4 ms·

> 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 gr

> 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 2y ago
Its clearly not a popular product and not for lack exposure.
- khazhoux 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
        [deleted]
xp84 2y ago
Yeah - I thought it was a good product, just a way-too-expensive-to-ever-gain-popular-support, completely useless one since no developer wants to support a new Apple platform knowing how brutally Apple treats developers with their in-app-purchase nonsense, and Apple itself sure isn't doing anything to put any wood behind the arrow. If Apple cared, they'd drop the money to get, say, immersive courtside experience at every NBA and NFL game for a subscription fee. New long-form immersive content, not these silly 5-10 minute videos they drop every month or two. It's a great product. But Apple's not serious enough about it. Someone who can deliver at least one of "normal people can buy it" or "a ton of incredibly compelling content exists" will own this market, eventually. It probably won't be Apple.
- SirBill 2y ago
  " just a way-too-expensive-to-ever-gain-popular-support" You assumed that models would stay that price forever??? "how brutally Apple treats developers with their in-app-purchase nonsense" How is 15% brutal to have access to a market base of hundreds of millions of customers who can click to purchase without entering a credit card. "Apple itself sure isn't doing anything to put any wood behind the arrow" Of all the dumb things you said, this may possibly be the dumbest - though to be sure the other two items are incredibly stupid. Apple has put a TON of effort into the Vision Pro. They have continued to produce high quality immersive content. They have obviously continued to work on new versions. They have recently put on an entire developer day program on producing immersive content (programmatic and video related). They have greatly improved the Mac mirroring features and added other good UI updates on a pretty continuous basis since launch. Apple is doing all they can to move the platform forward, it just takes time to reduce costs. It's a platform well worth looking into supporting since Apple is obviously fully committed to it moving forward.
  - xp84 2y ago
    > You assumed that models would stay that price forever?? Apple didn't bother to try to keep the cost down on this version, and for Apple, cost plus the margins they demand dictated the high price. > "How is 15% brutal to have access" Okay, first of all, 30%. We're not talking indie devs with <1MM in revenue that can get the 15% deal for a little while. The kind of developers they need to make huge killer apps are ones like Epic, Blizzard, etc. And entertainment firms like Netflix, the ones Apple insists on soaking for 30% of revenue across the board, and those firms have voted with their feet and aren't embracing any Apple platforms. I don't care, I'm not and will never develop for Apple's various "stores" -- take your argument up with the developers who hate them. Nobody wants to give Apple another market to throw their considerable weight around in. > "They have continued to produce high quality immersive content. They have obviously continued to work on new versions. They have recently put on an entire developer day program on producing immersive content (programmatic and video related)." Big deal. There isn't enough content that even many big Apple fans who love the product in theory mostly don't use them and admit they were a poor investment. A couple silly 10 minute shorts a month isn't enough to justify it. If they cared, they'd put serious money - of which they have plenty - behind selling a device (any device!) at a compelling price even at a subpar margin. See gaming consoles. Or they'd do what it takes to get developers and content companies to produce content. That means sucking it up and offering better terms than they have on other platforms (or doing sweetheart deals, say, Amazon can sell on the Kindle iOS app with a 5% commission in exchange for promising to produce a ton of immersive content on AVP.) Whatever it takes. They're not serious (at the top level -- i am sure the person just in charge of AVP is serious, but Tim's not on board enough to support them).
intellix 2y ago
I had the HTC Vive quite a few years ago, using it a lot and constantly buying new games and experiences to try it out. It was a little annoying paying full whack for little 5-10min tech demos but was still encapsulated by it. Eventually got the wireless extension to avoid having to detangle the rope of a cable you were tethered to, but the base stations in the corner of the room were still annoying me cause you constantly had to re-calibrate it everytime someone nudged or moved them. Left it for quite a few years and after seeing the reviews about the Quest 3, I bought that and was amazed by how simple it was to pickup and use and the fact that you didn't need a monster computer running it. You literally pick it up and get going. The Meta app store is filled with lots of VR Titles which aren't just tech demos and you can STILL hook it up to your computer and play a host of Steam games. The Quest 3 was like €500 and basically a full platform. The Vision Pro got announced with a few improvements like higher resolution but it was an insane €3500... ok I was curious how much better it would be, since I was quite impressed by my Quest 3. My friend had bought one, one of those people who loves to wear expensive watches and be seen in public having a lot of money. As with a lot of Apple products it's sometimes about being seen to have the latest thing and the Vision Pro was great for sitting in public, catching attention and showing people that you can afford a €3500 device. He brings it on holiday and is passing it around the room, showing people the dinosaur tech demo and everyone is amazed at how brilliant it is. For all of those in amazement (including my friend) it was their very first experience getting into VR and I also went through the same feeling when I first got the HTC Vive. He gives it to me and shows me the dinosaur tech demo and all I could really think was... how does this thing cost €3000 more than the Quest 3? I asked him: Where are the games? there are none. Can you hook it up to Steam? No... When the battery dies, can you swap it with another? No. Unless I had bought my Quest 3 to compare them side-by-side I honestly could not feel that it was much better visually... the finger tracking to go through menus wasn't bad, but that was it. I think the fact that Apple devices are generally in the thousands already: MBP can be like £3000, iPhone can be like £1k... it makes sense that they were able to sell them for the price of what they did, but for me it's just insanity. Do they have a library of games yet? Do they have any VR Games yet? Someone said it wasn't priced for consumers and I guess that's fine, but again... why wouldn't you just buy a Quest 3 (unless you hate Facebook)?
- fouc 2y ago
arjonagelhout 2y ago
Unfortunately the price tag is too high for me, and since I'm based in the Netherlands, I did not manage to schedule a demo. However, what makes a good product is subjective and you're right that in many ways it is a good product. From what I can see, the hardware and software quality are high, and the user experience is greatly simplified in contrast to something like Meta Quest, which' UX is often rough and clunky. My main argument for saying it's not a good product, is that the form factor is not where it should be for mass consumer appeal. Another subjective and personal pet peeve is that it's not possible to create an AR experience using custom rendering logic with Metal. One has to use RealityKit. Only a fully immersive experience (VR) can be created with Metal. (This might have changed since it came out and I'm happy to be proven wrong, then I'll definitely buy one). I understand the reasoning behind locking this down, but I would love to experiment with writing AR 3D modeling software for visionOS.

jayd16 2y ago

Its clearly not a popular product and not for lack exposure.

khazhoux 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
      [deleted]

xp84 2y ago

Yeah - I thought it was a good product, just a way-too-expensive-to-ever-gain-popular-support, completely useless one since no developer wants to support a new Apple platform knowing how brutally Apple treats developers with their in-app-purchase nonsense, and Apple itself sure isn't doing anything to put any wood behind the arrow. If Apple cared, they'd drop the money to get, say, immersive courtside experience at every NBA and NFL game for a subscription fee. New long-form immersive content, not these silly 5-10 minute videos they drop every month or two. It's a great product. But Apple's not serious enough about it. Someone who can deliver at least one of "normal people can buy it" or "a ton of incredibly compelling content exists" will own this market, eventually. It probably won't be Apple.

SirBill 2y ago
" just a way-too-expensive-to-ever-gain-popular-support" You assumed that models would stay that price forever??? "how brutally Apple treats developers with their in-app-purchase nonsense" How is 15% brutal to have access to a market base of hundreds of millions of customers who can click to purchase without entering a credit card. "Apple itself sure isn't doing anything to put any wood behind the arrow" Of all the dumb things you said, this may possibly be the dumbest - though to be sure the other two items are incredibly stupid. Apple has put a TON of effort into the Vision Pro. They have continued to produce high quality immersive content. They have obviously continued to work on new versions. They have recently put on an entire developer day program on producing immersive content (programmatic and video related). They have greatly improved the Mac mirroring features and added other good UI updates on a pretty continuous basis since launch. Apple is doing all they can to move the platform forward, it just takes time to reduce costs. It's a platform well worth looking into supporting since Apple is obviously fully committed to it moving forward.
- xp84 2y ago
  > You assumed that models would stay that price forever?? Apple didn't bother to try to keep the cost down on this version, and for Apple, cost plus the margins they demand dictated the high price. > "How is 15% brutal to have access" Okay, first of all, 30%. We're not talking indie devs with <1MM in revenue that can get the 15% deal for a little while. The kind of developers they need to make huge killer apps are ones like Epic, Blizzard, etc. And entertainment firms like Netflix, the ones Apple insists on soaking for 30% of revenue across the board, and those firms have voted with their feet and aren't embracing any Apple platforms. I don't care, I'm not and will never develop for Apple's various "stores" -- take your argument up with the developers who hate them. Nobody wants to give Apple another market to throw their considerable weight around in. > "They have continued to produce high quality immersive content. They have obviously continued to work on new versions. They have recently put on an entire developer day program on producing immersive content (programmatic and video related)." Big deal. There isn't enough content that even many big Apple fans who love the product in theory mostly don't use them and admit they were a poor investment. A couple silly 10 minute shorts a month isn't enough to justify it. If they cared, they'd put serious money - of which they have plenty - behind selling a device (any device!) at a compelling price even at a subpar margin. See gaming consoles. Or they'd do what it takes to get developers and content companies to produce content. That means sucking it up and offering better terms than they have on other platforms (or doing sweetheart deals, say, Amazon can sell on the Kindle iOS app with a 5% commission in exchange for promising to produce a ton of immersive content on AVP.) Whatever it takes. They're not serious (at the top level -- i am sure the person just in charge of AVP is serious, but Tim's not on board enough to support them).

intellix 2y ago

I had the HTC Vive quite a few years ago, using it a lot and constantly buying new games and experiences to try it out. It was a little annoying paying full whack for little 5-10min tech demos but was still encapsulated by it. Eventually got the wireless extension to avoid having to detangle the rope of a cable you were tethered to, but the base stations in the corner of the room were still annoying me cause you constantly had to re-calibrate it everytime someone nudged or moved them. Left it for quite a few years and after seeing the reviews about the Quest 3, I bought that and was amazed by how simple it was to pickup and use and the fact that you didn't need a monster computer running it. You literally pick it up and get going. The Meta app store is filled with lots of VR Titles which aren't just tech demos and you can STILL hook it up to your computer and play a host of Steam games. The Quest 3 was like €500 and basically a full platform. The Vision Pro got announced with a few improvements like higher resolution but it was an insane €3500... ok I was curious how much better it would be, since I was quite impressed by my Quest 3. My friend had bought one, one of those people who loves to wear expensive watches and be seen in public having a lot of money. As with a lot of Apple products it's sometimes about being seen to have the latest thing and the Vision Pro was great for sitting in public, catching attention and showing people that you can afford a €3500 device. He brings it on holiday and is passing it around the room, showing people the dinosaur tech demo and everyone is amazed at how brilliant it is. For all of those in amazement (including my friend) it was their very first experience getting into VR and I also went through the same feeling when I first got the HTC Vive. He gives it to me and shows me the dinosaur tech demo and all I could really think was... how does this thing cost €3000 more than the Quest 3? I asked him: Where are the games? there are none. Can you hook it up to Steam? No... When the battery dies, can you swap it with another? No. Unless I had bought my Quest 3 to compare them side-by-side I honestly could not feel that it was much better visually... the finger tracking to go through menus wasn't bad, but that was it. I think the fact that Apple devices are generally in the thousands already: MBP can be like £3000, iPhone can be like £1k... it makes sense that they were able to sell them for the price of what they did, but for me it's just insanity. Do they have a library of games yet? Do they have any VR Games yet? Someone said it wasn't priced for consumers and I guess that's fine, but again... why wouldn't you just buy a Quest 3 (unless you hate Facebook)?

fouc 2y ago

arjonagelhout 2y ago

Unfortunately the price tag is too high for me, and since I'm based in the Netherlands, I did not manage to schedule a demo. However, what makes a good product is subjective and you're right that in many ways it is a good product. From what I can see, the hardware and software quality are high, and the user experience is greatly simplified in contrast to something like Meta Quest, which' UX is often rough and clunky. My main argument for saying it's not a good product, is that the form factor is not where it should be for mass consumer appeal. Another subjective and personal pet peeve is that it's not possible to create an AR experience using custom rendering logic with Metal. One has to use RealityKit. Only a fully immersive experience (VR) can be created with Metal. (This might have changed since it came out and I'm happy to be proven wrong, then I'll definitely buy one). I understand the reasoning behind locking this down, but I would love to experiment with writing AR 3D modeling software for visionOS.