4 ms·
Objectively the Vision Pro was innovative.
by LPisGood 1y ago
Objectively the Vision Pro was innovative.
- ProllyInfamous 1y agoI do not own any AAPL (neutral feelings; don't know enough about their direction). Unfortunately, my mid-sized US city still doesn't have an Apple Store... so I haven't demoed the VisionPro, yet; but I want to be able to see if its endorseable for my Parkinsons friend (whose eyes still work well); I suspect if I demoed it I'd also purchase one too. Absolutely seems innovative.
- ben_w 1y agoI don't see it. To me, it seems to have the same problems as the Google Glass, in that it's far too expensive and doesn't have a clear idea what its own USP is. That said, while I've played with a few different VR headsets, I've not had a chance to play with the VP, so perhaps there's something in the quality that would become visible if not for the prohibitive price.
- LPisGood 1y agoIt has a lot of drawbacks; I agree completely. I don’t own one, I don’t like it as a product, and I wouldn’t buy one, but the tech was undeniably innovative.
- WillAdams 1y agoThe 128K Mac was not too far off from being a promising toy (it wasn't until the Apple LaserWriter became available that the true promise/utility was made real) --- you have to build the expensive first version for early adopters so that you can later figure out how to make the affordable version folks will actually buy and use.
- ben_w 1y agoContent is indeed key. But you don't have to start expensive: cheaper headsets already existed for several years before it came out, and those are perfectly adequate games consoles; and of the reviews I've seen for home cinema and virtual monitor uses, nobody seems to prefer AVP over other headsets half the price.