11 ms·

Apple may stop producing Vision Pro by the end of 2024

144 points by mfiguiere 2y ago

supriyo-biswas 2y ago
I wonder why Apple didn't go for glasses instead like the ones Meta is doing recently; a less bulky and cheaper product would have probably sold more.
- matrix2003 2y ago
  I would assume they said their market research said otherwise. Personally, I have 0 interest in glasses, but a lot in quality, privacy respecting VR. Just not $3500 of it. I would have been interested in a $3500 headset if that M1 chip had run macOS, so I could ditch my laptop on trips and take my office with me.
  - aldarisbm 2y ago
    100%, if it run macos it would've been a no brainer. I believe I am decent earner, but 3500$ is not justifiable from the benefit I get from it. _and I wanted to buy it really bad_
  - joshstrange 2y ago
    I agree that the OS is the most limiting factor of the AVP. In its current form it's just an iPad with all the downsides that brings. I had high hopes for it as a MBP replacement or companion but MVD was disappointing and so I returned mine.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      Were you planning on bringing a keyboard and mouse around with you? VR "gesture" controls are godawful and nothing has supplanted mouse and keyboard because they are absolutely wonderful control methods. If you ARE carrying around a mouse and keyboard and AVP, that seems like a lot more clunk and silliness than just using a damn laptop. What are you doing that actually benefits from gluing the screen to your face? I want to be explicit: I love VR and have been hugely into it since the very first oculus dev kits, but other than flight/driving simulators and gun games which all hugely hugely benefit from the physical immersion VR provides, there is nothing worth doing in VR. Not that many games actually benefit from a physical presence. Almost nobody playing FIFA or CoD actually wants to do it in VR. The (really fun and quite well made) CoD ripoffs and other shooters in VR are nearly empty, because so few people are willing to stand up while playing. The Wii made this clear 18 years ago FFS. I'm still waiting for a single use case that isn't sim driving, sim flying, or shooting, or beat saber. Billions invested into producing something, and still there is nothing.
      - ashildr 2y ago
        > What are you doing that actually benefits from gluing the screen to your face? For a start you get multiple very large virtual screens that are a lot bigger than the screen in a notebook. This to me is an interesting use case.
        mrguyorama 2y ago
        Have you actually tried that though? People always bring this up like it's some cyberpunk fantasy but working with a one pound weight strapped to your face is awful and staring at screens situation an inch from your eyes is really really hard on them and absolutely sucks. I bet using VR for 8 hours a day would actually hurt your eyes. Actual VR/AR desktop mirroring is a thing that exists now. It's a niche of a niche of a niche because it's not a good experience. It's interesting for the five minutes until it becomes unbearable. Consider that many simracers, the niche that VR is the absolute best for, do not regularly use VR, because it's just too much fuss to put a damn set of goggles on, even when you are already sat in a purpose built simracing rig!
      - joshstrange 2y ago
        > Were you planning on bringing a keyboard and mouse around with you? VR "gesture" controls are godawful and nothing has supplanted mouse and keyboard because they are absolutely wonderful control methods. Yes, either external or the ones built into my MBP > If you ARE carrying around a mouse and keyboard and AVP, that seems like a lot more clunk and silliness than just using a damn laptop. What are you doing that actually benefits from gluing the screen to your face? I was hoping to use it as a companion (replacement was always "maybe in the future") initially so I was going to carry the AVP+MBP if things had worked out. Not always, but if I was going to be somewhere for an extended period of time (vacation/visiting friends or family/etc) then I would take both and have the "same setup" that I have at my desk at home (AVP+MBP). This was going to be an alternative to my 3-4 monitors (I have the same desk setup in 2 locations and duplicating everything was expensive and annoying). Unfortunately the MVD was too blurry and VR is too limiting (but mosting the MVD issues) so I returned my headset but that's what I was hoping to accomplish and how I was going to use it all.
  - EGreg 2y ago
    Whether it's VR, "Metaverse", or AI models, I want it to be open source. I don't want to spend 8 hours a day in some corporation's world, even more than we already are. The incentives are not aligned. The personal computer revolution (that Apple helped kickstart) was amazing. People could actually run the software locally, instead of a mainframe. People bought apps to run on their computer and videos to run on their own VCR. I feel like the Web started taking things backwards, empowering "the remote server" again, like a mainframe. Now, we have Netflix, YouTube etc. and the broadband internet hurdle has been surmounted for many. We are fighting the wrong battles with "net neutrality". The real battle should be whether we can host the software on machines of our choice, or not.
    - dartos 2y ago
      > The real battle should be whether we can host the software on machines of our choice, or not. Evidently there is a market for those who want to run their own software and those who don’t care. Apple caters to the latter. Meta seems to be taking the more open route. Luckily pretty much all major VR platforms use OpenXR, so we have a better start than in the past.
      - EGreg 2y ago
        When it comes to AI, yes you guys are lucky Meta had that snafu with LLaMa researchers and chose to seize the moment and make LLaMa available freely to everyone. Otherwise it would be quite a different world. Mark Z returned to his open-source roots that he had with Synapse and Wirehog back in the day, before Sean Parker and Peter Thiel “corrupted” him. But when it comes to everything else, it is the opposite, in my opinion. Apple sells you the hardware and you install apps locally. It’s not open source, but at least it runs locally. And Apple cares about your privacy. Facebook is the opposite, it is ad-supported, it will never give you their backend source code or let you run your own social network. They only promote “React” front end framework and other ancillary things. They will try to take your data by hook or by crook (surreptitiously recording your camera and audio as well). Their “Metaverse” play would have to recouo the tens of billions spent on development. But yeah when it comes to AI, you guys lucked out. Zuck’s image has improved since the first 15 years of “dumbf%[#s” giving him their data. He now surfs in a suit and looks much cooler. But remember — it’s people like Linus Torvalds, Tim Berners-Lee, and all the “BDFL”s of all the languages you use (like Guido Vom Rossum for Python and the Zend guys behind PHP) who really create most of the wealth for the world. If not for open source, you’d be spending more and more of your life in some corporation’s world. Just ask yourself, when the following technologies enter your home or your body, would you rather all be hooked up to a corporation like the Borg, or at least have your own installation where you have a say: TeslaBot in your house Neuralink in your brain Microsoft Recall recording Hours in “the Metaverse” Security cameras everywhere What do you think the incentives will be for TeslaBot or Microsoft Recall surreptitiously storing everything they can about you, including your passwords? When facing the temptation. Microsoft has already done it. Facebook has already done it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism But it can go far beyond that. How difficult would it be for TeslaBot to get all the info to impersonate you? All your mannerisms, voice recordings, your heartbeat rhythms, gait, everything?
- apwell23 2y ago
  Meta glasses are not selling either. Meta's pathetic attempt to make them 'cool' by using raybans and European models is laughable.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - pavlov 2y ago
    The CEO of the Ray-Ban brand owner says otherwise: https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/new-ray-ban-meta-glasses-have-outsold-previous-version-essilux-ceo-says-2024-07-16/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/n... Granted, it’s relative: “… the new generation of smart glasses have sold more in a few months than the old ones did in two years.” But it doesn’t sound like they’re discouraged.
    - rchaud 2y ago
      Translation: we sold almost nothing from the previous generation. If the product was a hit, we'd just know about it. We'd see it around, people would talk about it. It wouldn't require an ambiguous comment from the CEO.
    - apwell23 2y ago
      Thats like saying I improved my running speed last month more than Usain bolt did in a decade.
- joshstrange 2y ago
  That's the thing, Meta is /not/ "doing" glasses. They had a very limited run at $10K+/ea just for internal testing IIRC. That's very different from a shipping $3.5K product. It's also not clear if Meta could ship their glasses at ~$10K or if they'd need to charge even more. Apple has repeatedly said that AR is where they want to be and glasses are what they want to do (directly and via leaks) but the tech wasn't there yet. "There yet" can mean "we can't figure out how to get the cost down to something reasonable". The AVP was clearly a "Let's fake it till we make it" product with faux-AR (or maybe it's still just "AR" but faux-"glasses"?) with the end goal of removing the ski visor for just glasses.
  - 7thpower 2y ago
    I think part of the challenge Apple now has is convincing developers who were already on the fence that they should take the plunge now rather than wait for what looks to be a clearly superior form factor. It’s not like customers (aside from those who already have the hardware) are beating down anyone’s door asking for the Vision Pro. This is very handwavy, but if Apple does intend to pursue the glasses form factor it would probably benefit them to do the very make the very un-apple move of articulating how investments into developing for Vision Pro will extend into glasses.
    - joshstrange 2y ago
      > make the very un-apple move of articulating how investments into developing for Vision Pro will extend into glasses I doubt they will come out and say that specifically but they pushed ARKit and VRKit for year prior to the AVP.
  - butlike 2y ago
    I don't know, I just tested the Meta Quest last night and at $300 it looked GOOD. Give it a few years and I bet they could get that level of fidelity into a glass frame @ ~$1000-1200
    - joshstrange 2y ago
      Well the Meta Quest 2 starts $500 so I'm not sure if you were using a MQ2 or MQ3S (which has essentially the screens of the MQ2 from what I understand). I have tried the MQ2 (I own one) and I have tried the MQ3. The 3 is better but the resolution is still not great, the AVP was much better than either. I did like the color passthrough on the MQ3 (vs grayscale on the 2) but I wouldn't say any of it looked "GOOD", it was adequate but still too blurry. I think I'll end up getting a MQ3 eventually or maybe the next version at launch but I'm just not really drawn to VR. After the first few months of my MQ2 I lost interest and it's just collecting dust.
- the_duke 2y ago
  All the rumors always said they were working on both in parallel. I assume they could not yet make glasses happen in a way that fit their expectations or at a reasonable price point. Even the Vision Pro is a device with big trade-offs (external battery, crazy expensive).
- JansjoFromIkea 2y ago
  My guess is the Vision Pro was largely driven by a need to get real world data. By giving it all the bells and whistles they get to find out about more things and keep it at such a price range that it avoids being viewed as a colossal consumer level failure (instead if it's known by the general public at all it's as a weird but impressive premium level failure)
  - FrojoS 2y ago
    It was driven by sunk cost fallacy.
- akmarinov 2y ago
  Apple 100% has something like Meta's Orion glasses or probably even better as a prototype in their basement. Instead of an Orion puck for processing - it's your iPhone Instead of the bracelet for extra precision - it's a future Apple Watch prototype. They just won't do what Meta did - show off prototype hardware that they know they won't release in its current form and are working towards making viable for mass production.
Gemdation 2y ago
One of the commenters was thinking the same thing as me > People are going to only read the headline and interpret it as “discontinue”. Like the article says, it just means they have enough inventory until they replace it with something cheaper. [https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/report-apple-may-stop-producing-vision-pro-by-the-end-of-2024.2440767/post-33507400#post-33507400 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/report-apple-may-stop-p...] I wonder how Apple would go through with this, hopefully with a better form.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Maybe they are finding that they're like the Segway, just too geeky for the mainstream market.
  - alberth 2y ago
    Probably more like "what would I use this for" is a basic question that can't be answered right now. Time will tell if a "killer app" is found.
    - steveBK123 2y ago
      Yeah it really feels like a devkit they sold in hopes someone would come up with the killer app because they hadn't figured it out themselves yet. It's a shame as it seems like they maxed out the tech specs, but given the state of the art it still ends up being too low resolution for true MacOS productivity replacement, while also being too heavy & tethered to a short lived battery pack. Maybe a worse-is-better version that is cheaper/lighter will sell more for entertainment uses.
      - bee_rider 2y ago
        I guess if they just called it a devkit, nobody would have bought it. But, with the specs, price, and the ridiculous form factor, it was a devkit in all but name.
        2y ago
_f1dq 2y ago
I can't believe MacRumors has stooped so low. Headline: Apple May Stop Producing Vision Pro by the End of 2024 First paragraph: Apple has abruptly reduced production of the Vision Pro headset and could stop making the current version of the device completely by the end of 2024
- mattgreenrocks 2y ago
  They're definitely slipping more and more into optimizing excessively for engagement at this point.
- rfw300 2y ago
  Later on, it also says that Apple was stopped work on the second-generation Vision Pro and is focusing only on a lower-cost device. So that’s actually pretty reasonable.
  - Zelphyr 2y ago
    I personally don't think it's reasonable for a publication to suggest Apple is outright discontinuing a product in the headline, only to reveal that, no, they're actually just making a strategy shift with the product line. That's newsworthy all by itself. No clickbait needed.
    - BoorishBears 2y ago
      You seem to not realize that the Vision Pro is in fact ending, and work on a new visionOS device that is not a Pro device is what's taking place. As an AVP owner the thing is an absolute flop and it's not misleading to say that for the foreseeable future the line has been discontinued.
      - Zelphyr 2y ago
        I'm also an Apple Vision Pro owner. I don't see it as a flop and here's why: The first Macintosh was, inflation adjusted, double the price of the Apple Vision Pro, and they shipped about the same number of units in their first years respectively. People only see it as a flop because Apple is a gargantuan company now compared to then and they expect to see gargantuan sales of new products from Apple now. Apple is playing a different game this time around.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
So Google fails, Apple fails, Facebook has been failing for a while. It seems only Microsoft out of the big tech is still continuing its dominance now with AI and things like that. But this is a great time for startups to come up.
- leesec 2y ago
  You just listed 4 of the top 10 companies in the world by market cap. Failing is an overstatement
  - ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
    Throughout history every single company with the biggest market cap has failed.
    - voxadam 2y ago
      > Throughout history every single company with the biggest market cap has failed. A this point in history Apple has the largest market cap and has not failed. Sure, it will fail eventually but it hasn't yet.
      - ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
        It is failing now
        voxadam 2y ago
        [citation needed]
- joshstrange 2y ago
  Not sure where Google, Apple, or Facebook have "failed"... If we are taking a single random product's success/failure and projecting it on the whole company then Microsoft has failed more times than I can count, the most relevant to this discussion being the hololens and the biggest recent history blunder being the Microsoft Phone.
boppo1 2y ago
They should have made an sdk that made it easier to port games (and excel). Iirc you had to use their gesture control, there was no way to use kb+m right? At least with other vr you can create a usable mapping to typical FPS controls.
- joshstrange 2y ago
  You can connect a trackpad and keyboard to the AVP. Interestingly a trackpad worked but not a mouse. You can also connect a normal controller (like Xbox/PS).
indoordin0saur 2y ago
Everyone thought I was crazy for thinking this thing would get no traction. People want to spend less time plugged into screens, not less.
- Daedren 2y ago
  Or they believe the price to be too high for beta-testing a first-gen Apple device.
  - rchaud 2y ago
    Apple products have been successful specifically because they attract the mass market right away. Early adopters didn't use iPhones, they used HP iPaqs and Dell Axim PDAs running Windows Mobile. iPhones obsoleted them by simplifying the UI so anybody aged 8-80 could use it. If an Apple product seems like it's for 'early adopters', it's already failed.
- breck 2y ago
  > People want to spend less time plugged into screens, not less. Yes. I threw my phone away 2.5 years ago (after my 3yo daughter kept saying "no phone dadda") and it has made my life significantly better. Like living in the 1990's again. In a land of the distracted, the phoneless man is king. That being said, I think the AVP is very cool technology, and will have important applications in the years ahead. (Just not mass market for a long time, if ever)
- whatever1 2y ago
  We want more screens, just easier to use them. We are too lazy to even stand up to wear a headset. We want them in front of us all the time, everywhere, without moving a finger, instantly!
  - yunohn 2y ago
    I’m perfectly fine with standing up to get and use anything. For me, the problem is that it’s a /headset/ and not something else - as they have a host of ergonomics and comfort issues, causes fatigue and headaches, closes me off from my environment (despite their pass through idea), etc.
joejohnson 2y ago
This product will go the way of the Apple Watch. Deemed a failure before eventually becoming the category leader about 3 years and 3 iterations later. The price will come down, the (few) hardware rough edges will be softened, and enough support from the massive iOS developer pool will create a “killer app” that starts to build momentum here. Misleading FUD from Macrumors trying to get clicks.
- rchaud 2y ago
  All of those things could happen, and it still wouldn't go beyond Oculus Quest levels of popularity, i.e. low. Apple Watch is a status symbol in the same way Airpods and iPhones are. You're paying partially to be seen wearing them. The same is not true for Vision Pro or any headset. You'll just look like a Alamy stock image that comes up in an image search for 'technology'.
  - disqard 2y ago
    I'm trying to be charitable, but I agree with this take (instead of the "eventually succeed" comment above). Anecdotally, when I go to a restaurant, the server is often wearing an Apple Watch. I cannot extrapolate what that would look like for AVP...
- vehemenz 2y ago
  Possibly, but I don't think it's comparable because VR/AR headsets—whatever this category is—still has an unknown future. Smart watches had demonstrated use cases and a market before Apple released the Apple Watch. The Vision Pro is more like smart glasses, a category that still can't find a foothold 10+ years after the Google Glass.
- steveBK123 2y ago
  I've had the watch since v1 and I've almost gone full circle on it. Never had sound on, have disabled more and more notifications, steadily fewer and fewer complications until I finally just use the the silly Snoopy watch face instead. What I do love it for is all the health tracking, and that I have about a decade of data on myself now. Really just activity level and resting heart rate primarily. I'm at the point that I'd be similar (or, maybe more?) for a display-less slim Apple Fitness Band loaded with all the sensors of the Apple Watch.. and then go back to my analog wristwatch.
H12 2y ago
I'll be curious what the collecter's market looks like for Apple Vision Pro a decade from now. I imagine there are far fewer of these things out in the world than Apple hoped there would be, and I wonder how that'd impact long-term scarcity.
- system2 2y ago
  An unopened Apple Vision Pro in 50 years would probably be worth a fortune. Should we get one and hold onto it for 5 decades?
jerojero 2y ago
It makes sense, it's just too expensive. But I think they did this more to break into a new territory than to sell units. Of course, they didn't market it that way but that was probably their intention. Next they're gonna come up with a cheaper device, hopefully below 2000 dollars with most of the things that made the vision pro interesting.
- disqard 2y ago
  ...or they're going to pull out of a market where the smartest people in the world tried to answer "but what is it good for?" in the 90s and failed. I don't believe that Apple is going to hit this one out of the park... we'll see how my comment ages in 5 years. I'm happy to concede that AVP is probably great for watching movies on an airplane, but that's hardly comparable to the iPhone level of "world-changing".
jmyeet 2y ago
Rather than halting VR/AR efforts, this seems to be just cutting production of the current model. That doesn't mean there won't be future models but it does imply demand was lower than expected. We've had 10-15 years of companies trying to make VR (and AR more recently) happen. I just don't think it's ever going to happen. People are led astray by books like Snow Crash but there are fundamental issues with both VR and AR. Latency is a huge one for both. AR fundamnetally has an issue producing true blacks.
Kye 2y ago
Success of every modern attempt at VR hinges on limits of self-expression. Meta's torsoverse and Apple's extension of the office failed while Second Life continues on with a thriving virtual real estate and retail market and VRChat makes commercial deals to support a massive yearly furry convention.
- rchaud 2y ago
  Second Life doesn't pretend to be anything it's not, so it attracts an audience who want that authenticity. Apple and Facebook are the polar opposite of that. They look at a product segment and think "How we do sell this to X million people?" Turns out that regular people that buy iPhones and Macbooks, might not be as interested in VR.
jdlyga 2y ago
From the beginning of the Vision Pro, I always expected Apple to take the approach of giving everyone an excellent, Apple worthy headset regardless of price. From there, focus on keeping the specs exactly the same but reducing the price until it's a reasonable purchase for people.
- FrojoS 2y ago
  To do what?
nerdjon 2y ago
I really hate all of the talk about how this has been received. It was clear to anyone that was not trying to push clickbait headlines that this was never meant to be a mainstream device. Apple may charge a premium for their devices but they also understand the market enough to have lower priced Macs, iPads, and iPhones. No one thought a $3500 device was going to be mainstream when we see people complaining about phones being above $1k. The fact that the first one came out with the "Pro" name made this even more clear. Headlines like this make it seem like it "failed" in some way that is only because we are putting expectations on this to match other Apple products but this is just like the other "Hobby" projects that apple used to classify products like the Apple TV. The market for AR/VR is incredibly early (if it manages to take off at all) and the technology just isnt there yet. But while we wait for the hardware to catch up why not start working on an idealized vision of what it could work like with its own caveats. I would much rather this than the xreal's and similar headsets way over promising (borderline lying in their marketing) and severely under delivering.
koolala 2y ago
Head-mounted hardware needs to iterate fast. No one is happy with a bulky thing on their face. The iPhone moment will be when you don't think twice about wearing one.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
crooked-v 2y ago
Didn't they have a really small number of screens they even ordered in the first place? Did they change their minds from demand, or have they just finally run out of the first production run?
- danpalmer 2y ago
  This seems to be specifically a change in the assembly volume. I imagine they have most of the specialist components, such as the screens, already delivered and stored.
- samtheprogram 2y ago
  From what I heard, they will ultimately halt production, assuming no major changes in sales, at around 500,000 - 600,000 produced. Based on my understanding of the sales, they will have a considerable number of units still available even if the production stops.
- rahoulb 2y ago
  Before its release, I read that Sony had said they could produce 900,000 of the displays per year because the process was so complex. Obviously with 2 displays per device, half that is the maximum number of Vision Pros per year. I'm guessing Apple and Sony would have invested in improving the process if it had hit expectations.
- asadotzler 2y ago
  Sony display had capacity for 1 million screens in 2024. That's 500K devices. They are stopping short of that, but we don't know by how much. I'll estimate 400K devices made and sold in 2024 as the Pro model is sunset and Apple takes a shot at a Quest competitor in the $1000-2000 range.
  - esskay 2y ago
    400k made, sure. Sold? Not likely given we already know they've got a lot of stock. 400k sold would mean they are sold out. Likely closer to half of that. Dont forget they're still launching it in other countries this year, so they've clearly got ample stock left over.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AlexandrB 2y ago
Anyone who got a Vision Pro: are you still using it? I remember there was a lot of initial excitement on HN about the possibilities of using it as virtual monitors for work or as a more immersive way to watch movies. Is it good for these applications long term, after the novelty wears off?
- epolanski 2y ago
  I remember few people having very positive feedback for home entertainment.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    I do too, but I also wonder if the negatives (weight, isolation, heat) become apparent over time while the initial wow-factor wears off. Edit: Or perhaps the software has improved and it's even better now that it was at launch?
  - das_keyboard 2y ago
    I also wonder if the same people wouldn't have the same benefits with way cheaper AR classes like from xreal[1] [1] https://www.xreal.com/de/air/ https://www.xreal.com/de/air/
    - crooked-v 2y ago
      The PPD is good, but a 46 degree FoV is pretty narrow for a virtual screen, and it's fixed in place in relation to your head. One of the big convenience differences of a true headset (even a cheaper one like the Quest line) is that you can move your head around and still have the "screen" fixed in place, so it doesn't get in the way as you look for your popcorn or whatever.
- jwells89 2y ago
  I still use mine for the things I watch by myself (with TV filling its usual role for social watches). I want to try it for other purposes but keep forgetting to.
- 2y ago
epolanski 2y ago
It's invasive, heavy and more anti social than smartphones. Battery life is too short. Low volumes make software development for it unattractive. Companies keep pouring into ar/vr billions and no sigle killer use case to show.
- jsheard 2y ago
  > Companies keep pouring into ar/vr billions and no single killer use case to show. Beat Saber did pretty well but then Apple made a headset that can't even play Beat Saber.
  - bane 2y ago
    Apple has, somewhere deep in its DNA, an almost pathological aversion to become the Amiga -- a ridiculously capable computer for its time that is mostly known today for games. They've always low-prioritized games and its really shaped the company.
    - gyomu 2y ago
      The problem with video games is that publishers want to get on as many platforms as they can, so they have no loyalty to any specific hardware platform, which goes against Apple’s entire modus operandi - Apple wants its 3rd party developers making things only for Apple platforms, so that it’ll be really hard for customers to switch. The only way to get around that in gaming is to have 1st/2nd party developers (like Nintendo/Sony tend to do), but making games has never been in Apple’s culture. Movies/TV shows are a bit closer to their DNA, and they’ve started producing those with mixed results - games would be a much taller order.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Really should have done with Meta did and grab one talented group to help them do this. And just work on a portfolio of decently fun, professionally made games. Not like Amazon that tried to just jump headfirst into MMOs and pretend you can buy yourself a fun game. It's much too late in this stage of the industry to just look attractive for exclusives; the industry standardized (compared to a PS1 disc vs a N64 cartridge) and no one's throwing enough money to carry that plan long enough to pay off Like Microsoft kind of did. Not even FAANGs. But it's never too late to just make good games and foster series your platform is known for, like Nintendo. But then again, Meta just shuttered that studio despite a hit game series from them, so who knows what's going on anymore?
HatchedLake721 2y ago
> People are going to only read the headline and interpret it as “discontinue”. Like the article says, it just means they have enough inventory until they replace it with something cheaper.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  This is such an odd take. Like trying to defend Apple from an accusation that was not made - The headline is a good representation of the news; production was suspended because they are sitting on too much unsold stock. Typically in-demand products with limited availability go out of stock fast and don't sit unsold. This is why it always frustrating to read any negative news on companies like Apple or Tesla. They have some annoyingly sycophantic fanbase that always wants to downplay and misdirect any bad news. If Microsoft made some AR glasses that sat unsold and they suspended production, no one would show up to say "actually, it is not being discontinued, nothing to see here". Nor should they.
  - jachee 2y ago
    Apple also have some weapons-grade haters out there. Who’ll take even positive news and use it to be divisive and derisive.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      So does Microsoft. Or Google. Or Toyota. Or any other sufficiently large company. They are put under proper scrutiny. But those are not white-knighted by a fanbase that always feel like they need to protect the multi-billion dollar company from negativity. Using myself as an example, there are companies I like. I happen to like Nintendo for example. I still call a failed product a failure (e.g.: Wii U), and sometimes I even dislike their successful products (I always hated N64 for that retarded controller). Why Apple "fanbase" abandon all critical thinking is baffling.
RicoElectrico 2y ago
iPod - solved a real user need, developed in 1 year* Vision Pro - solution looking for a problem, in development for ≈8 years. It really makes you think how clueless Apple has become post-Jobs ... *4 years if we acknowledge it was an existing category and Apple just improved on competition [copy-pasted from my Mastodon]
- fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago
  Son, I’m going to tell you one word that will change this company forever: SERVICES
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    It did change Microsoft, and I am quite sure Apple fans won't appreciate a Windows like experience in the name of SERVICES.
- II2II 2y ago
  Funny thing is, Apple probably thought the iPod would be a niche product that would only appeal to existing Apple customers when they developed it. If they did not take the risk, they probably wouldn't exist today. While I don't think the Vision Pro is a good fit for Apple (most of their products are portable, while the Vision Pro is unlikely to have much uptake outside of the home and office), it is hard to gauge whether it would be adopted without actually bringing it to the market.
  - system2 2y ago
    I doubt it. MP3 players were popular when the iPod was released. They just took a share of the pie.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  It is the same Apple after the first time Jobs went away, however this time he isn't coming back. And while Apple has millions to burn, they better find something else other than doing iPhones.
dylan604 2y ago
Is it Newton bad? Wonder what the morale is for the team working on a clearly not successful product? Do the other device team members duck their head as they pass them by like it's someone you know but they don't that their significant other is cheating? Do they serve up platitudes like "keep your head up"?
- fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago
  I’m guessing they all knew it wasn’t ready to ship, and would likely fail, and fail hard with that price. Now Meta is out here demoing very impressive glasses - which was the goal Apple had but couldn’t make work - so I’m curious if Meta is likely the more exciting place to work for this tech.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Don't worry, Apple will rip open the Facebook glasses and copy them with a slick new form factor.
    - fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago
      SPACE GREY
    - tesch1 2y ago
      Having used both AVP and occulus 3, the AVP is just way better user experience already, no need for them to copy an inferior product. Would expect usability delta to persist, (as well as the price delta.)
  - wmf 2y ago
    The Meta glasses reportedly cost $10,000.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Killer for me is how klunky it is for multiple users. Had they supported swapping users seamlessly, I’d have bought two: it would get more use than the PS5 (or TV, for that matter). That said, almost everything Apple does is personal computing. Maybe AR is just a bad fit until it can fit into the form factor of sunglasses. (And not be shit.)
benwilber0 2y ago
VR tech still isn't ready yet. It needs very high-res video streams which basically no internet provider/CDN can offer at scale. 40Mbps+ HEVC just isn't scalable. So the only content is whatever can be downloaded to the device itself. A few games? A cool screensaver experience? It's all cool, but mostly novelty tech.
- fwip 2y ago
  The resolution of the screens is not the resolution of the media you play on it. You can stream even a 1080p movie to it and it will look fine, because it is playing in "physical" space, not filling your view completely. It is like watching a floating television or movie screen.
  - benwilber0 2y ago
    For streaming in VR it has to be at least 4K per eye. So 8k in the general case, but realistically it will be higher than that. Nobody can stream 2x 4K to my Apple VR headset. I can barely get a single 4K stream to my TV!
    - fwip 2y ago
      If you mean you're trying to send the entire viewport, you simply can't stream that over the Internet, even at lower relations. Not for bandwidth reasons, but for latency reasons. A 20ms delay (RTT) between your head moving and the camera moving is a one-way ticket to hurl city. If you did not mean that, please reread my original comment again.
      - fwip 2y ago
        Edit for clarity: A total latency of 20ms from motion->display update is not egregiously bad. But by RTT, I mean the additional latency induced by going to a central server over the internet and back. You've also got latency from input->sensor, sensor->packet, [packet-flight-time], frame-gen-time, [response-packet-flight-time], response-packet->decoded-video, and signal->display-update. You simply should not put the video feed any further away from your headset than a computer on your desk. Even then, a wired connection gives much better results, because the experience is consistently timed.
carlosjobim 2y ago
I only see discussions about the Vision Pro from an entertainment perspective. To me it is clear that with the capabilities and the price, it should be a professional device to be used in industry, military, and such. Then the price is cheap. But this means that more traditional sectors need to make software that takes advantage of AR.
Fricken 2y ago
One place you don't see the Vision Pro suspended is on Tim Cook's face. There is weak demand for a Vision so dim and weak. The visionary pros at Apple couldn't see a clear provision for Tim Cook's half-baked Vision Pro. Apple shall proceed without Vision.
ChumpGPT 2y ago
How about have a pair of glasses (iGlasses) with some kind of ability to connect to your iPhone and transfer information via small discrete camera/voice command via airpods. All the processing is done on the iPhone and displayed on the inside of the lens, sort of like a heads up display. Offer prescription services or clear lens and sleek style frames. News, txt, email, video, maps, health info, search, access to Apple AI, etc, etc. I don't need VR, just Terminator style information. I'm dreaming I know....
- crooked-v 2y ago
  Personally, it seems obvious to me that this is the desired end state of AVP-related development, but somewhere along the line they decided that pure AR tech just wasn't good enough yet for the display quality and UX stability they wanted, and so they ended up with the headset as a clunky hardware compromise built around an OS mostly designed for the glasses use case.
a2128 2y ago
The Vision Pro feels more like a spatial tablet than a spatial computer. A computer should be capable of handling productive work tasks such as developing software. Vision Pro's only relevant capabilities seem to be mirroring your computer's screen and acting as a device to run your test apps, just like a tablet. My experience receiving a Vision Pro demo at an Apple store also involved a poor Apple rep having to keep a straight face showing me basic iPad games when I asked about gaming. This thing has some of the most advanced VR headset hardware and their best gaming demo was some iPad games where you tap and hold to jump over mountains.
- tim333 2y ago
  Yeah I think it might of worked better if they made it open like a mac/pc where you can run whatever software. Geeky types could have better programing tools, gamers could get fancier stuff.
  - walterbell 2y ago
    Apple's billion-dollar Vision Pro dilemma can be solved by the courageously coincidental public discovery of an iPadOS zero-day jailbreak, enabling early adopters to explore the limits of both tablet and headset. This side door can be closed in 24 months, after rolling up the most lucrative use cases into the core OS/API of future tablets and headsets. iPadOS has zero-days aplenty, so this doesn't need much effort from Apple beyond benign indifference.
jart 2y ago
I own an Apple Vision Pro and I think it's one of the most impressive pieces of technology that I almost never use, for two reasons: 1. Too much startup friction. I share the Apple Vision Pro with someone else who like me also loves it and uses it all the time. But since we both wear glasses, there's a 2x ~10 minute process for recalibrating the eyesight each time we switch. It's an expensive device at $3500 which I'm happy to pay for quality, but to pay that twice, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Apple goes too far with the greed here not letting us set up separate profiles. Netflix wouldn't get away with that. You not only have to repeat the setup process when switching, you have to share access to your apple user account too. 2. My main interest in a vision headset is I want a new virtual workstation where I can watch movies on a gigantic screen beneath a gigantic translucent terminal where I can do my daily work. There's a nice app called La Terminal that does just that. Sadly it has some serious keyboard latency issues since I don't think they've put as much focus into their support for this platform. I won't tolerate anything less than optimal latency in my work tools. So until I get around to building a terminal app for Vision Pro on my own, there's not a whole lot I'm interested in doing with it aside from watching the occasional movie on the moon. I would also really like for Vision Pro to have an ethernet port because I don't know how to run a wifi network without jitter. If you haven't tried one of these things, then you really should. I didn't realize when I first put one on that it was a fully synthetic display until I tried reading the 10pt text on my computer monitor. It's really a stunning thing to witness. This Vision Pro is probably the best glimpse we can get today of what the singularity is going to be like in the future. So definitely give it a try at least once.
- brailsafe 2y ago
  I can respect that it's probably worth trying, or even worth buying if you have a particular case for it and a rather large income, but I guess what is lost on me about the AVP (and by extension iPads, more expensive phones) is that they just seem to be a way to extract multiple thousands of dollars for essentially the same entertainment we've already been doing quite well for a very long time. Like how much should watching stuff be worth to people!? Am I crazy? I don't even dislike movies, but $3500 usd might be what I already spend on all forms of entertainment + 2 years worth of food, and maybe all of my transportation for half a year or more, combined. I'd just kind of hope for something more substantial y'know?
tetrisgm 2y ago
Honestly, a lot of the critics would have bought the device for $500. It’s just that the price doesn’t have a selling point that justifies the current pricing
shearnie 2y ago
Whoever releases a pair of non-clunky glasses with eight hour battery that can do sufficient AR for under a thousand bucks will have the iphone moment and own the world. Looks like a race between Meta and Apple. Unless Microsoft has something sneaky in the works.
- tim333 2y ago
  At the iphone moment most people used cell phones and the iphone was just a better one. With vr/ar it's a bit niche. I don't know how many people would want one even if it was cheap and good. Looking up the stats a lot have been sold but I'm not sure they get used much. We had a Quest 2 knocking around the flat which I didn't use and I did the vision pro demo which was cool but not sure I'd have used one much if they gave me one.
bradgranath 2y ago
WHAT IS IT FOR???
- system2 2y ago
  Immersive porn.
  - tim333 2y ago
    I couldn't find the icon for that when I did the demo.
wkat4242 2y ago
Huh they didn't even bother to sell it in countries like the Netherlands and Spain yet. Weird.
ein0p 2y ago
To charge $3.5K for something that can only be used by one person is an epic fail of product vision. Like, what am I supposed to do if there are 4 people in my family? Or if I want to use the thing both at home and at work? I get that they’d prefer it if I bought several, but the price point puts that well outside any realm of possibility.
yapyap 2y ago
lmao
5350-uiop-1130 2y ago
classic mistake to sell hardware without a killer app. well i can't think of a single killer app for this or any VR headset for me. at $3.5k there is pressure to position this as a leap forward in solutions to non existent problems. watching films on a flight or using a virtual desktop don't excite most people.
- pbmonster 2y ago
  > well i can't think of a single killer app for this or any VR headset for me. For a headset the size of a pair of glasses? * A well-designed HUD that can seamlessly integrate 95%+ of the "utility functions" (as opposed to entertainment functions) from my phone into my field of vision. Calls, messages, navigation, calendar, notes. I never want to look at my phone unless I'm bored. * One of those "speed reader" [0] apps that will flicker a message at 600WPM at me. This should probably interface with all long-form text. * Subtitles/translations for the people I talk to. * An "offline dating" app that only allows you to swipe people you see I firmly belive AR is the future of personal computing, but the hardware needs to gain an order of magnitude in capabilities. [0] https://www.spreeder.com/app.php https://www.spreeder.com/app.php, but smarter (word groups, adjust displaytime for word complexity)
lynx23 2y ago
Awww, Apple, don't become Google... I mean, if you go for a product like this, you should be prepared to sink money into it for at least 3 to 5 years. Thats what you owe to early adopters. There is nothing more sad then owning a piece of hardware which totally stopped being supported. Examples like this will steadily reduce the willingness of consumers to play with new stuff. The risk will eventually just be too high.
- vaylian 2y ago
  Did you by any chance by one?
  - lynx23 2y ago
    No. In fact, I am the antithesis to a vision pro user. I am 100% blind. Will save me a lot of money in the upcoming AR world. And once it is finally established, it will also finally cut me off from everything digital. Fun times ahead. The digital divide is unstoppable.
mrweasel 2y ago
Does anyone else find it incredible that they are actually making 1000 of these per day. Apple normally does not like holding inventory, so how many of these do they have in warehouses?
- AmVess 2y ago
  Most of them. Either as new units or returns. I'm surprised they didn't stop production months after release as it was very clear the product would be a complete failure based upon price alone.
rahoulb 2y ago
I wonder if the lack of third party software for it is because the resentment with the App Store has built up so much? Building an iPhone app? Pretty much required. Building an iPad app? Almost free when you're building an iPhone app (depending on your tolerance for UI/UX) Building a Watch app? It's a popular device but is it worth the investment? Most people say no. Building for a brand new platform where we have to live with Apple's rules? No thanks.
- troupo 2y ago
  The most popular apps on Vision Pro sold tens of copies. Not tens of thousands. Tens. So, for a ~$5000 in hardware costs and unknown amount of dev time you get 10-50 dollars in return. You don't need any feeling of resentment to run an easy ROI calculation
- ulfw 2y ago
  Not really. It's merely a chicken and egg problem. Why develop for a platform that has almost zero users? Why buy an expensive device that has almost zero apps?
  - rob74 2y ago
    Agreed - but in the past, Apple has been able to overcome this issue for several new products. If third party developers are understandably less enthusiastic to invest in this platform, Apple could either develop apps themself or pay third party developers to do it (what a novel concept!). But they don't seem willing to do it...
- heliographe 2y ago
  I’m an indie app developer building photography apps because I love photography. I don’t harbor any particular resentment towards the App Store; in fact I am fine giving Apple 15% of my proceeds (I make way less than $1M a year) to handle content delivery, refund requests, minor advertisement, etc. I bought a Vision Pro on release, and have a number of ideas/prototypes for it. After a few weeks of hacking, there are two simple reasons why I didn’t pursue development of them any further: - the APIs are still really early stage (eg nothing around windowing, I’d like to build some pro photo editing apps that’d require advanced windowing functionality) - even if I were to work around the API shortcomings, take the time to develop a full app, and then release it - then how many sales will I get at most? Maybe a thousand? Compared to the iPhone/iPad/Mac, that’s nothing. So I figured waiting a year or two for the APIs to get better and more people to have access to the hardware made sense. Also, I went from considering making AVP exclusive apps to making apps that work on Mac/iPad, and maybe have some bonus features on the AVP - I think that’s a better way to go about it (nothing released like that yet, still in development). All that said, there’s something magical about the AVP’s high quality screens for photography. Seeing your photos in space right in front of you is definitely one step above looking at them on a phone/tablet/laptop screen (and one step below looking at large high quality prints of them, but that requires a different kind of effort).
aucisson_masque 2y ago
> Some factories suspended production of Vision Pro components as early as May based on Apple's weak sales forecasts, and warehouses remain filled with tens of thousands of undelivered parts. Next iphone are going to cost more and more, such a failure must have cost them a lot of money.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
esskay 2y ago
Hardware aside they've still not found a purpose for this thing to even exist. They should've come out guns blazing with a ton of content for it. Most places would've paid game developers to make games for it (actual games, not the junk on Apple arcade), do special movie extras, fund loads of apps, etc. They should've had a $2-3bn budget for content on top of production. Instead they just seemed to release it then walk away hoping everyone else would figure out the point of the product and make stuff for free. It failed.
pjmlp 2y ago
To be expected, I never understood Apple's point in making such a big thing of a VR headset, they were arriving to the party, as everyone was leaving the VR party, jumping into their cars to join the AI house party down the block. Additionally at such a price, and with the current developer feelings regarding store practices impose by Apple. Naturally it turned out to be such a niche product, unstainable to keep going.
mrbigbob 2y ago
the vision pro should have been released as devkits only. allowed at least 12 months of app developement and then released a pro and base headset for around $1,000. also im sorry but the whole external screen so you can see someones eyes was a waste and added unnecessary weight and price to an already bloated price point i believe apple can make a compelling mixed reality headset but they need compelling apps and very few are going to develop if the platform is over $2000 in my opinion
anabanana9 2y ago
[dead]

144 points by mfiguiere 2y ago

I wonder why Apple didn't go for glasses instead like the ones Meta is doing recently; a less bulky and cheaper product would have probably sold more.

matrix2003 2y ago
I would assume they said their market research said otherwise. Personally, I have 0 interest in glasses, but a lot in quality, privacy respecting VR. Just not $3500 of it. I would have been interested in a $3500 headset if that M1 chip had run macOS, so I could ditch my laptop on trips and take my office with me.
- aldarisbm 2y ago
  100%, if it run macos it would've been a no brainer. I believe I am decent earner, but 3500$ is not justifiable from the benefit I get from it. _and I wanted to buy it really bad_
- joshstrange 2y ago
  I agree that the OS is the most limiting factor of the AVP. In its current form it's just an iPad with all the downsides that brings. I had high hopes for it as a MBP replacement or companion but MVD was disappointing and so I returned mine.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    Were you planning on bringing a keyboard and mouse around with you? VR "gesture" controls are godawful and nothing has supplanted mouse and keyboard because they are absolutely wonderful control methods. If you ARE carrying around a mouse and keyboard and AVP, that seems like a lot more clunk and silliness than just using a damn laptop. What are you doing that actually benefits from gluing the screen to your face? I want to be explicit: I love VR and have been hugely into it since the very first oculus dev kits, but other than flight/driving simulators and gun games which all hugely hugely benefit from the physical immersion VR provides, there is nothing worth doing in VR. Not that many games actually benefit from a physical presence. Almost nobody playing FIFA or CoD actually wants to do it in VR. The (really fun and quite well made) CoD ripoffs and other shooters in VR are nearly empty, because so few people are willing to stand up while playing. The Wii made this clear 18 years ago FFS. I'm still waiting for a single use case that isn't sim driving, sim flying, or shooting, or beat saber. Billions invested into producing something, and still there is nothing.
    - ashildr 2y ago
      > What are you doing that actually benefits from gluing the screen to your face? For a start you get multiple very large virtual screens that are a lot bigger than the screen in a notebook. This to me is an interesting use case.
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        Have you actually tried that though? People always bring this up like it's some cyberpunk fantasy but working with a one pound weight strapped to your face is awful and staring at screens situation an inch from your eyes is really really hard on them and absolutely sucks. I bet using VR for 8 hours a day would actually hurt your eyes. Actual VR/AR desktop mirroring is a thing that exists now. It's a niche of a niche of a niche because it's not a good experience. It's interesting for the five minutes until it becomes unbearable. Consider that many simracers, the niche that VR is the absolute best for, do not regularly use VR, because it's just too much fuss to put a damn set of goggles on, even when you are already sat in a purpose built simracing rig!
    - joshstrange 2y ago
      > Were you planning on bringing a keyboard and mouse around with you? VR "gesture" controls are godawful and nothing has supplanted mouse and keyboard because they are absolutely wonderful control methods. Yes, either external or the ones built into my MBP > If you ARE carrying around a mouse and keyboard and AVP, that seems like a lot more clunk and silliness than just using a damn laptop. What are you doing that actually benefits from gluing the screen to your face? I was hoping to use it as a companion (replacement was always "maybe in the future") initially so I was going to carry the AVP+MBP if things had worked out. Not always, but if I was going to be somewhere for an extended period of time (vacation/visiting friends or family/etc) then I would take both and have the "same setup" that I have at my desk at home (AVP+MBP). This was going to be an alternative to my 3-4 monitors (I have the same desk setup in 2 locations and duplicating everything was expensive and annoying). Unfortunately the MVD was too blurry and VR is too limiting (but mosting the MVD issues) so I returned my headset but that's what I was hoping to accomplish and how I was going to use it all.
- EGreg 2y ago
  Whether it's VR, "Metaverse", or AI models, I want it to be open source. I don't want to spend 8 hours a day in some corporation's world, even more than we already are. The incentives are not aligned. The personal computer revolution (that Apple helped kickstart) was amazing. People could actually run the software locally, instead of a mainframe. People bought apps to run on their computer and videos to run on their own VCR. I feel like the Web started taking things backwards, empowering "the remote server" again, like a mainframe. Now, we have Netflix, YouTube etc. and the broadband internet hurdle has been surmounted for many. We are fighting the wrong battles with "net neutrality". The real battle should be whether we can host the software on machines of our choice, or not.
  - dartos 2y ago
    > The real battle should be whether we can host the software on machines of our choice, or not. Evidently there is a market for those who want to run their own software and those who don’t care. Apple caters to the latter. Meta seems to be taking the more open route. Luckily pretty much all major VR platforms use OpenXR, so we have a better start than in the past.
    - EGreg 2y ago
      When it comes to AI, yes you guys are lucky Meta had that snafu with LLaMa researchers and chose to seize the moment and make LLaMa available freely to everyone. Otherwise it would be quite a different world. Mark Z returned to his open-source roots that he had with Synapse and Wirehog back in the day, before Sean Parker and Peter Thiel “corrupted” him. But when it comes to everything else, it is the opposite, in my opinion. Apple sells you the hardware and you install apps locally. It’s not open source, but at least it runs locally. And Apple cares about your privacy. Facebook is the opposite, it is ad-supported, it will never give you their backend source code or let you run your own social network. They only promote “React” front end framework and other ancillary things. They will try to take your data by hook or by crook (surreptitiously recording your camera and audio as well). Their “Metaverse” play would have to recouo the tens of billions spent on development. But yeah when it comes to AI, you guys lucked out. Zuck’s image has improved since the first 15 years of “dumbf%[#s” giving him their data. He now surfs in a suit and looks much cooler. But remember — it’s people like Linus Torvalds, Tim Berners-Lee, and all the “BDFL”s of all the languages you use (like Guido Vom Rossum for Python and the Zend guys behind PHP) who really create most of the wealth for the world. If not for open source, you’d be spending more and more of your life in some corporation’s world. Just ask yourself, when the following technologies enter your home or your body, would you rather all be hooked up to a corporation like the Borg, or at least have your own installation where you have a say: TeslaBot in your house Neuralink in your brain Microsoft Recall recording Hours in “the Metaverse” Security cameras everywhere What do you think the incentives will be for TeslaBot or Microsoft Recall surreptitiously storing everything they can about you, including your passwords? When facing the temptation. Microsoft has already done it. Facebook has already done it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism But it can go far beyond that. How difficult would it be for TeslaBot to get all the info to impersonate you? All your mannerisms, voice recordings, your heartbeat rhythms, gait, everything?
apwell23 2y ago
Meta glasses are not selling either. Meta's pathetic attempt to make them 'cool' by using raybans and European models is laughable.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pavlov 2y ago
  The CEO of the Ray-Ban brand owner says otherwise: https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/new-ray-ban-meta-glasses-have-outsold-previous-version-essilux-ceo-says-2024-07-16/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/n... Granted, it’s relative: “… the new generation of smart glasses have sold more in a few months than the old ones did in two years.” But it doesn’t sound like they’re discouraged.
  - rchaud 2y ago
    Translation: we sold almost nothing from the previous generation. If the product was a hit, we'd just know about it. We'd see it around, people would talk about it. It wouldn't require an ambiguous comment from the CEO.
  - apwell23 2y ago
    Thats like saying I improved my running speed last month more than Usain bolt did in a decade.
joshstrange 2y ago
That's the thing, Meta is /not/ "doing" glasses. They had a very limited run at $10K+/ea just for internal testing IIRC. That's very different from a shipping $3.5K product. It's also not clear if Meta could ship their glasses at ~$10K or if they'd need to charge even more. Apple has repeatedly said that AR is where they want to be and glasses are what they want to do (directly and via leaks) but the tech wasn't there yet. "There yet" can mean "we can't figure out how to get the cost down to something reasonable". The AVP was clearly a "Let's fake it till we make it" product with faux-AR (or maybe it's still just "AR" but faux-"glasses"?) with the end goal of removing the ski visor for just glasses.
- 7thpower 2y ago
  I think part of the challenge Apple now has is convincing developers who were already on the fence that they should take the plunge now rather than wait for what looks to be a clearly superior form factor. It’s not like customers (aside from those who already have the hardware) are beating down anyone’s door asking for the Vision Pro. This is very handwavy, but if Apple does intend to pursue the glasses form factor it would probably benefit them to do the very make the very un-apple move of articulating how investments into developing for Vision Pro will extend into glasses.
  - joshstrange 2y ago
    > make the very un-apple move of articulating how investments into developing for Vision Pro will extend into glasses I doubt they will come out and say that specifically but they pushed ARKit and VRKit for year prior to the AVP.
- butlike 2y ago
  I don't know, I just tested the Meta Quest last night and at $300 it looked GOOD. Give it a few years and I bet they could get that level of fidelity into a glass frame @ ~$1000-1200
  - joshstrange 2y ago
    Well the Meta Quest 2 starts $500 so I'm not sure if you were using a MQ2 or MQ3S (which has essentially the screens of the MQ2 from what I understand). I have tried the MQ2 (I own one) and I have tried the MQ3. The 3 is better but the resolution is still not great, the AVP was much better than either. I did like the color passthrough on the MQ3 (vs grayscale on the 2) but I wouldn't say any of it looked "GOOD", it was adequate but still too blurry. I think I'll end up getting a MQ3 eventually or maybe the next version at launch but I'm just not really drawn to VR. After the first few months of my MQ2 I lost interest and it's just collecting dust.
the_duke 2y ago
All the rumors always said they were working on both in parallel. I assume they could not yet make glasses happen in a way that fit their expectations or at a reasonable price point. Even the Vision Pro is a device with big trade-offs (external battery, crazy expensive).
JansjoFromIkea 2y ago
My guess is the Vision Pro was largely driven by a need to get real world data. By giving it all the bells and whistles they get to find out about more things and keep it at such a price range that it avoids being viewed as a colossal consumer level failure (instead if it's known by the general public at all it's as a weird but impressive premium level failure)
- FrojoS 2y ago
  It was driven by sunk cost fallacy.
akmarinov 2y ago
Apple 100% has something like Meta's Orion glasses or probably even better as a prototype in their basement. Instead of an Orion puck for processing - it's your iPhone Instead of the bracelet for extra precision - it's a future Apple Watch prototype. They just won't do what Meta did - show off prototype hardware that they know they won't release in its current form and are working towards making viable for mass production.

Gemdation 2y ago

One of the commenters was thinking the same thing as me > People are going to only read the headline and interpret it as “discontinue”. Like the article says, it just means they have enough inventory until they replace it with something cheaper. [https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/report-apple-may-stop-producing-vision-pro-by-the-end-of-2024.2440767/post-33507400#post-33507400 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/report-apple-may-stop-p...] I wonder how Apple would go through with this, hopefully with a better form.

SoftTalker 2y ago
Maybe they are finding that they're like the Segway, just too geeky for the mainstream market.
- alberth 2y ago
  Probably more like "what would I use this for" is a basic question that can't be answered right now. Time will tell if a "killer app" is found.
  - steveBK123 2y ago
    Yeah it really feels like a devkit they sold in hopes someone would come up with the killer app because they hadn't figured it out themselves yet. It's a shame as it seems like they maxed out the tech specs, but given the state of the art it still ends up being too low resolution for true MacOS productivity replacement, while also being too heavy & tethered to a short lived battery pack. Maybe a worse-is-better version that is cheaper/lighter will sell more for entertainment uses.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I guess if they just called it a devkit, nobody would have bought it. But, with the specs, price, and the ridiculous form factor, it was a devkit in all but name.
      - 2y ago

_f1dq 2y ago

I can't believe MacRumors has stooped so low. Headline: Apple May Stop Producing Vision Pro by the End of 2024 First paragraph: Apple has abruptly reduced production of the Vision Pro headset and could stop making the current version of the device completely by the end of 2024

mattgreenrocks 2y ago
They're definitely slipping more and more into optimizing excessively for engagement at this point.
rfw300 2y ago
Later on, it also says that Apple was stopped work on the second-generation Vision Pro and is focusing only on a lower-cost device. So that’s actually pretty reasonable.
- Zelphyr 2y ago
  I personally don't think it's reasonable for a publication to suggest Apple is outright discontinuing a product in the headline, only to reveal that, no, they're actually just making a strategy shift with the product line. That's newsworthy all by itself. No clickbait needed.
  - BoorishBears 2y ago
    You seem to not realize that the Vision Pro is in fact ending, and work on a new visionOS device that is not a Pro device is what's taking place. As an AVP owner the thing is an absolute flop and it's not misleading to say that for the foreseeable future the line has been discontinued.
    - Zelphyr 2y ago
      I'm also an Apple Vision Pro owner. I don't see it as a flop and here's why: The first Macintosh was, inflation adjusted, double the price of the Apple Vision Pro, and they shipped about the same number of units in their first years respectively. People only see it as a flop because Apple is a gargantuan company now compared to then and they expect to see gargantuan sales of new products from Apple now. Apple is playing a different game this time around.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago

So Google fails, Apple fails, Facebook has been failing for a while. It seems only Microsoft out of the big tech is still continuing its dominance now with AI and things like that. But this is a great time for startups to come up.

leesec 2y ago
You just listed 4 of the top 10 companies in the world by market cap. Failing is an overstatement
- ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
  Throughout history every single company with the biggest market cap has failed.
  - voxadam 2y ago
    > Throughout history every single company with the biggest market cap has failed. A this point in history Apple has the largest market cap and has not failed. Sure, it will fail eventually but it hasn't yet.
    - ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
      It is failing now
      - voxadam 2y ago
        [citation needed]
joshstrange 2y ago
Not sure where Google, Apple, or Facebook have "failed"... If we are taking a single random product's success/failure and projecting it on the whole company then Microsoft has failed more times than I can count, the most relevant to this discussion being the hololens and the biggest recent history blunder being the Microsoft Phone.

boppo1 2y ago

They should have made an sdk that made it easier to port games (and excel). Iirc you had to use their gesture control, there was no way to use kb+m right? At least with other vr you can create a usable mapping to typical FPS controls.

joshstrange 2y ago
You can connect a trackpad and keyboard to the AVP. Interestingly a trackpad worked but not a mouse. You can also connect a normal controller (like Xbox/PS).

indoordin0saur 2y ago

Everyone thought I was crazy for thinking this thing would get no traction. People want to spend less time plugged into screens, not less.

Daedren 2y ago
Or they believe the price to be too high for beta-testing a first-gen Apple device.
- rchaud 2y ago
  Apple products have been successful specifically because they attract the mass market right away. Early adopters didn't use iPhones, they used HP iPaqs and Dell Axim PDAs running Windows Mobile. iPhones obsoleted them by simplifying the UI so anybody aged 8-80 could use it. If an Apple product seems like it's for 'early adopters', it's already failed.
breck 2y ago
> People want to spend less time plugged into screens, not less. Yes. I threw my phone away 2.5 years ago (after my 3yo daughter kept saying "no phone dadda") and it has made my life significantly better. Like living in the 1990's again. In a land of the distracted, the phoneless man is king. That being said, I think the AVP is very cool technology, and will have important applications in the years ahead. (Just not mass market for a long time, if ever)
whatever1 2y ago
We want more screens, just easier to use them. We are too lazy to even stand up to wear a headset. We want them in front of us all the time, everywhere, without moving a finger, instantly!
- yunohn 2y ago
  I’m perfectly fine with standing up to get and use anything. For me, the problem is that it’s a /headset/ and not something else - as they have a host of ergonomics and comfort issues, causes fatigue and headaches, closes me off from my environment (despite their pass through idea), etc.

joejohnson 2y ago

This product will go the way of the Apple Watch. Deemed a failure before eventually becoming the category leader about 3 years and 3 iterations later. The price will come down, the (few) hardware rough edges will be softened, and enough support from the massive iOS developer pool will create a “killer app” that starts to build momentum here. Misleading FUD from Macrumors trying to get clicks.

rchaud 2y ago
All of those things could happen, and it still wouldn't go beyond Oculus Quest levels of popularity, i.e. low. Apple Watch is a status symbol in the same way Airpods and iPhones are. You're paying partially to be seen wearing them. The same is not true for Vision Pro or any headset. You'll just look like a Alamy stock image that comes up in an image search for 'technology'.
- disqard 2y ago
  I'm trying to be charitable, but I agree with this take (instead of the "eventually succeed" comment above). Anecdotally, when I go to a restaurant, the server is often wearing an Apple Watch. I cannot extrapolate what that would look like for AVP...
vehemenz 2y ago
Possibly, but I don't think it's comparable because VR/AR headsets—whatever this category is—still has an unknown future. Smart watches had demonstrated use cases and a market before Apple released the Apple Watch. The Vision Pro is more like smart glasses, a category that still can't find a foothold 10+ years after the Google Glass.
steveBK123 2y ago
I've had the watch since v1 and I've almost gone full circle on it. Never had sound on, have disabled more and more notifications, steadily fewer and fewer complications until I finally just use the the silly Snoopy watch face instead. What I do love it for is all the health tracking, and that I have about a decade of data on myself now. Really just activity level and resting heart rate primarily. I'm at the point that I'd be similar (or, maybe more?) for a display-less slim Apple Fitness Band loaded with all the sensors of the Apple Watch.. and then go back to my analog wristwatch.

H12 2y ago

I'll be curious what the collecter's market looks like for Apple Vision Pro a decade from now. I imagine there are far fewer of these things out in the world than Apple hoped there would be, and I wonder how that'd impact long-term scarcity.

system2 2y ago
An unopened Apple Vision Pro in 50 years would probably be worth a fortune. Should we get one and hold onto it for 5 decades?

jerojero 2y ago

It makes sense, it's just too expensive. But I think they did this more to break into a new territory than to sell units. Of course, they didn't market it that way but that was probably their intention. Next they're gonna come up with a cheaper device, hopefully below 2000 dollars with most of the things that made the vision pro interesting.

disqard 2y ago
...or they're going to pull out of a market where the smartest people in the world tried to answer "but what is it good for?" in the 90s and failed. I don't believe that Apple is going to hit this one out of the park... we'll see how my comment ages in 5 years. I'm happy to concede that AVP is probably great for watching movies on an airplane, but that's hardly comparable to the iPhone level of "world-changing".

jmyeet 2y ago

Rather than halting VR/AR efforts, this seems to be just cutting production of the current model. That doesn't mean there won't be future models but it does imply demand was lower than expected. We've had 10-15 years of companies trying to make VR (and AR more recently) happen. I just don't think it's ever going to happen. People are led astray by books like Snow Crash but there are fundamental issues with both VR and AR. Latency is a huge one for both. AR fundamnetally has an issue producing true blacks.

Kye 2y ago

Success of every modern attempt at VR hinges on limits of self-expression. Meta's torsoverse and Apple's extension of the office failed while Second Life continues on with a thriving virtual real estate and retail market and VRChat makes commercial deals to support a massive yearly furry convention.

rchaud 2y ago
Second Life doesn't pretend to be anything it's not, so it attracts an audience who want that authenticity. Apple and Facebook are the polar opposite of that. They look at a product segment and think "How we do sell this to X million people?" Turns out that regular people that buy iPhones and Macbooks, might not be as interested in VR.

jdlyga 2y ago

From the beginning of the Vision Pro, I always expected Apple to take the approach of giving everyone an excellent, Apple worthy headset regardless of price. From there, focus on keeping the specs exactly the same but reducing the price until it's a reasonable purchase for people.

FrojoS 2y ago
To do what?

nerdjon 2y ago

I really hate all of the talk about how this has been received. It was clear to anyone that was not trying to push clickbait headlines that this was never meant to be a mainstream device. Apple may charge a premium for their devices but they also understand the market enough to have lower priced Macs, iPads, and iPhones. No one thought a $3500 device was going to be mainstream when we see people complaining about phones being above $1k. The fact that the first one came out with the "Pro" name made this even more clear. Headlines like this make it seem like it "failed" in some way that is only because we are putting expectations on this to match other Apple products but this is just like the other "Hobby" projects that apple used to classify products like the Apple TV. The market for AR/VR is incredibly early (if it manages to take off at all) and the technology just isnt there yet. But while we wait for the hardware to catch up why not start working on an idealized vision of what it could work like with its own caveats. I would much rather this than the xreal's and similar headsets way over promising (borderline lying in their marketing) and severely under delivering.

koolala 2y ago

Head-mounted hardware needs to iterate fast. No one is happy with a bulky thing on their face. The iPhone moment will be when you don't think twice about wearing one.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

crooked-v 2y ago

Didn't they have a really small number of screens they even ordered in the first place? Did they change their minds from demand, or have they just finally run out of the first production run?

danpalmer 2y ago
This seems to be specifically a change in the assembly volume. I imagine they have most of the specialist components, such as the screens, already delivered and stored.
samtheprogram 2y ago
From what I heard, they will ultimately halt production, assuming no major changes in sales, at around 500,000 - 600,000 produced. Based on my understanding of the sales, they will have a considerable number of units still available even if the production stops.
rahoulb 2y ago
Before its release, I read that Sony had said they could produce 900,000 of the displays per year because the process was so complex. Obviously with 2 displays per device, half that is the maximum number of Vision Pros per year. I'm guessing Apple and Sony would have invested in improving the process if it had hit expectations.
asadotzler 2y ago
Sony display had capacity for 1 million screens in 2024. That's 500K devices. They are stopping short of that, but we don't know by how much. I'll estimate 400K devices made and sold in 2024 as the Pro model is sunset and Apple takes a shot at a Quest competitor in the $1000-2000 range.
- esskay 2y ago
  400k made, sure. Sold? Not likely given we already know they've got a lot of stock. 400k sold would mean they are sold out. Likely closer to half of that. Dont forget they're still launching it in other countries this year, so they've clearly got ample stock left over.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

AlexandrB 2y ago

Anyone who got a Vision Pro: are you still using it? I remember there was a lot of initial excitement on HN about the possibilities of using it as virtual monitors for work or as a more immersive way to watch movies. Is it good for these applications long term, after the novelty wears off?

epolanski 2y ago
I remember few people having very positive feedback for home entertainment.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  I do too, but I also wonder if the negatives (weight, isolation, heat) become apparent over time while the initial wow-factor wears off. Edit: Or perhaps the software has improved and it's even better now that it was at launch?
- das_keyboard 2y ago
  I also wonder if the same people wouldn't have the same benefits with way cheaper AR classes like from xreal[1] [1] https://www.xreal.com/de/air/ https://www.xreal.com/de/air/
  - crooked-v 2y ago
    The PPD is good, but a 46 degree FoV is pretty narrow for a virtual screen, and it's fixed in place in relation to your head. One of the big convenience differences of a true headset (even a cheaper one like the Quest line) is that you can move your head around and still have the "screen" fixed in place, so it doesn't get in the way as you look for your popcorn or whatever.
jwells89 2y ago
I still use mine for the things I watch by myself (with TV filling its usual role for social watches). I want to try it for other purposes but keep forgetting to.
2y ago

epolanski 2y ago

It's invasive, heavy and more anti social than smartphones. Battery life is too short. Low volumes make software development for it unattractive. Companies keep pouring into ar/vr billions and no sigle killer use case to show.

jsheard 2y ago
> Companies keep pouring into ar/vr billions and no single killer use case to show. Beat Saber did pretty well but then Apple made a headset that can't even play Beat Saber.
- bane 2y ago
  Apple has, somewhere deep in its DNA, an almost pathological aversion to become the Amiga -- a ridiculously capable computer for its time that is mostly known today for games. They've always low-prioritized games and its really shaped the company.
  - gyomu 2y ago
    The problem with video games is that publishers want to get on as many platforms as they can, so they have no loyalty to any specific hardware platform, which goes against Apple’s entire modus operandi - Apple wants its 3rd party developers making things only for Apple platforms, so that it’ll be really hard for customers to switch. The only way to get around that in gaming is to have 1st/2nd party developers (like Nintendo/Sony tend to do), but making games has never been in Apple’s culture. Movies/TV shows are a bit closer to their DNA, and they’ve started producing those with mixed results - games would be a much taller order.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Really should have done with Meta did and grab one talented group to help them do this. And just work on a portfolio of decently fun, professionally made games. Not like Amazon that tried to just jump headfirst into MMOs and pretend you can buy yourself a fun game. It's much too late in this stage of the industry to just look attractive for exclusives; the industry standardized (compared to a PS1 disc vs a N64 cartridge) and no one's throwing enough money to carry that plan long enough to pay off Like Microsoft kind of did. Not even FAANGs. But it's never too late to just make good games and foster series your platform is known for, like Nintendo. But then again, Meta just shuttered that studio despite a hit game series from them, so who knows what's going on anymore?

HatchedLake721 2y ago

> People are going to only read the headline and interpret it as “discontinue”. Like the article says, it just means they have enough inventory until they replace it with something cheaper.

surgical_fire 2y ago
This is such an odd take. Like trying to defend Apple from an accusation that was not made - The headline is a good representation of the news; production was suspended because they are sitting on too much unsold stock. Typically in-demand products with limited availability go out of stock fast and don't sit unsold. This is why it always frustrating to read any negative news on companies like Apple or Tesla. They have some annoyingly sycophantic fanbase that always wants to downplay and misdirect any bad news. If Microsoft made some AR glasses that sat unsold and they suspended production, no one would show up to say "actually, it is not being discontinued, nothing to see here". Nor should they.
- jachee 2y ago
  Apple also have some weapons-grade haters out there. Who’ll take even positive news and use it to be divisive and derisive.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    So does Microsoft. Or Google. Or Toyota. Or any other sufficiently large company. They are put under proper scrutiny. But those are not white-knighted by a fanbase that always feel like they need to protect the multi-billion dollar company from negativity. Using myself as an example, there are companies I like. I happen to like Nintendo for example. I still call a failed product a failure (e.g.: Wii U), and sometimes I even dislike their successful products (I always hated N64 for that retarded controller). Why Apple "fanbase" abandon all critical thinking is baffling.

RicoElectrico 2y ago

iPod - solved a real user need, developed in 1 year* Vision Pro - solution looking for a problem, in development for ≈8 years. It really makes you think how clueless Apple has become post-Jobs ... *4 years if we acknowledge it was an existing category and Apple just improved on competition [copy-pasted from my Mastodon]

fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago
Son, I’m going to tell you one word that will change this company forever: SERVICES
- pjmlp 2y ago
  It did change Microsoft, and I am quite sure Apple fans won't appreciate a Windows like experience in the name of SERVICES.
II2II 2y ago
Funny thing is, Apple probably thought the iPod would be a niche product that would only appeal to existing Apple customers when they developed it. If they did not take the risk, they probably wouldn't exist today. While I don't think the Vision Pro is a good fit for Apple (most of their products are portable, while the Vision Pro is unlikely to have much uptake outside of the home and office), it is hard to gauge whether it would be adopted without actually bringing it to the market.
- system2 2y ago
  I doubt it. MP3 players were popular when the iPod was released. They just took a share of the pie.
pjmlp 2y ago
It is the same Apple after the first time Jobs went away, however this time he isn't coming back. And while Apple has millions to burn, they better find something else other than doing iPhones.

dylan604 2y ago

Is it Newton bad? Wonder what the morale is for the team working on a clearly not successful product? Do the other device team members duck their head as they pass them by like it's someone you know but they don't that their significant other is cheating? Do they serve up platitudes like "keep your head up"?

fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago
I’m guessing they all knew it wasn’t ready to ship, and would likely fail, and fail hard with that price. Now Meta is out here demoing very impressive glasses - which was the goal Apple had but couldn’t make work - so I’m curious if Meta is likely the more exciting place to work for this tech.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Don't worry, Apple will rip open the Facebook glasses and copy them with a slick new form factor.
  - fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago
    SPACE GREY
  - tesch1 2y ago
    Having used both AVP and occulus 3, the AVP is just way better user experience already, no need for them to copy an inferior product. Would expect usability delta to persist, (as well as the price delta.)
- wmf 2y ago
  The Meta glasses reportedly cost $10,000.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Killer for me is how klunky it is for multiple users. Had they supported swapping users seamlessly, I’d have bought two: it would get more use than the PS5 (or TV, for that matter). That said, almost everything Apple does is personal computing. Maybe AR is just a bad fit until it can fit into the form factor of sunglasses. (And not be shit.)

benwilber0 2y ago

VR tech still isn't ready yet. It needs very high-res video streams which basically no internet provider/CDN can offer at scale. 40Mbps+ HEVC just isn't scalable. So the only content is whatever can be downloaded to the device itself. A few games? A cool screensaver experience? It's all cool, but mostly novelty tech.

fwip 2y ago
The resolution of the screens is not the resolution of the media you play on it. You can stream even a 1080p movie to it and it will look fine, because it is playing in "physical" space, not filling your view completely. It is like watching a floating television or movie screen.
- benwilber0 2y ago
  For streaming in VR it has to be at least 4K per eye. So 8k in the general case, but realistically it will be higher than that. Nobody can stream 2x 4K to my Apple VR headset. I can barely get a single 4K stream to my TV!
  - fwip 2y ago
    If you mean you're trying to send the entire viewport, you simply can't stream that over the Internet, even at lower relations. Not for bandwidth reasons, but for latency reasons. A 20ms delay (RTT) between your head moving and the camera moving is a one-way ticket to hurl city. If you did not mean that, please reread my original comment again.
    - fwip 2y ago
      Edit for clarity: A total latency of 20ms from motion->display update is not egregiously bad. But by RTT, I mean the additional latency induced by going to a central server over the internet and back. You've also got latency from input->sensor, sensor->packet, [packet-flight-time], frame-gen-time, [response-packet-flight-time], response-packet->decoded-video, and signal->display-update. You simply should not put the video feed any further away from your headset than a computer on your desk. Even then, a wired connection gives much better results, because the experience is consistently timed.

carlosjobim 2y ago

I only see discussions about the Vision Pro from an entertainment perspective. To me it is clear that with the capabilities and the price, it should be a professional device to be used in industry, military, and such. Then the price is cheap. But this means that more traditional sectors need to make software that takes advantage of AR.

Fricken 2y ago

One place you don't see the Vision Pro suspended is on Tim Cook's face. There is weak demand for a Vision so dim and weak. The visionary pros at Apple couldn't see a clear provision for Tim Cook's half-baked Vision Pro. Apple shall proceed without Vision.

ChumpGPT 2y ago

How about have a pair of glasses (iGlasses) with some kind of ability to connect to your iPhone and transfer information via small discrete camera/voice command via airpods. All the processing is done on the iPhone and displayed on the inside of the lens, sort of like a heads up display. Offer prescription services or clear lens and sleek style frames. News, txt, email, video, maps, health info, search, access to Apple AI, etc, etc. I don't need VR, just Terminator style information. I'm dreaming I know....

crooked-v 2y ago
Personally, it seems obvious to me that this is the desired end state of AVP-related development, but somewhere along the line they decided that pure AR tech just wasn't good enough yet for the display quality and UX stability they wanted, and so they ended up with the headset as a clunky hardware compromise built around an OS mostly designed for the glasses use case.

a2128 2y ago

The Vision Pro feels more like a spatial tablet than a spatial computer. A computer should be capable of handling productive work tasks such as developing software. Vision Pro's only relevant capabilities seem to be mirroring your computer's screen and acting as a device to run your test apps, just like a tablet. My experience receiving a Vision Pro demo at an Apple store also involved a poor Apple rep having to keep a straight face showing me basic iPad games when I asked about gaming. This thing has some of the most advanced VR headset hardware and their best gaming demo was some iPad games where you tap and hold to jump over mountains.

tim333 2y ago
Yeah I think it might of worked better if they made it open like a mac/pc where you can run whatever software. Geeky types could have better programing tools, gamers could get fancier stuff.
- walterbell 2y ago
  Apple's billion-dollar Vision Pro dilemma can be solved by the courageously coincidental public discovery of an iPadOS zero-day jailbreak, enabling early adopters to explore the limits of both tablet and headset. This side door can be closed in 24 months, after rolling up the most lucrative use cases into the core OS/API of future tablets and headsets. iPadOS has zero-days aplenty, so this doesn't need much effort from Apple beyond benign indifference.

jart 2y ago

I own an Apple Vision Pro and I think it's one of the most impressive pieces of technology that I almost never use, for two reasons: 1. Too much startup friction. I share the Apple Vision Pro with someone else who like me also loves it and uses it all the time. But since we both wear glasses, there's a 2x ~10 minute process for recalibrating the eyesight each time we switch. It's an expensive device at $3500 which I'm happy to pay for quality, but to pay that twice, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Apple goes too far with the greed here not letting us set up separate profiles. Netflix wouldn't get away with that. You not only have to repeat the setup process when switching, you have to share access to your apple user account too. 2. My main interest in a vision headset is I want a new virtual workstation where I can watch movies on a gigantic screen beneath a gigantic translucent terminal where I can do my daily work. There's a nice app called La Terminal that does just that. Sadly it has some serious keyboard latency issues since I don't think they've put as much focus into their support for this platform. I won't tolerate anything less than optimal latency in my work tools. So until I get around to building a terminal app for Vision Pro on my own, there's not a whole lot I'm interested in doing with it aside from watching the occasional movie on the moon. I would also really like for Vision Pro to have an ethernet port because I don't know how to run a wifi network without jitter. If you haven't tried one of these things, then you really should. I didn't realize when I first put one on that it was a fully synthetic display until I tried reading the 10pt text on my computer monitor. It's really a stunning thing to witness. This Vision Pro is probably the best glimpse we can get today of what the singularity is going to be like in the future. So definitely give it a try at least once.

brailsafe 2y ago
I can respect that it's probably worth trying, or even worth buying if you have a particular case for it and a rather large income, but I guess what is lost on me about the AVP (and by extension iPads, more expensive phones) is that they just seem to be a way to extract multiple thousands of dollars for essentially the same entertainment we've already been doing quite well for a very long time. Like how much should watching stuff be worth to people!? Am I crazy? I don't even dislike movies, but $3500 usd might be what I already spend on all forms of entertainment + 2 years worth of food, and maybe all of my transportation for half a year or more, combined. I'd just kind of hope for something more substantial y'know?

tetrisgm 2y ago

Honestly, a lot of the critics would have bought the device for $500. It’s just that the price doesn’t have a selling point that justifies the current pricing

shearnie 2y ago

Whoever releases a pair of non-clunky glasses with eight hour battery that can do sufficient AR for under a thousand bucks will have the iphone moment and own the world. Looks like a race between Meta and Apple. Unless Microsoft has something sneaky in the works.

tim333 2y ago
At the iphone moment most people used cell phones and the iphone was just a better one. With vr/ar it's a bit niche. I don't know how many people would want one even if it was cheap and good. Looking up the stats a lot have been sold but I'm not sure they get used much. We had a Quest 2 knocking around the flat which I didn't use and I did the vision pro demo which was cool but not sure I'd have used one much if they gave me one.

bradgranath 2y ago

WHAT IS IT FOR???

system2 2y ago
Immersive porn.
- tim333 2y ago
  I couldn't find the icon for that when I did the demo.

wkat4242 2y ago

Huh they didn't even bother to sell it in countries like the Netherlands and Spain yet. Weird.

ein0p 2y ago

To charge $3.5K for something that can only be used by one person is an epic fail of product vision. Like, what am I supposed to do if there are 4 people in my family? Or if I want to use the thing both at home and at work? I get that they’d prefer it if I bought several, but the price point puts that well outside any realm of possibility.

yapyap 2y ago

lmao

5350-uiop-1130 2y ago

classic mistake to sell hardware without a killer app. well i can't think of a single killer app for this or any VR headset for me. at $3.5k there is pressure to position this as a leap forward in solutions to non existent problems. watching films on a flight or using a virtual desktop don't excite most people.

pbmonster 2y ago
> well i can't think of a single killer app for this or any VR headset for me. For a headset the size of a pair of glasses? * A well-designed HUD that can seamlessly integrate 95%+ of the "utility functions" (as opposed to entertainment functions) from my phone into my field of vision. Calls, messages, navigation, calendar, notes. I never want to look at my phone unless I'm bored. * One of those "speed reader" [0] apps that will flicker a message at 600WPM at me. This should probably interface with all long-form text. * Subtitles/translations for the people I talk to. * An "offline dating" app that only allows you to swipe people you see I firmly belive AR is the future of personal computing, but the hardware needs to gain an order of magnitude in capabilities. [0] https://www.spreeder.com/app.php https://www.spreeder.com/app.php, but smarter (word groups, adjust displaytime for word complexity)

lynx23 2y ago

Awww, Apple, don't become Google... I mean, if you go for a product like this, you should be prepared to sink money into it for at least 3 to 5 years. Thats what you owe to early adopters. There is nothing more sad then owning a piece of hardware which totally stopped being supported. Examples like this will steadily reduce the willingness of consumers to play with new stuff. The risk will eventually just be too high.

vaylian 2y ago
Did you by any chance by one?
- lynx23 2y ago
  No. In fact, I am the antithesis to a vision pro user. I am 100% blind. Will save me a lot of money in the upcoming AR world. And once it is finally established, it will also finally cut me off from everything digital. Fun times ahead. The digital divide is unstoppable.

mrweasel 2y ago

Does anyone else find it incredible that they are actually making 1000 of these per day. Apple normally does not like holding inventory, so how many of these do they have in warehouses?

AmVess 2y ago
Most of them. Either as new units or returns. I'm surprised they didn't stop production months after release as it was very clear the product would be a complete failure based upon price alone.

rahoulb 2y ago

I wonder if the lack of third party software for it is because the resentment with the App Store has built up so much? Building an iPhone app? Pretty much required. Building an iPad app? Almost free when you're building an iPhone app (depending on your tolerance for UI/UX) Building a Watch app? It's a popular device but is it worth the investment? Most people say no. Building for a brand new platform where we have to live with Apple's rules? No thanks.

troupo 2y ago
The most popular apps on Vision Pro sold tens of copies. Not tens of thousands. Tens. So, for a ~$5000 in hardware costs and unknown amount of dev time you get 10-50 dollars in return. You don't need any feeling of resentment to run an easy ROI calculation
ulfw 2y ago
Not really. It's merely a chicken and egg problem. Why develop for a platform that has almost zero users? Why buy an expensive device that has almost zero apps?
- rob74 2y ago
  Agreed - but in the past, Apple has been able to overcome this issue for several new products. If third party developers are understandably less enthusiastic to invest in this platform, Apple could either develop apps themself or pay third party developers to do it (what a novel concept!). But they don't seem willing to do it...
heliographe 2y ago
I’m an indie app developer building photography apps because I love photography. I don’t harbor any particular resentment towards the App Store; in fact I am fine giving Apple 15% of my proceeds (I make way less than $1M a year) to handle content delivery, refund requests, minor advertisement, etc. I bought a Vision Pro on release, and have a number of ideas/prototypes for it. After a few weeks of hacking, there are two simple reasons why I didn’t pursue development of them any further: - the APIs are still really early stage (eg nothing around windowing, I’d like to build some pro photo editing apps that’d require advanced windowing functionality) - even if I were to work around the API shortcomings, take the time to develop a full app, and then release it - then how many sales will I get at most? Maybe a thousand? Compared to the iPhone/iPad/Mac, that’s nothing. So I figured waiting a year or two for the APIs to get better and more people to have access to the hardware made sense. Also, I went from considering making AVP exclusive apps to making apps that work on Mac/iPad, and maybe have some bonus features on the AVP - I think that’s a better way to go about it (nothing released like that yet, still in development). All that said, there’s something magical about the AVP’s high quality screens for photography. Seeing your photos in space right in front of you is definitely one step above looking at them on a phone/tablet/laptop screen (and one step below looking at large high quality prints of them, but that requires a different kind of effort).

aucisson_masque 2y ago

> Some factories suspended production of Vision Pro components as early as May based on Apple's weak sales forecasts, and warehouses remain filled with tens of thousands of undelivered parts. Next iphone are going to cost more and more, such a failure must have cost them a lot of money.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

esskay 2y ago

Hardware aside they've still not found a purpose for this thing to even exist. They should've come out guns blazing with a ton of content for it. Most places would've paid game developers to make games for it (actual games, not the junk on Apple arcade), do special movie extras, fund loads of apps, etc. They should've had a $2-3bn budget for content on top of production. Instead they just seemed to release it then walk away hoping everyone else would figure out the point of the product and make stuff for free. It failed.

pjmlp 2y ago

To be expected, I never understood Apple's point in making such a big thing of a VR headset, they were arriving to the party, as everyone was leaving the VR party, jumping into their cars to join the AI house party down the block. Additionally at such a price, and with the current developer feelings regarding store practices impose by Apple. Naturally it turned out to be such a niche product, unstainable to keep going.

mrbigbob 2y ago

the vision pro should have been released as devkits only. allowed at least 12 months of app developement and then released a pro and base headset for around $1,000. also im sorry but the whole external screen so you can see someones eyes was a waste and added unnecessary weight and price to an already bloated price point i believe apple can make a compelling mixed reality headset but they need compelling apps and very few are going to develop if the platform is over $2000 in my opinion

anabanana9 2y ago

[dead]