6 ms·

This indicates to me that the Apple Vision and visionOS product line and OS are not canceled internally and that Apple is still committed to its future. While

This indicates to me that the Apple Vision and visionOS product line and OS are not canceled internally and that Apple is still committed to its future. While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good or successful product, progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses. In this line of thinking — not just focusing on the flopped AVP but looking at the product line on the long term - I think it makes sense for this OS to be added to Godot. I do think the concern for who will carry the maintenance burden is valid. In my experience, Apple hasn’t been the most responsive company when it comes to obscure bugs or issues with their API (e.g. with Cocoa). I would be wary of depending on continued support from a large tech company that can change its goals at any time. All that being said, this is exciting!

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
JeremyNT 1y ago
Can you read that much into it? It seems equally possible that they're beginning to wind things down and they're just releasing what they've got to the public now.
- arghwhat 1y ago
  Official upstreaming efforts are a significant investment even if they have internal PoCs. You can't just "release what you've got".
  - jayd16 1y ago
    Sure you can. That said, I'm not sure what Apple's usual style is and it might be pretty out of character (or not) to drop support shortly after an MR.
    - arghwhat 1y ago
      No you can't. Upstreaming a large feature like this requires at the very least allocating a number of manweeks to the upstreaming process, and that's without accounting for actually writing the feature in the first place. Making a PR and not following up would be worse PR (heh) than doing nothing, which is also costly. If they had dumped a tarball or a fork somewhere with a hacked up PoC it could have looked like they just dumped what they had, but even that requires approvals and time from legal, and so someone has to decide its worth investing in. (I have no interest in speculating about the Vision lineup itself, just commentating on open source contributions.)
      - asadotzler 1y ago
        You really don't understand how much money Apple's sunk on this and how little comparatively it takes to wind down operations in a way that makes partners and suppliers happy. Keeping a couple small teams going, even with entirely new versions shipping, to keep your supply chain whole and your partners coming back for future products is cheap and easy and very likely what Apple's doing now that most of the top talent was moved to spectacles and Siri. Letting your OS and partner software teams clear their pipelines is absolutely common at Apple and elsewhere. Denying that is silly.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - jayd16 1y ago
        Nothing about what you said binds Apple to following through. Just because it would be a bad idea doesn't mean they can't or won't.
        arghwhat 1y ago
        They could also throw money out their window, light it on fire, let their employees do whatever they want instead of regular Apple work, etc. A lot of managers (and legal) have to approve and allocate significant budget to bad ideas. Companies generally try to avoid doing bad ideas that are a net negative.
  - asadotzler 1y ago
    Not if it was 90% done and you want to clear the decks of nearly completed work before moving on. It's absolutely common to ship stuff to make third party suppliers and partners whole even when you've decided not to continue investing in a product. Keeping partners happy is critical to the smooth functioning supply chain Cook built and which gives Apple most of their success today.
    - arghwhat 1y ago
      A big feature like this will be at most 20-30% done when you open a PR, because the rest of the work is in collaboration to suit upstream which will as always require notable changes and rewrites. Spending manweeks to manmonths on new upstream work that won't see any practical use until half to a whole year later, after getting legal to work things out, is a significant investment in new development. This has nothing to do with suppliers or partners. They are not dumb enough to measure a product roadmap in number of random PRs, but will look at first party software and hardware roadmap.
- asadotzler 1y ago
  This is precisely what they're doing, shipping everything that was mostly already cooked, clearing out the pipleline for their own developers and for third parties, particularly the supply chain they left high and dry when they ended Vision Pro production early, but also their own OS devs and the ones working with third party software and content sponsorships. They've already moved all the top talent and the next thing looks like a PCVR device that guts the PC from Vision Pro and maybe a chip and ship bump or even a cheaper model with sub-premium materials and lower fidelity optical stack. What ever is going on, it's clearly not the priority it was and most people paying close attention see a steep decline in the viability of goggles at Apple. That form factor was a flop, as the ergonomics simply didn't align with the use cases for most normal people.
crowcroft 1y ago
I believe there's going to be a lot more investment if no other reason than Tim Cook seems to care deeply about it (and beating Zuckerberg). Strategically it make sense. The only real threat to the iPhone which Apple makes all their money from, is a new form factor that replaces phones. Maybe glasses/goggles will never replace phones, but spending billions a year to make sure that you win the glasses market just in case they do is very cheap insurance. https://futurism.com/tim-cook-obsession-ar-glasses https://futurism.com/tim-cook-obsession-ar-glasses
- canuckintime 1y ago
  >> https://futurism.com/tim-cook-obsession-ar-glasses https://futurism.com/tim-cook-obsession-ar-glasses Red Flags! >> "Tim cares about nothing else," an insider with knowledge of the matter told Gurman. "It’s the only thing he’s really spending his time on from a product development standpoint." >> he's looking to beat Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg — who shares an obsession with AR and VR headsets — to market. Is Tim Cook a product person now? Does Apple care about being first now (instead of being best)? Before the Vision Pro release we heard similar reporting from Gurman (1) (and recall the skepticism about Gurman's reporting: 2) Yet here we are. After a decade of promoting AR (3) Tim Apple released a headset of which "the weirder things about visionOS (and the Vision Pro itself, really) is that there’s not a lot of true AR in the mix" (4) Red Flags! 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-05-18/apple-s-mixed-reality-headset-may-define-tim-cook-s-legacy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-05-18/apple-s-m... 2. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2023/05/18/gurman-headset-recap https://daringfireball.net/linked/2023/05/18/gurman-headset-... 3. https://www.theverge.com/21077484/apple-tim-cook-ar-augmented-reality https://www.theverge.com/21077484/apple-tim-cook-ar-augmente... 4. https://www.theverge.com/24054862/apple-vision-pro-review-vr-ar-headset-features-price https://www.theverge.com/24054862/apple-vision-pro-review-vr...
- asadotzler 1y ago
  Cook took all of the top Vision Pro talent and put them to work on Siri. Those who didn't go are either working on the spectacles (no relationship at all to the tech in the goggles) or they're working to clear out the pipleline of goggles work that's already close to finished that they can deploy along with a new model that uses mostly the same components as the first which lets them make their supply chain whole after they ended production well short of what they promised their component makers. Rather than leave their supply chain high and dry and their developers disappointed with early cancellation, they'll make one more go of it to buy themselves the time to progress on spectacles (again, totally unrelated tech) so Cook can claim that goggles evolved into spectacles rather than admit that goggles bombed and they're retrenching around spectacles and that entirely different tech stack and approach, for which zero of the goggles investment by Apple or 3rd party developers will transfer.
_mlbt 1y ago
The core idea is solid. At this point it just needs to be lighter, have better battery, and a much lower price. With further refinement and increased economies of scale these issues could potentially be fixed. Nearly all of the reviews I’ve read say that it’s a good user experience overall, but it’s not worth the price.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > The core idea is solid What is the core idea?
  - _mlbt 1y ago
    Spatial computing.
    - andsoitis 1y ago
      Spatial computing is to interact with and manipulate 3D space—blending the physical and digital worlds. It enables users to understand, interpret, and respond to the geometry, position, and movement of real-world environments. I fail to see that as a future mode of user/computer interaction that competes with or augments mobile/laptop computer usage in any meaningful way. Even movie watching, the most successful application of visionOS / Vision Pro, has limited use because it forces a solitary experience. While it can be useful (eg on a plane or in bed while your SO sleeps), you also already carry your phone and earbuds with you so it isn’t a compelling enough use case. Nobody is creating games for vision either and it I think it’s unlikely to become a favored general computing device or mode. I can probably say more succinctly: spatial computing appears to be a classic case of a solution looking for a problem. Prior art by Microsoft (HoloLens) and Google (Glass) are interesting because they occupied very different positions on the spatial computing spectrum, but in both cases they surfaced headwinds like the fact that people are unlikely to put glasses or headsets on the face/head juts in order to “compute”. If there was a path to direct neural input or contact lens delivery, now we might be talking, but even then, you’ve solved the physical impediments but still don’t have a compelling general purpose computing use case. Some would argue an addictive use case like porn can tip the scales, but I’m doubtful and, besides, I think we can be sure that Apple would never position themselves to depend on porn to advance their business interests. It seems safe to predict that within 3 — 5 years Apple gives up on this vision. They might come back to it in the future but I think they’re more alarmed by the other computer interaction paradigm that is getting a lot more traction: GenAI/LLM, which subverts the need for a rich visual display and fits and extends all our other computing models more elegantly.
layer8 1y ago
The product line not being cancelled hasn’t been in question lately: https://www.macrumors.com/roundup/apple-vision-pro/#apple-vision-pro-timeline https://www.macrumors.com/roundup/apple-vision-pro/#apple-vi...
- asadotzler 1y ago
  It was never (yet) cancelled. The first "cancelled" reporting was Gurman saying that they'd moved on to spectacles which is true, much of the talent was reassigned to other projects including AR spectacles. The next reports said Vision Pro was over but a Vision "lite" was on the way to give it one more go. The next reports said the Vision Pro chip and ship minor spec bump plus a lighter cheaper version. The next reports said Vision, unclear pro or lite, plus tethered goggles (PCVR for Mac, probably like the Beyond 2 but shiny and metal.) The reports after that said most of the top talent from the Vision Pro teams has moved to Siri to rescue it and AI. So, we've got most of the talent moved to spectacles and Siri, and a tethered device and an all-in-one device on the table. Those are mostly likely last ditch attempts at rescuing the massive R&D investment and equally important, a chance to make their supply chain whole after ending production short of what Apple promised them. We'll see the next products integrate nearly all of the components of the first and that'll clear the decks for their suppliers so they're not left high and dry as well as letting their devs get one more crack at things and ship the VisionOS 3.0 stuff they've been hard at work on this last year. Making your devs and supply chain happy is hardly a drop in the bucket cost wise compared to the investment already made so that's what they're doing. They'll try a cheaper version of the immersive all-in-ones and a PCVR version that strips out the PC they've spent 10 years and $10B integrating to see if a display peripheral for $2K will beat an all-in-one face PC at $4K (but that won't give Cook the new platform he was hoping to own and monetize, just another accessory for SJ's creations.)
oofManBang 1y ago
> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good ... product I must admit I'm baffled by this reaction to the first model: * It's clearly far more impressive technologically than any competitor. * The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer, which is normal for such a massive technological leap compared to their other recent consumer stuff (e.g. the apple watch). * They got loads of feedback * Nobody who is this critical seems to articulate what success would have looked like. > in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses. This just seems like a fantasy. I don't understand why people expect this is possible. Battery alone precludes this. Even just streaming video back and forth is going to be too power-hungry for serious use with lightweight glasses.
- porphyra 1y ago
  It is a technological tour de force and an amazing demo of what's possible and what is soon to come. But if we define a "good product" to mean a commercially successful one, then it isn't very successful. Still, I'm hoping it won't be killed and that it will continue to evolve and become successful eventually.
  - halJordan 1y ago
    Thats a very naive understanding of success. Youre telling the soap maker on etsy doesnt have a successful product because she doesnt sell a million units a day? Youre telling me that Rolls Royce Aerospace isn't successful because they only 100 aircraft engines a year?
    - asadotzler 1y ago
      That soap maker didn't spend $10B in R&D figuring out how to make the soap. Your retort makes zero sense. Apple's worst products sold tens of millions of units in their first couple of years while Vision Pro sold about 370K units in year 1 and well into year 2 still has plenty of inventory sitting on warehouse shelves to cover all of 2025 demand. It literally bombed in the market. It's an abject failure of a product that couldn't be called a success in any way beyond a great prototype and some excellent demoware. It's a flop and a joke.
khazhoux 1y ago
> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good product Do you own one, or have used one extensively, to dismiss it so confidently? I own one, and it's a great product. The experience watching movies/shows is unparalleled.
- jayd16 1y ago
  Its clearly not a popular product and not for lack exposure.
  - khazhoux 1y ago
    It’s clearly not “popular” but the statement was that it’s not good. That’s wrong — it is a very good product.
    - asadotzler 1y ago
      Good means fit for purpose and a product your CEO pitched from the cover of Vanity Fair magazine and devoted half of his massive store real estate and staff to making successful that sells only about 350K units in the first year and projected to sell only about 150K units in its second year because even the huge number of in-store demos couldn't convince people to put PCs on their faces, is clearly not fit for purpose. If it was truly the future of PCs today as Tim Cook told us, it would not have flopped but the form factor and resulting ergonomics make it useful for little more than novelty experiences for a few nerds with more cash than most.
      - khazhoux 1y ago
        There are many definitions of “good.” But at the most fundamental, it is an amazing VR device. It excels for watching movies — the video quality is simply stunning. The immersive experiences from Apple are also jaw-dropping. So in terms of what the device IS, it’s a good product. Is that good enough to break into mass appeal? Evidence says No
        deleted 1y ago
asadotzler 1y ago
>progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses. Except the Vision Pro displays have zero to do with the technology they'll use in spectacles. Spectacles are an entirely different tech stack. See the Orion demo for an example and you'll see that 100% of the R&D spent on goggles is tossed on the bonfire when considering spectacles.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

JeremyNT 1y ago

Can you read that much into it? It seems equally possible that they're beginning to wind things down and they're just releasing what they've got to the public now.

arghwhat 1y ago
Official upstreaming efforts are a significant investment even if they have internal PoCs. You can't just "release what you've got".
- jayd16 1y ago
  Sure you can. That said, I'm not sure what Apple's usual style is and it might be pretty out of character (or not) to drop support shortly after an MR.
  - arghwhat 1y ago
    No you can't. Upstreaming a large feature like this requires at the very least allocating a number of manweeks to the upstreaming process, and that's without accounting for actually writing the feature in the first place. Making a PR and not following up would be worse PR (heh) than doing nothing, which is also costly. If they had dumped a tarball or a fork somewhere with a hacked up PoC it could have looked like they just dumped what they had, but even that requires approvals and time from legal, and so someone has to decide its worth investing in. (I have no interest in speculating about the Vision lineup itself, just commentating on open source contributions.)
    - asadotzler 1y ago
      You really don't understand how much money Apple's sunk on this and how little comparatively it takes to wind down operations in a way that makes partners and suppliers happy. Keeping a couple small teams going, even with entirely new versions shipping, to keep your supply chain whole and your partners coming back for future products is cheap and easy and very likely what Apple's doing now that most of the top talent was moved to spectacles and Siri. Letting your OS and partner software teams clear their pipelines is absolutely common at Apple and elsewhere. Denying that is silly.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - jayd16 1y ago
      Nothing about what you said binds Apple to following through. Just because it would be a bad idea doesn't mean they can't or won't.
      - arghwhat 1y ago
        They could also throw money out their window, light it on fire, let their employees do whatever they want instead of regular Apple work, etc. A lot of managers (and legal) have to approve and allocate significant budget to bad ideas. Companies generally try to avoid doing bad ideas that are a net negative.
- asadotzler 1y ago
  Not if it was 90% done and you want to clear the decks of nearly completed work before moving on. It's absolutely common to ship stuff to make third party suppliers and partners whole even when you've decided not to continue investing in a product. Keeping partners happy is critical to the smooth functioning supply chain Cook built and which gives Apple most of their success today.
  - arghwhat 1y ago
    A big feature like this will be at most 20-30% done when you open a PR, because the rest of the work is in collaboration to suit upstream which will as always require notable changes and rewrites. Spending manweeks to manmonths on new upstream work that won't see any practical use until half to a whole year later, after getting legal to work things out, is a significant investment in new development. This has nothing to do with suppliers or partners. They are not dumb enough to measure a product roadmap in number of random PRs, but will look at first party software and hardware roadmap.
asadotzler 1y ago
This is precisely what they're doing, shipping everything that was mostly already cooked, clearing out the pipleline for their own developers and for third parties, particularly the supply chain they left high and dry when they ended Vision Pro production early, but also their own OS devs and the ones working with third party software and content sponsorships. They've already moved all the top talent and the next thing looks like a PCVR device that guts the PC from Vision Pro and maybe a chip and ship bump or even a cheaper model with sub-premium materials and lower fidelity optical stack. What ever is going on, it's clearly not the priority it was and most people paying close attention see a steep decline in the viability of goggles at Apple. That form factor was a flop, as the ergonomics simply didn't align with the use cases for most normal people.

crowcroft 1y ago

I believe there's going to be a lot more investment if no other reason than Tim Cook seems to care deeply about it (and beating Zuckerberg). Strategically it make sense. The only real threat to the iPhone which Apple makes all their money from, is a new form factor that replaces phones. Maybe glasses/goggles will never replace phones, but spending billions a year to make sure that you win the glasses market just in case they do is very cheap insurance. https://futurism.com/tim-cook-obsession-ar-glasses https://futurism.com/tim-cook-obsession-ar-glasses

canuckintime 1y ago
>> https://futurism.com/tim-cook-obsession-ar-glasses https://futurism.com/tim-cook-obsession-ar-glasses Red Flags! >> "Tim cares about nothing else," an insider with knowledge of the matter told Gurman. "It’s the only thing he’s really spending his time on from a product development standpoint." >> he's looking to beat Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg — who shares an obsession with AR and VR headsets — to market. Is Tim Cook a product person now? Does Apple care about being first now (instead of being best)? Before the Vision Pro release we heard similar reporting from Gurman (1) (and recall the skepticism about Gurman's reporting: 2) Yet here we are. After a decade of promoting AR (3) Tim Apple released a headset of which "the weirder things about visionOS (and the Vision Pro itself, really) is that there’s not a lot of true AR in the mix" (4) Red Flags! 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-05-18/apple-s-mixed-reality-headset-may-define-tim-cook-s-legacy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-05-18/apple-s-m... 2. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2023/05/18/gurman-headset-recap https://daringfireball.net/linked/2023/05/18/gurman-headset-... 3. https://www.theverge.com/21077484/apple-tim-cook-ar-augmented-reality https://www.theverge.com/21077484/apple-tim-cook-ar-augmente... 4. https://www.theverge.com/24054862/apple-vision-pro-review-vr-ar-headset-features-price https://www.theverge.com/24054862/apple-vision-pro-review-vr...
asadotzler 1y ago
Cook took all of the top Vision Pro talent and put them to work on Siri. Those who didn't go are either working on the spectacles (no relationship at all to the tech in the goggles) or they're working to clear out the pipleline of goggles work that's already close to finished that they can deploy along with a new model that uses mostly the same components as the first which lets them make their supply chain whole after they ended production well short of what they promised their component makers. Rather than leave their supply chain high and dry and their developers disappointed with early cancellation, they'll make one more go of it to buy themselves the time to progress on spectacles (again, totally unrelated tech) so Cook can claim that goggles evolved into spectacles rather than admit that goggles bombed and they're retrenching around spectacles and that entirely different tech stack and approach, for which zero of the goggles investment by Apple or 3rd party developers will transfer.

_mlbt 1y ago

The core idea is solid. At this point it just needs to be lighter, have better battery, and a much lower price. With further refinement and increased economies of scale these issues could potentially be fixed. Nearly all of the reviews I’ve read say that it’s a good user experience overall, but it’s not worth the price.

andsoitis 1y ago
> The core idea is solid What is the core idea?
- _mlbt 1y ago
  Spatial computing.
  - andsoitis 1y ago
    Spatial computing is to interact with and manipulate 3D space—blending the physical and digital worlds. It enables users to understand, interpret, and respond to the geometry, position, and movement of real-world environments. I fail to see that as a future mode of user/computer interaction that competes with or augments mobile/laptop computer usage in any meaningful way. Even movie watching, the most successful application of visionOS / Vision Pro, has limited use because it forces a solitary experience. While it can be useful (eg on a plane or in bed while your SO sleeps), you also already carry your phone and earbuds with you so it isn’t a compelling enough use case. Nobody is creating games for vision either and it I think it’s unlikely to become a favored general computing device or mode. I can probably say more succinctly: spatial computing appears to be a classic case of a solution looking for a problem. Prior art by Microsoft (HoloLens) and Google (Glass) are interesting because they occupied very different positions on the spatial computing spectrum, but in both cases they surfaced headwinds like the fact that people are unlikely to put glasses or headsets on the face/head juts in order to “compute”. If there was a path to direct neural input or contact lens delivery, now we might be talking, but even then, you’ve solved the physical impediments but still don’t have a compelling general purpose computing use case. Some would argue an addictive use case like porn can tip the scales, but I’m doubtful and, besides, I think we can be sure that Apple would never position themselves to depend on porn to advance their business interests. It seems safe to predict that within 3 — 5 years Apple gives up on this vision. They might come back to it in the future but I think they’re more alarmed by the other computer interaction paradigm that is getting a lot more traction: GenAI/LLM, which subverts the need for a rich visual display and fits and extends all our other computing models more elegantly.

layer8 1y ago

The product line not being cancelled hasn’t been in question lately: https://www.macrumors.com/roundup/apple-vision-pro/#apple-vision-pro-timeline https://www.macrumors.com/roundup/apple-vision-pro/#apple-vi...

asadotzler 1y ago
It was never (yet) cancelled. The first "cancelled" reporting was Gurman saying that they'd moved on to spectacles which is true, much of the talent was reassigned to other projects including AR spectacles. The next reports said Vision Pro was over but a Vision "lite" was on the way to give it one more go. The next reports said the Vision Pro chip and ship minor spec bump plus a lighter cheaper version. The next reports said Vision, unclear pro or lite, plus tethered goggles (PCVR for Mac, probably like the Beyond 2 but shiny and metal.) The reports after that said most of the top talent from the Vision Pro teams has moved to Siri to rescue it and AI. So, we've got most of the talent moved to spectacles and Siri, and a tethered device and an all-in-one device on the table. Those are mostly likely last ditch attempts at rescuing the massive R&D investment and equally important, a chance to make their supply chain whole after ending production short of what Apple promised them. We'll see the next products integrate nearly all of the components of the first and that'll clear the decks for their suppliers so they're not left high and dry as well as letting their devs get one more crack at things and ship the VisionOS 3.0 stuff they've been hard at work on this last year. Making your devs and supply chain happy is hardly a drop in the bucket cost wise compared to the investment already made so that's what they're doing. They'll try a cheaper version of the immersive all-in-ones and a PCVR version that strips out the PC they've spent 10 years and $10B integrating to see if a display peripheral for $2K will beat an all-in-one face PC at $4K (but that won't give Cook the new platform he was hoping to own and monetize, just another accessory for SJ's creations.)

oofManBang 1y ago

> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good ... product I must admit I'm baffled by this reaction to the first model: * It's clearly far more impressive technologically than any competitor. * The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer, which is normal for such a massive technological leap compared to their other recent consumer stuff (e.g. the apple watch). * They got loads of feedback * Nobody who is this critical seems to articulate what success would have looked like. > in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses. This just seems like a fantasy. I don't understand why people expect this is possible. Battery alone precludes this. Even just streaming video back and forth is going to be too power-hungry for serious use with lightweight glasses.

porphyra 1y ago
It is a technological tour de force and an amazing demo of what's possible and what is soon to come. But if we define a "good product" to mean a commercially successful one, then it isn't very successful. Still, I'm hoping it won't be killed and that it will continue to evolve and become successful eventually.
- halJordan 1y ago
  Thats a very naive understanding of success. Youre telling the soap maker on etsy doesnt have a successful product because she doesnt sell a million units a day? Youre telling me that Rolls Royce Aerospace isn't successful because they only 100 aircraft engines a year?
  - asadotzler 1y ago
    That soap maker didn't spend $10B in R&D figuring out how to make the soap. Your retort makes zero sense. Apple's worst products sold tens of millions of units in their first couple of years while Vision Pro sold about 370K units in year 1 and well into year 2 still has plenty of inventory sitting on warehouse shelves to cover all of 2025 demand. It literally bombed in the market. It's an abject failure of a product that couldn't be called a success in any way beyond a great prototype and some excellent demoware. It's a flop and a joke.

khazhoux 1y ago

> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good product Do you own one, or have used one extensively, to dismiss it so confidently? I own one, and it's a great product. The experience watching movies/shows is unparalleled.

jayd16 1y ago
Its clearly not a popular product and not for lack exposure.
- khazhoux 1y ago
  It’s clearly not “popular” but the statement was that it’s not good. That’s wrong — it is a very good product.
  - asadotzler 1y ago
    Good means fit for purpose and a product your CEO pitched from the cover of Vanity Fair magazine and devoted half of his massive store real estate and staff to making successful that sells only about 350K units in the first year and projected to sell only about 150K units in its second year because even the huge number of in-store demos couldn't convince people to put PCs on their faces, is clearly not fit for purpose. If it was truly the future of PCs today as Tim Cook told us, it would not have flopped but the form factor and resulting ergonomics make it useful for little more than novelty experiences for a few nerds with more cash than most.
    - khazhoux 1y ago
      There are many definitions of “good.” But at the most fundamental, it is an amazing VR device. It excels for watching movies — the video quality is simply stunning. The immersive experiences from Apple are also jaw-dropping. So in terms of what the device IS, it’s a good product. Is that good enough to break into mass appeal? Evidence says No
      - deleted 1y ago

asadotzler 1y ago

>progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses. Except the Vision Pro displays have zero to do with the technology they'll use in spectacles. Spectacles are an entirely different tech stack. See the Orion demo for an example and you'll see that 100% of the R&D spent on goggles is tossed on the bonfire when considering spectacles.