "tracking", both of which have.
  - Jasper_ 3y ago
    The optical pathway is pretty much locked in. LEEP was invented in the 80s, and that's still the optical system used today. Compare the size to NASA's VR system from the early 90s. https://images.nasa.gov/details/ARC-1992-AC89-0437-6 https://images.nasa.gov/details/ARC-1992-AC89-0437-6 It's been 30 years of massive improvements to all of the rest of computers, and VR has only shrunk a couple inches. There's not much else we can do to make it smaller.
    - outworlder 3y ago
      I am looking at that picture and to me it definitely looks like way more than a couple of inches.
      - veidr 3y ago
        lol, indeed, that is the full monty
      - serf 3y ago
        it's not much different in size than a vision pro or quest 3, it's just kinda un-wieldly. the photo of it sitting in a display case gives a decent sense of scale, I think. http://briteliteimmersive.com/blog/remembering-nasas-view-vr http://briteliteimmersive.com/blog/remembering-nasas-view-vr
    - ok_dad 3y ago
      Look at the bigscreen vr headset!
    - rightbyte 3y ago
- joenot443 3y ago
  There were a lot of tablets before the iPad but it wasn’t until the iPad that tablets really took off as a serious market segment. Ditto with AirPods and Bluetooth earbuds. In the past, once Apple started pouring R&D money into a specific product type, the entire industry around it tends to advance very quickly. I’m optimistic about the Vision Pro, and I actually think the n+2 Meta release will be much better off for it.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    My question is why does it seem like only Apple can do this, over and over? Why are they the only ones who seem to be able to knock a product category out of the park and legitimize it? Is it just the vast amount of money? Are they the only ones who can create products? Is everyone else that bad? Competitors work for ages and ages fighting each other, refining v1, v2, v2.1, v2.2, v2.25, and then suddenly Apple comes out with something v8-ish and the whole industry scrambles. Why does this keep happening?
    - noneeeed 3y ago
      They seem prepared to go in at higher price points. Most other manufacturers seem to take the approach of getting as many features on the side of the box and then compete on price. They cost engineer the crap out of everything and it ends up being somewhat disappointing. I often maintain that so much technology is 80% of the way to being amazing, but is stymied by commercial concerns that cause companies to cut corners and cheap out, or they hobble their own product to create barriers to interoperability. While Apple still have to strike the right balance between between features and cost, and also like to make their own walled gardens, they are able to go for the higher price points, and also integrate really well between a wide swathe of products. They are prepared to let specific products be less competative in general (e.g Homepod), because they know that they integrate well into their overall ecosystem.
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        The price thing isn't just about competition. Meta and oculus before it has a stated goal to bring it to the masses. That's not going to work at a $3500 price point. You need to get Devs interested too and that won't work if only the top 1% of the western world can afford it.
- bradly 3y ago
  Apple has a history to sticking with things like this. Watch and HomePod were both seen as over-priced and sold poorly the first iterations. Apple leadership had the confidence to see through those initial versions. This was part of the internal culture during my time at Apple.
  - noneeeed 3y ago
    Watch is my go-to comparison for the Vision Pro. That took several generations before people started to buy in large numbers.
    - dmarcos 3y ago
      Fitness trackers (Fitbit), traditional and sport watches (with GPS) were popular categories when Apple Watch launched. Apple Vision Pro is a different beast because AR/VR don’t have product-market fit yet besides a few game genres that Apple doesn’t care about. Apple is good at improving existing product categories less so at finding product-market fit that usually outsources to others.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > This was part of the internal culture during my time at Apple. From a management perspective, how do they handle the people side of that - keeping good people on the team and keeping them motivated to do something extraordinary? People don't like spending time on unsuccessful projects and don't want their names associated with them, and don't want to work extra hard on something that won't come to fruition. Maybe Apple management has enough internal reputation that employees are willing to take that risk (but even Apple management has flops - the car seeming to be a recent example). But that doesn't feel like a sufficient explanation to me.
    - euroderf 3y ago
      So basically they have the patience, the cash stockpile, and the management culture to support large multi-year product field testing with non-employees.
    - 3y ago
- zitterbewegung 3y ago
  I know this is anecdotal but my brother uses the Vison Pro daily ever since we have had it. He got a Oculus DK1 and a Oculus Quest 2 (I bought the Quest 2 off from him) and if he wasn't wearing it so much I have worn it and the best experience from it is media consumption. Its really a iPad with a ridiculous screen.
- baby 3y ago
  The Quest line of VR headsets are amazing, just saying.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Given my age, I would say the same applies to all headsets I have seen since 1994, when I saw someone using one to play Doom at the Lisbon computer fair.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  The problem with every headset over the last ten years was that they just didn’t have the technical commitment to really overcome the major problems. Making good VR is a VERY tech heavy endeavor. Apple has shown that they can make hardware which really begins to solve those issues (good resolution and quality pass through being one, having a nice OS being another). The AVP is truly starting to make a difference in what is possible with VR. It’s not just more optimism.
- jimbokun 3y ago
  I haven’t heard anyone say they were going to work exclusively on their Occulus Rift, Having even a few people saying they are already doing that on the Vision Pro seems significant.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
I think, crucially, Apple also invented a price anchor for VR computing. Previously, only the extreme high end of VR broke $1.5k. Now if apple puts out an Apple Vision SE or non-pro or whatever at $1,999 it will be seen as an absolute steal.
- evan_ 3y ago
  No it won’t. It will still be seen as 4x the price of the Quest 3.
  - hedora 3y ago
    It could play out like the iPhone where it costs N times more than the competition, but lasts 2N times longer, and has better resale value. (For iPhone, N is ~1.5) I’m having a hard time imagining that level of planned obsolescence for VR displays though. If anything, I’d expect the quest 4 (or 5, or whatever generation matches Apple specs) to last longer. Of course, it’s a moot point for me and the large percentage of the population that will never strap Facebook-controlled eye trackers to their head.
    - i5-2520M 3y ago
      iPhones on average don't last 3 times as much ib people's hands as Android phones that cost 66% as much. Better resale value is fair, but I am contesting that 2N figure strongly.
      - hedora 3y ago
        I regularly replace my screen 1-2 times between iPhone upgrades, and have never kept one until end of security update support. I've never managed to replace an android screen, and have only replaced one android phone that still had security update support (I've only bought flagship androids.)
      - bashinator 3y ago
        I replaced my iPhone X this year, with a 15 that I anticipate owning at least another 5-6 years.
rtkwe 3y ago
Personally I'm betting it's not even a dev kit for future VR devices, though we will almost definitely get an iteration or two of them before we get to what I think is their true goal, AR glasses. There's so much unnecessary stuff here if the goal isn't that, mainly the ridiculous outward facing eye screen, that makes sense if it's just to simulate as close as possible using AR glasses.
nerdjon 3y ago
> Apple know full well that this is not a mass market product. I really feel like too many people are ignoring this. If anyone understands how to play the long game with a new product it is Apple. I mean the Apple TV was a "Hobby" for many years. Has Apple ever put out a "Pro" version of a product before the "normal" version? I think it also helps the clear sharing of technology between this and other products. From using the M2 tech, to iOS and (I assume) built with much of the AR tech they have been showing off for the last several years on iPhone. I honestly kinda wonder how much of ARKit was directly made from work on the Vision Pro? This version of Vision Pro was never going to be a massive product, I expect they knew they would get returns (and they hoped to mitigate that with the in store demos but that only does so much). But it is setting the ground work for a long term investment.
- atommclain 3y ago
  > Has Apple ever put out a "Pro" version of a product before the "normal" version? Yes they introduced the MacBook Pro before the MacBook.
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    I did not know that, however that is a bit different since they had the Powerbook. So that's more of a rebranding than a new product. I do realize that the name change came with a switch from PowerPC to Intel.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      Even with the PowerBook, the PowerBook came before the iBook. The Mac (Pro) came before the iMac/Mini etc too The pro moniker is just branding but they usually start with the pro line for more expensive hardware. Even with the iPhone, the current pro line is a continuation of the main line iPhone that evolved via the X.
  - chrisandchris 3y ago
    They upgraded the MacBook (Pro) to the M3 chip while the Air had to wait (and skip the M2 at all).
amelius 3y ago
> I think the description of the VisionPro as a dev kit is spot on. A devkit prepared for lock down. It's the old formula: let devs make the platform great, then pull a Sherlock or increase the platform fees. Count me out.
- gpm 3y ago
  Aren't they already charging the 30% app store tax for the privilege of running software on the device you bought? I doubt that fees going to go up from there.
- doctorpangloss 3y ago
  What exactly are they going to Sherlock? iOS non-game apps aren't exactly innovative. It's Gmail. It's YouTube. It's social media photo and video scrolls. It's been more than a decade, and the most innovative thing I can find on top downloads and top grossing, Duolingo, is also kind of a game, like if you remove the game part of it it's kind of not much, is it? All the innovations in Google Maps are kind of tied up in backend technologies that aren't specific to the phone at all, indeed predated it. Once they figured out touchscreen keyboard and accelerated web browsing sort of everything else fell into place. Then the retina display was introduced, and software improved the camera. I don't know what roles 3rd party devs played in all of this, but those list of innovations happened years ago. They don't Sherlock games. Even then, is Apple going to approve a game with guns on the AVP? Time will tell. Beatsaber is an innovative game but it leaned on the basic premise of people doing something illegal, uploading non licensed maps and tracks. Hacker News commenters don't know much about making games - even when they work for huge game studios! - and they don't know much about VR - even when they work at companies making VR headsets! Hugo must certainly be aware of the Varjo XR3, which is actually the most comparable device to the AVP and even more expensive, but there were developers at Apple on the AVP team who never heard of it, and many more Oculus developers. At the end of the day this is a love letter to halo product positioning coupled with relentless vendor lock-in applied to helpless consumers. I agree with you that the locked down nature of the product makes it as DoA for developers as the Apple Watch was. People forget that the first apps for iPhones were delivered via jailbreaks made by hackers, who had unlimited access, and that plus Steam ultimately teed up what limited things you can do in iOS apps today, not brilliant strategy.
bitwize 3y ago
I think of the Vision Pro as the 1984 Mac of VR/AR. The original Mac was next to useless and, adjusted for inflation, cost twice what the Vision Pro does. But it changed the world. (Yes, it was near useless. The original Mac had 128k of RAM, which allowed for only the smallest of applications. It wasn't until the Mac 512k came out that people could do real work on these machines.) The next rev of Vision products from Apple, or maybe the rev after that, will just be leaps and bounds beyond what anyone else is doing in the space. No new paradigm of computing truly begins until Apple starts it.
- MBCook 3y ago
  Also, much like the Apple Watch, they took their best guess at what it’s good for but don’t really know yet. So they’ve kind of tried to prepare for everything. It’s going to be interesting to see what it really shines at as more developers make different kinds of apps.
lostemptations5 3y ago
Not sure what the nay sayers are about. Anyone remember the ORIGINAL MacBook Air? Hyper expensive, super underpowered, overheated alot. And yet -- as Steve demonstrated -- it fit in an envelope. THIS is Apple launching a new product line (and trust me I'm not a fan boi). And shortly after (2-3 years?) the MBAs were powerful cheap and barely powered up their fans. Mind you the MBA was maybe Steve's last obsession. What is Tim's thinking these days? Still it all seems very Apple like...
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  My problem with the vision pro is that it doesn’t do enough new, the iPhone and the MacBook Air let you use a computer in an area where you previously couldn’t and made it accessible to normal people. The vision pro isn’t that much better in terms of bringing the technology in a user friendly package to the masses than the quest. A good measure of an Apple product is if you can pitch a version of it to your grandma or dad who can’t open PDF file. If something only appeals to tech enthusiasts it is not a good Apple product (except the professional line products intended to be used for serious work by professionals which the vision pro isn’t)
  - pmcp 3y ago
    A good measure for an Apple product was for me always: it makes tech disappear. That was always the differentiator, I feel: it doesn’t feel like tech and it doesn’t look like it. Now, I guess, it makes reality disappear?
    - Shawnj2 3y ago
      Sure but why does Grandma want it? She has an iPhone so this isn’t an unanswerable question
  - jaxn 3y ago
    The first iPhone was a toy. It wasn’t until the second version (iPhone 3G) + AppStore that is really caught on with existing smartphone users. I have a Quest and have used other VR systems, the Vision Pro felt like a huge leap forward compared to those. I walked away from the demo tempted. Not by what is available today, but by what I want to be available and what I want to create with it.
Nevermark 3y ago
> (I hear FoV is pretty poor at the moment) I thought it was pretty good - but nowhere near ideal of course. But discovered I could dispense with both of Apple's "Light Seal Cushions" and simply line the light seal with some 1/8 adhesive foam. It took a little experimenting to avoid hard pressure points, and then make it comfortable. It is now very comfortable with the following benefits: 1. The field of view is noticeably wider. Yay! The immersion improvement feels cognitively significant. 2. I realized that greater peripheral vision downward is more important than upward. Being more aware of down makes us feel safer and is also where are our hands and keyboards live. So I arranged the padding to wear the head set slightly lower, allocating all the increased vertical FOV downward. 3. The combination of being 1/4 inch or so closer to the face, and firmer padding, reduced the feeling of weight on the front of my head. Warning - literally. I get an occasional popup warning that my eyes are too close to the lenses. The danger being if I were to fall I could potentially hit my eyes. I stay seated most the time, but occasionally walk through rooms, so it is worth being careful. I use my Vision Pro for 10 hours a day on many days, comfortably. I had to switch to the two-strap support to do this. But I have ordered an adapter that allows the original behind the heat cushion strap to be used with a second cushion strap over the head. I anticipate that working even better, given how much surface area weight will be distributed across. (Also turning a knob is easier for adjustments than messing with velcro.) Also, got some thicker (in width) lighter foam, to add some more light seal around the edges. This feels like a real upgrade, a year or so before Apple will release a bump.
- cyberpunk 3y ago
  Genuine question, what are you doing for 10 hours a day in there? Can you comfortable code all day in that? If you don't mind my asking, is it purely novelty or is it genuinely better than coding on a 5k monitor?
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    For me it is not a novelty, it has completely stuck. Yes, on comfort for 10 hours. I have even worked 12 hours, then watched a long 3D movie (Blade Runner 2049, Dune I, etc.) without hesitation. I cannot imagine going back to only physical screens. I have a 98" monitor with two 55" monitors in portrait angled towards me on either side (heights all match), all wall mounted. Truly wonderful! But this has replaced that for me. I have even considered beheading a MacBook Pro. I love the following: • Never needing to put on or take off reading glasses to see far, or within inches. • I can have my main Mac "screen" whatever size I want, typically large. Also that I can lean into it when focusing on a patch of code, and it always looks perfect. • Having multiple Vision safari screens, or utilities, surrounding me. With the look and pinch interface being very nice for navigating. • Being able to tune out 180 degrees of my space with a natural scene so I am completely undistracted. Wish I could go 360 degrees, and still leave keyboard visible. (Either by having an unobstructed low circle, or having the keyboard "punch through" like hands do. • Flexible screen position lets me sit with great posture all the time. I tend to pull right up to my desk, push my keyboard far out and lean forward on my elbows a bit. Have the screen large but close enough that I can lean in to focus on something. • Two environments in one! I will put project organization and context notes on huge screens behind me on a wall. Personal mission control. In thoughtful moments I get out of my chair, walk around the room and see the large screens from anywhere, walk right up to it, make small edits with pinch and zoom. • The incredible ergonomics of being able to code comfortably in bed, on a couch, recliner, etc. with good ergonomics, due to the screens being flexibly placed. Being able to code in many places keeps my brain fresh. • I use a holster for the battery. Geeky, but after dropping it as I walked away from my desk 100 times I realized I need that. That elminated inhibitions about moving, and feelings of being chained down. • I haven't been in flow so consistently for so many hours for a long time. For me the Mac interface expansion/isolation chamber IS what Vision is for. Issues: • As noted, wish the keyboard and my drinks would "punch through" 360 degree scenes, or there was an optional lower circle of punch rough. • Keyboard and trackpad pointer are fussy when switching between Mac and Vision screens. • Wish I could have more Mac screens, and drag Mac windows out to their own screens. Also pull in iPad and iPhone screens. And push windows/app-states back out to those machines too. Or two other people's devices. • Wish the Mac screen operated with look and pinch. I do this a few times every day when in flow. • Wish I could disconnect/reconnect my MacBook Pro screen. The headless MacBook Pro for Vision would be absolutely great. But having the option to use it as a laptop too would be great. Maybe remove my MacBook screen, but set it up so I can clip my iPad Pro to it too? • Need a Vision Spaces interface for setting up work then moving to a different context, but being able to come back to those screens. Being able to set up a space that is location sensitive, so always available in that room, seat, whatever.
sroussey 3y ago
I see the Vision Pro more like the Apple Lisa. The original Apple Lisa, which cost $9,995 in 1983, would cost approximately $27,905 in today's dollars, adjusting for inflation over the period up to 2023. So the VisionPro seems downright cheap.
- MBCook 3y ago
  The original Mac was $2500 in ‘84 which is over $7000 now.
paul7986 3y ago
I am happy and avid user of Meta's recent Ray Ban Smart Glasses as Im a sunglass wearer (think a huge part of the population are too) and use my phone to take pics a lot. Now do that reliably through Meta's glasses and Zuckerberg just showed the latest Meta glass beta which you can ask "what mountain am i looking at," at it audibly tells you. Im betting Apple will release similar smart glasses like Meta's in the next year or two.
- MBCook 3y ago
  I hadn’t heard of those until yesterday but I saw a video someone took wearing them on a roller coaster in the front seat and it was very impressive.
giantrobot 3y ago
> It's also a beta product in many way. I can't remember if it was here or somewhere else I saw the point made that the current Vision Pro is the worst one Apple will ever make. All future Vision* products will likely be technically improved from the current model. So if the Vision Pro is good right now it really can only be refined and get better.

fouronnes3 3y ago

Hopefully you're right, but the cynic in me thinks we've been saying the same thing about every VR headset that has come out in the last ten years.

65 3y ago
I'll only buy a VR device if it's in the form of glasses, not big goggles I need to strap to my face.
- dvngnt_ 3y ago
  glasses won't take over your entire fov though so it suck for VR. maybe better for AR
  - someguydave 3y ago
    Yeah but glasses are probably fine for the display replacement market
    - int_19h 3y ago
      If all you want is display replacement, you don't even need VR with head tracking.
      - someguydave 3y ago
        Indeed, so I think that will likely become more popular when apple-like resolution is widely available
  - lolinder 3y ago
    There's nothing that says that a pair of glasses can't have panels on the sides and top to provide full coverage [0]. The main obstacle is miniaturizing the necessary compute and display technology. [0] A random example: https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Driving-Around-Sunglasses-Polarized/dp/B07M6L8YDQ/ https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Driving-Around-Sunglasses-Pola...
- hedora 3y ago
  My main concern with the vision pro is that all use cases I know of (other than gaming) work better with some sort of pass through HUD display like the HoloLens. They spent a ton of company resources, weight and power making the wrong form factor emulate the right form factor, and are shipping with zero killer apps. You can’t even let your friends play with it without getting it re-fit to their head at the Apple Store, which basically kills social/word of mouth marketing. It certainly isn’t a fashion item / status symbol to be seen in public like all their other stuff. Maybe the “real” product is sitting in the wings and will be ready to ship in a few years, but the current form factor seems like a non-starter to me.
  - basch 3y ago
    But their work on the software side transfers seamlessly to a pass through device later. It still serves its purpose as a beta (beta meaning data collection and improvement process, not its modern “we just don’t support this” definition.
  - outworlder 3y ago
    > and are shipping with zero killer apps. That's ok. That's exactly why they released the 'pro' first.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      "Pro" is a misnomer here, though. "Pro" normally means "with extra features for professionals", where here it means "it's more of a dev kit than it is an actual product".
  - j2bax 3y ago
    My opinion, and its very naive because I've only really tried the Vision Pro for this type of content, but immersive video is the current killer app for the Vision Pro. Sitting in the studio with Alicia Keys warming up for her tour was almost equal parts uncomfortable and amazing.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    The main use case Apple presented, productivity, works much better with an opaque screen, not pass-through. There's a reason we don't make transparent screens, nor transparent windows on our screens: text and images are much easier to read if they are opaque.
mettamage 3y ago
First Oculus headset versus Quest 3 right now? Quest 3 wins. There's progress. Perhaps not as fast as we'd want. There is progress though. I suspect that progress will continue.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Even Quest 1 vs Quest 3 has very visible improvements in terms of image quality, FOV, and overall comfort.
  - mettamage 3y ago
    I went from Quest 2 to Quest 3. Even just that! Having a pass through at all is near revolutionary for my use cases
gpm 3y ago
The cynic in you is overly cynical. Ten years ago was pre oculus rift. We weren't saying anything about VR headsets. Five years ago was pre valve index. We didn't have CPUs in a headset. Nor a battery. Cameras were only used for tracking. The things we were saying would improve is "screen door effect" and "tracking", both of which have.
- Jasper_ 3y ago
  The optical pathway is pretty much locked in. LEEP was invented in the 80s, and that's still the optical system used today. Compare the size to NASA's VR system from the early 90s. https://images.nasa.gov/details/ARC-1992-AC89-0437-6 https://images.nasa.gov/details/ARC-1992-AC89-0437-6 It's been 30 years of massive improvements to all of the rest of computers, and VR has only shrunk a couple inches. There's not much else we can do to make it smaller.
  - outworlder 3y ago
    I am looking at that picture and to me it definitely looks like way more than a couple of inches.
    - veidr 3y ago
      lol, indeed, that is the full monty
    - serf 3y ago
      it's not much different in size than a vision pro or quest 3, it's just kinda un-wieldly. the photo of it sitting in a display case gives a decent sense of scale, I think. http://briteliteimmersive.com/blog/remembering-nasas-view-vr http://briteliteimmersive.com/blog/remembering-nasas-view-vr
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    Look at the bigscreen vr headset!
  - rightbyte 3y ago
joenot443 3y ago
There were a lot of tablets before the iPad but it wasn’t until the iPad that tablets really took off as a serious market segment. Ditto with AirPods and Bluetooth earbuds. In the past, once Apple started pouring R&D money into a specific product type, the entire industry around it tends to advance very quickly. I’m optimistic about the Vision Pro, and I actually think the n+2 Meta release will be much better off for it.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  My question is why does it seem like only Apple can do this, over and over? Why are they the only ones who seem to be able to knock a product category out of the park and legitimize it? Is it just the vast amount of money? Are they the only ones who can create products? Is everyone else that bad? Competitors work for ages and ages fighting each other, refining v1, v2, v2.1, v2.2, v2.25, and then suddenly Apple comes out with something v8-ish and the whole industry scrambles. Why does this keep happening?
  - noneeeed 3y ago
    They seem prepared to go in at higher price points. Most other manufacturers seem to take the approach of getting as many features on the side of the box and then compete on price. They cost engineer the crap out of everything and it ends up being somewhat disappointing. I often maintain that so much technology is 80% of the way to being amazing, but is stymied by commercial concerns that cause companies to cut corners and cheap out, or they hobble their own product to create barriers to interoperability. While Apple still have to strike the right balance between between features and cost, and also like to make their own walled gardens, they are able to go for the higher price points, and also integrate really well between a wide swathe of products. They are prepared to let specific products be less competative in general (e.g Homepod), because they know that they integrate well into their overall ecosystem.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      The price thing isn't just about competition. Meta and oculus before it has a stated goal to bring it to the masses. That's not going to work at a $3500 price point. You need to get Devs interested too and that won't work if only the top 1% of the western world can afford it.
bradly 3y ago
Apple has a history to sticking with things like this. Watch and HomePod were both seen as over-priced and sold poorly the first iterations. Apple leadership had the confidence to see through those initial versions. This was part of the internal culture during my time at Apple.
- noneeeed 3y ago
  Watch is my go-to comparison for the Vision Pro. That took several generations before people started to buy in large numbers.
  - dmarcos 3y ago
    Fitness trackers (Fitbit), traditional and sport watches (with GPS) were popular categories when Apple Watch launched. Apple Vision Pro is a different beast because AR/VR don’t have product-market fit yet besides a few game genres that Apple doesn’t care about. Apple is good at improving existing product categories less so at finding product-market fit that usually outsources to others.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > This was part of the internal culture during my time at Apple. From a management perspective, how do they handle the people side of that - keeping good people on the team and keeping them motivated to do something extraordinary? People don't like spending time on unsuccessful projects and don't want their names associated with them, and don't want to work extra hard on something that won't come to fruition. Maybe Apple management has enough internal reputation that employees are willing to take that risk (but even Apple management has flops - the car seeming to be a recent example). But that doesn't feel like a sufficient explanation to me.
  - euroderf 3y ago
    So basically they have the patience, the cash stockpile, and the management culture to support large multi-year product field testing with non-employees.
  - 3y ago
zitterbewegung 3y ago
I know this is anecdotal but my brother uses the Vison Pro daily ever since we have had it. He got a Oculus DK1 and a Oculus Quest 2 (I bought the Quest 2 off from him) and if he wasn't wearing it so much I have worn it and the best experience from it is media consumption. Its really a iPad with a ridiculous screen.
baby 3y ago
The Quest line of VR headsets are amazing, just saying.
pjmlp 3y ago
Given my age, I would say the same applies to all headsets I have seen since 1994, when I saw someone using one to play Doom at the Lisbon computer fair.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
The problem with every headset over the last ten years was that they just didn’t have the technical commitment to really overcome the major problems. Making good VR is a VERY tech heavy endeavor. Apple has shown that they can make hardware which really begins to solve those issues (good resolution and quality pass through being one, having a nice OS being another). The AVP is truly starting to make a difference in what is possible with VR. It’s not just more optimism.
jimbokun 3y ago
I haven’t heard anyone say they were going to work exclusively on their Occulus Rift, Having even a few people saying they are already doing that on the Vision Pro seems significant.

dghlsakjg 3y ago

I think, crucially, Apple also invented a price anchor for VR computing. Previously, only the extreme high end of VR broke $1.5k. Now if apple puts out an Apple Vision SE or non-pro or whatever at $1,999 it will be seen as an absolute steal.

evan_ 3y ago
No it won’t. It will still be seen as 4x the price of the Quest 3.
- hedora 3y ago
  It could play out like the iPhone where it costs N times more than the competition, but lasts 2N times longer, and has better resale value. (For iPhone, N is ~1.5) I’m having a hard time imagining that level of planned obsolescence for VR displays though. If anything, I’d expect the quest 4 (or 5, or whatever generation matches Apple specs) to last longer. Of course, it’s a moot point for me and the large percentage of the population that will never strap Facebook-controlled eye trackers to their head.
  - i5-2520M 3y ago
    iPhones on average don't last 3 times as much ib people's hands as Android phones that cost 66% as much. Better resale value is fair, but I am contesting that 2N figure strongly.
    - hedora 3y ago
      I regularly replace my screen 1-2 times between iPhone upgrades, and have never kept one until end of security update support. I've never managed to replace an android screen, and have only replaced one android phone that still had security update support (I've only bought flagship androids.)
    - bashinator 3y ago
      I replaced my iPhone X this year, with a 15 that I anticipate owning at least another 5-6 years.

rtkwe 3y ago

Personally I'm betting it's not even a dev kit for future VR devices, though we will almost definitely get an iteration or two of them before we get to what I think is their true goal, AR glasses. There's so much unnecessary stuff here if the goal isn't that, mainly the ridiculous outward facing eye screen, that makes sense if it's just to simulate as close as possible using AR glasses.

nerdjon 3y ago

> Apple know full well that this is not a mass market product. I really feel like too many people are ignoring this. If anyone understands how to play the long game with a new product it is Apple. I mean the Apple TV was a "Hobby" for many years. Has Apple ever put out a "Pro" version of a product before the "normal" version? I think it also helps the clear sharing of technology between this and other products. From using the M2 tech, to iOS and (I assume) built with much of the AR tech they have been showing off for the last several years on iPhone. I honestly kinda wonder how much of ARKit was directly made from work on the Vision Pro? This version of Vision Pro was never going to be a massive product, I expect they knew they would get returns (and they hoped to mitigate that with the in store demos but that only does so much). But it is setting the ground work for a long term investment.

atommclain 3y ago
> Has Apple ever put out a "Pro" version of a product before the "normal" version? Yes they introduced the MacBook Pro before the MacBook.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  I did not know that, however that is a bit different since they had the Powerbook. So that's more of a rebranding than a new product. I do realize that the name change came with a switch from PowerPC to Intel.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Even with the PowerBook, the PowerBook came before the iBook. The Mac (Pro) came before the iMac/Mini etc too The pro moniker is just branding but they usually start with the pro line for more expensive hardware. Even with the iPhone, the current pro line is a continuation of the main line iPhone that evolved via the X.
- chrisandchris 3y ago
  They upgraded the MacBook (Pro) to the M3 chip while the Air had to wait (and skip the M2 at all).

amelius 3y ago

> I think the description of the VisionPro as a dev kit is spot on. A devkit prepared for lock down. It's the old formula: let devs make the platform great, then pull a Sherlock or increase the platform fees. Count me out.

gpm 3y ago
Aren't they already charging the 30% app store tax for the privilege of running software on the device you bought? I doubt that fees going to go up from there.
doctorpangloss 3y ago
What exactly are they going to Sherlock? iOS non-game apps aren't exactly innovative. It's Gmail. It's YouTube. It's social media photo and video scrolls. It's been more than a decade, and the most innovative thing I can find on top downloads and top grossing, Duolingo, is also kind of a game, like if you remove the game part of it it's kind of not much, is it? All the innovations in Google Maps are kind of tied up in backend technologies that aren't specific to the phone at all, indeed predated it. Once they figured out touchscreen keyboard and accelerated web browsing sort of everything else fell into place. Then the retina display was introduced, and software improved the camera. I don't know what roles 3rd party devs played in all of this, but those list of innovations happened years ago. They don't Sherlock games. Even then, is Apple going to approve a game with guns on the AVP? Time will tell. Beatsaber is an innovative game but it leaned on the basic premise of people doing something illegal, uploading non licensed maps and tracks. Hacker News commenters don't know much about making games - even when they work for huge game studios! - and they don't know much about VR - even when they work at companies making VR headsets! Hugo must certainly be aware of the Varjo XR3, which is actually the most comparable device to the AVP and even more expensive, but there were developers at Apple on the AVP team who never heard of it, and many more Oculus developers. At the end of the day this is a love letter to halo product positioning coupled with relentless vendor lock-in applied to helpless consumers. I agree with you that the locked down nature of the product makes it as DoA for developers as the Apple Watch was. People forget that the first apps for iPhones were delivered via jailbreaks made by hackers, who had unlimited access, and that plus Steam ultimately teed up what limited things you can do in iOS apps today, not brilliant strategy.

bitwize 3y ago

I think of the Vision Pro as the 1984 Mac of VR/AR. The original Mac was next to useless and, adjusted for inflation, cost twice what the Vision Pro does. But it changed the world. (Yes, it was near useless. The original Mac had 128k of RAM, which allowed for only the smallest of applications. It wasn't until the Mac 512k came out that people could do real work on these machines.) The next rev of Vision products from Apple, or maybe the rev after that, will just be leaps and bounds beyond what anyone else is doing in the space. No new paradigm of computing truly begins until Apple starts it.

MBCook 3y ago
Also, much like the Apple Watch, they took their best guess at what it’s good for but don’t really know yet. So they’ve kind of tried to prepare for everything. It’s going to be interesting to see what it really shines at as more developers make different kinds of apps.

lostemptations5 3y ago

Not sure what the nay sayers are about. Anyone remember the ORIGINAL MacBook Air? Hyper expensive, super underpowered, overheated alot. And yet -- as Steve demonstrated -- it fit in an envelope. THIS is Apple launching a new product line (and trust me I'm not a fan boi). And shortly after (2-3 years?) the MBAs were powerful cheap and barely powered up their fans. Mind you the MBA was maybe Steve's last obsession. What is Tim's thinking these days? Still it all seems very Apple like...

Shawnj2 3y ago
My problem with the vision pro is that it doesn’t do enough new, the iPhone and the MacBook Air let you use a computer in an area where you previously couldn’t and made it accessible to normal people. The vision pro isn’t that much better in terms of bringing the technology in a user friendly package to the masses than the quest. A good measure of an Apple product is if you can pitch a version of it to your grandma or dad who can’t open PDF file. If something only appeals to tech enthusiasts it is not a good Apple product (except the professional line products intended to be used for serious work by professionals which the vision pro isn’t)
- pmcp 3y ago
  A good measure for an Apple product was for me always: it makes tech disappear. That was always the differentiator, I feel: it doesn’t feel like tech and it doesn’t look like it. Now, I guess, it makes reality disappear?
  - Shawnj2 3y ago
    Sure but why does Grandma want it? She has an iPhone so this isn’t an unanswerable question
- jaxn 3y ago
  The first iPhone was a toy. It wasn’t until the second version (iPhone 3G) + AppStore that is really caught on with existing smartphone users. I have a Quest and have used other VR systems, the Vision Pro felt like a huge leap forward compared to those. I walked away from the demo tempted. Not by what is available today, but by what I want to be available and what I want to create with it.

Nevermark 3y ago

> (I hear FoV is pretty poor at the moment) I thought it was pretty good - but nowhere near ideal of course. But discovered I could dispense with both of Apple's "Light Seal Cushions" and simply line the light seal with some 1/8 adhesive foam. It took a little experimenting to avoid hard pressure points, and then make it comfortable. It is now very comfortable with the following benefits: 1. The field of view is noticeably wider. Yay! The immersion improvement feels cognitively significant. 2. I realized that greater peripheral vision downward is more important than upward. Being more aware of down makes us feel safer and is also where are our hands and keyboards live. So I arranged the padding to wear the head set slightly lower, allocating all the increased vertical FOV downward. 3. The combination of being 1/4 inch or so closer to the face, and firmer padding, reduced the feeling of weight on the front of my head. Warning - literally. I get an occasional popup warning that my eyes are too close to the lenses. The danger being if I were to fall I could potentially hit my eyes. I stay seated most the time, but occasionally walk through rooms, so it is worth being careful. I use my Vision Pro for 10 hours a day on many days, comfortably. I had to switch to the two-strap support to do this. But I have ordered an adapter that allows the original behind the heat cushion strap to be used with a second cushion strap over the head. I anticipate that working even better, given how much surface area weight will be distributed across. (Also turning a knob is easier for adjustments than messing with velcro.) Also, got some thicker (in width) lighter foam, to add some more light seal around the edges. This feels like a real upgrade, a year or so before Apple will release a bump.

cyberpunk 3y ago
Genuine question, what are you doing for 10 hours a day in there? Can you comfortable code all day in that? If you don't mind my asking, is it purely novelty or is it genuinely better than coding on a 5k monitor?
- Nevermark 3y ago
  For me it is not a novelty, it has completely stuck. Yes, on comfort for 10 hours. I have even worked 12 hours, then watched a long 3D movie (Blade Runner 2049, Dune I, etc.) without hesitation. I cannot imagine going back to only physical screens. I have a 98" monitor with two 55" monitors in portrait angled towards me on either side (heights all match), all wall mounted. Truly wonderful! But this has replaced that for me. I have even considered beheading a MacBook Pro. I love the following: • Never needing to put on or take off reading glasses to see far, or within inches. • I can have my main Mac "screen" whatever size I want, typically large. Also that I can lean into it when focusing on a patch of code, and it always looks perfect. • Having multiple Vision safari screens, or utilities, surrounding me. With the look and pinch interface being very nice for navigating. • Being able to tune out 180 degrees of my space with a natural scene so I am completely undistracted. Wish I could go 360 degrees, and still leave keyboard visible. (Either by having an unobstructed low circle, or having the keyboard "punch through" like hands do. • Flexible screen position lets me sit with great posture all the time. I tend to pull right up to my desk, push my keyboard far out and lean forward on my elbows a bit. Have the screen large but close enough that I can lean in to focus on something. • Two environments in one! I will put project organization and context notes on huge screens behind me on a wall. Personal mission control. In thoughtful moments I get out of my chair, walk around the room and see the large screens from anywhere, walk right up to it, make small edits with pinch and zoom. • The incredible ergonomics of being able to code comfortably in bed, on a couch, recliner, etc. with good ergonomics, due to the screens being flexibly placed. Being able to code in many places keeps my brain fresh. • I use a holster for the battery. Geeky, but after dropping it as I walked away from my desk 100 times I realized I need that. That elminated inhibitions about moving, and feelings of being chained down. • I haven't been in flow so consistently for so many hours for a long time. For me the Mac interface expansion/isolation chamber IS what Vision is for. Issues: • As noted, wish the keyboard and my drinks would "punch through" 360 degree scenes, or there was an optional lower circle of punch rough. • Keyboard and trackpad pointer are fussy when switching between Mac and Vision screens. • Wish I could have more Mac screens, and drag Mac windows out to their own screens. Also pull in iPad and iPhone screens. And push windows/app-states back out to those machines too. Or two other people's devices. • Wish the Mac screen operated with look and pinch. I do this a few times every day when in flow. • Wish I could disconnect/reconnect my MacBook Pro screen. The headless MacBook Pro for Vision would be absolutely great. But having the option to use it as a laptop too would be great. Maybe remove my MacBook screen, but set it up so I can clip my iPad Pro to it too? • Need a Vision Spaces interface for setting up work then moving to a different context, but being able to come back to those screens. Being able to set up a space that is location sensitive, so always available in that room, seat, whatever.

sroussey 3y ago

I see the Vision Pro more like the Apple Lisa. The original Apple Lisa, which cost $9,995 in 1983, would cost approximately $27,905 in today's dollars, adjusting for inflation over the period up to 2023. So the VisionPro seems downright cheap.

MBCook 3y ago
The original Mac was $2500 in ‘84 which is over $7000 now.

paul7986 3y ago

I am happy and avid user of Meta's recent Ray Ban Smart Glasses as Im a sunglass wearer (think a huge part of the population are too) and use my phone to take pics a lot. Now do that reliably through Meta's glasses and Zuckerberg just showed the latest Meta glass beta which you can ask "what mountain am i looking at," at it audibly tells you. Im betting Apple will release similar smart glasses like Meta's in the next year or two.

MBCook 3y ago
I hadn’t heard of those until yesterday but I saw a video someone took wearing them on a roller coaster in the front seat and it was very impressive.

giantrobot 3y ago

> It's also a beta product in many way. I can't remember if it was here or somewhere else I saw the point made that the current Vision Pro is the worst one Apple will ever make. All future Vision* products will likely be technically improved from the current model. So if the Vision Pro is good right now it really can only be refined and get better.