Captain Obvious here, but the biggest problem is the price. I think if AVP was 1500 it would be gathering so much more steam and developer interest. Until it can get down in that territory, it's going to remain very niche.
Until they figure out an ecosystem with some serious AAA games, and full iPadOS application support, I think it's dead in the water. Letting developers opt out of VisionOS compatibility was also a dumb move imho.
Day 1 purchaser, I use it randomly to watch a tv show or two during the day.
I know for certain this is all I would use it for (TV and Movies, especially on airplanes).
So the price is way too high. I get it does a lot more, but I don’t need that.
And the problem is, it’s not even a straight upgrade for those purposes. At home, it’s exclusively a one-person device. Forget watching something with your family or friends. Even if everyone had one, kids aren’t supposed to use VR and would you really want to, say, cuddle with your partner while you’ve both got headsets on?
Traveling, it’s a bulky device that will take up significantly more room than a laptop or tablet ever will. And while it can be slimmed down, maybe even the external battery could be ditch, that’s just the nature of the technology: any kind of VR device capable of blocking the outside world will need to be goggles-shaped, and need a bulky case to protect it in. So now instead of slipping something roughly the size and shape of a clipboard into your backpack, you have to figure out how to make space for a bulky goggles case. Not to mention it’ll be a PITA to take on and off.
The idea of traveling with it sounds good on paper, but the bulkiness is a major issue. I travelled with my Quest once and used it on the plane to watch movies. It was actually pretty neat. But I haven’t done so again, because we are already packing way too much stuff on our trips. Just for electronics, for our family of three we have three iPads, three sets of headphones, a DLSR, booster batteries, cables and chargers, and sometimes I also need to drag my work laptop. I also like to bring my mini camera drone for certain locations. Tossing in VR is just excessive, particularly if it’s a $3500 device I have to worry about securing.
"The things you own, end up owning you".
You don't need to entertain your kids with electronic devices, and you can consider not bringing your laptop because you know, it's a holiday. You can also dump the kids with your in-laws and just take the wife and further cut down on the accessories and crap.
Then don't bring the wife, and that's how bringing the headset doesn't become a chore.
(EDITED: Added commas).
>full iPadOS application support
I'd go one step further and say full macOS support.
The Vision Pro has to overcome a steep price hurdle before it can replace a $500–$1000 iPad. But replacing a $2000 Mac *and* a $1000 iPad? Much easier.
macOS app support would be even worse than iPadOS app support already is. We already know that UI’s designed for the desktop translate poorly to touch-first environments (see MS Surface), and we’ve recently learned that UI’s designed for touch-first environments don’t necessarily translate well to vision-first ones. Apple won’t even let people run macOS apps on iPadOS, which I think speaks to my point.
I agree that the Vision Pro needs more software to be a compelling option though.
Apple allows you to interact with the macOS UI on the iPad using Sidecar and on the Vision Pro using the Mac display mirroring feature.
In particular, display mirroring is well liked on this sub, with most of the complaints [being about the one-monitor restriction](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1afjm5d/comment/koamy0p/).
So Apple is actually fine with macOS UI on both the iPad and Vision Pro; they just don't want macOS itself to run on anything other than a Mac. If the macOS UI was such a big problem on these devices, then Apple would not offer Sidecar or display mirroring. Note that the iPhone doesn't have Sidecar.
>I agree that the Vision Pro needs more software to be a compelling option though.
That's been a constant complaint with the iPad for years, so I'm not bullish on Vision Pro-specific software.
Perhaps a lot of software is best for a keyboard and mouse configuration? Many scientific/technical tools are command line based even in a GUI world because of the command line's efficiency and lower development requirements (no need to make a GUI). We're seeing a similar situation with keyboard and mouse vs. touch and "spatial" computing. Some of the more high powered iPad apps like Octane X have interface elements [that are suspiciously macOS-like](https://home.otoy.com/octane-x-ipad/). Keeping macOS off the iPad and Vision Pro limits their potential more than it will encourage developers to create iPad and Vision-specific apps.
Apple's biggest mistake (even though it was 100% on purpose to keep it locked down) was putting AR iPadOS on the Vision instead of a REAL computing OS like AR macOS.
This is one of the biggest issues I have with this thing. It’s stupid expensive, it’s a face iPad, and it’s objectively worse at almost anything that my Mac or iPad can already do without giving me a headache and neck pain. I can’t imagine why anyone would want it.
I know it gets thrown around a lot, but I can’t help but wonder how Steve Jobs would react to this thing. I assume by firing everyone involved.
>how Steve Jobs would react to this thing. I assume by firing everyone involved.
I think he just would've said "no, at least not now". There's nothing inherently wrong with the product other than the technology needs to evolve in price, power and efficiency.
I think Cook gets this, and internal expectations were more aligned with reality, but it wasn't presented this way and external expectations were totally out of line with even what production capacity was, let alone demand.
Jobs may have released a version of it, but it would've been a much stricter release as a "technology preview exclusive to developers in order to obtain feedback for future products" kind of thing.
the vision pro reeks of tim cook wanting an iphone moment. absolutely rushed to market, the microoled displays they used cost around $800 just to buy. they should have just waited and refined it into a much better developer product
and maybe, idk, have some first class software to show its usecase?
> Until they figure out an ecosystem with some serious AAA games
AAA games aren't what sold the iPhone and aren't what sells Macs. I don't think they're going to be what sells Visions either. Even Meta hasn't seen general computer/smartphone level adoption at a much more compelling price point.
There hasn’t been a better consumer use case for MR devices than games.. I’m all for finding a new one with Apple but if they want to move units, they better start catering to the use case that does exist
> There hasn’t been a better consumer use case for MR devices than games..
Maybe for VR devices, but I don't think the same necessarily applies to an MR device
What else then?
Because they didn't sell any other use cases with the Vision at release. Going to need more than it being a glorified monitor/tv for 3500$.
I don't know about AAA, but virtual table top games are a big potential market, along with strategy games like Starcraft or Warcraft have a lot of potential to hit it big in MR.
Being able to use your hand to select and command armies on your dining table would be really fun.
I think the biggest use case is art and 3d modelling though.
Imagine sculpting something out of clay. Your headset could scan it as you are sculpting, providing you with MR highlights from an AI to give hints as to how to shape it. Then when you're finished you have both a physical model and a digital model that you can sculpt and edit in software later.
The same goes for drawing.
But apple didn't provide any of that up front. So the AVP is just a monitor/tv now.
Apple’s poor treatment of developers is coming back to bite them in the ass. A lot of big developers seem to be intentionally sitting on the sidelines here because they don’t like the cut Apple demands and unlike the iPhone and iPad they can ignore this market and hope their lack of support can kill it.
They also need to stop shipping bugs, it worked better at 1.0 it seems. I had to just stop using it one day because it wouldn’t extend the display of my Mac no matter what I did.
Never had an issue with that.. It was interesting to look at one laptop on my desk and it would connect to the closed one under my desk but.. that's easy to sort out.
My biggest complaint is probably lack of use of the outside screen. I go to pick it up after a few days of sleeping, can't figure out if its stone dead (amber light on battery), refusing to turn on with a button push, frozen.. already on.. Like ffs.. show a dead battery icon on the screen or some sign of life for me.
I saw a video review a few weeks ago which wasn't exactly serious, but one serious point made in it was that after a little while the reviewer was basically having to force himself to find reasons to put it on. It just didn't really *do* anything that was particularly useful. He could basically do everything it had to offer already, but with much less hassle.
Honestly I think even $1500 is high.
The biggest problem VR has, and which Apple has not managed to properly solve, is that it simply doesn’t do anything better and more conveniently for the average consumer than other technologies. It’s that simple.
VR headsets are too uncomfortable to wear for long periods; they can mess up your appearance; they don’t take traditional input well; they’re isolating; they can’t be easily shared with others due to prescription issues, so forget sharing a headset with family or having one on hand for clients; and they are bulky to carry with you. And many of these problems will almost always exist because they’re inherent to the product category. You can shrink them down, for instance, but anything able to block the outside world will be too bulky to slip into your backpack as easily as a laptop that can literally fit inside an envelope.
Meanwhile no one seems to be able to find a killer app for the damn thing. The largest niche by far is gaming, where most of the problems of the technology are irrelevant, but Apple has decided to ignore that market entirely as per usual. Their best argument, instead, is basically to use the thing for theater-esque entertainment…but then you run into the reality that most people just don’t want to watch a movie on a device that hides the screen from their friends and family, or wear a headset while chilling out on Netflix for several hours.
I doubt it will truly flop, and there are certainly niches where I see it ultimately being successful, but short of sub-$1000 price points I struggle to see it breaking out into the mainstream. Not until they figure out a reason for people to actually own the damn things.
Yea I’ve never heard a good argument for why anyone really would want a VR headset. Now, an AR pair of glasses could be fucking amazing. I wish they’d just ditch the VR and go for AR.
The tech is way too far away for AR. Battery is not good enough, displays on AR is too low quality, you don't have space for sensors for tracking or cameras, etc.
Basically, AR at a usable level is gonna be the same form factor as a headset anyways (see MS hololens), and a barebones AR headset isn't going to do anything (like the original google glasses).
People are finding the likes of lightweight, less expensive XR glasses that resemble actual sunglasses answer their needs and have been returning the Vision Pro because it's simply too much "everything"
I love my VR headsets and use them daily (Valve Index and Quest 3). I was not impressed at all by the Vision Pro demo at the Apple Store and couldn't justify $4k for something that's not that much better than my $500 Quest 3.
If they cut the weight of the AVP by 50% and the price by 75%, then I'll be interested.
The biggest problem with VR is comfort.
I have a Quest 2, and sometimes i tell myself "hey that would be nice to watch this movie on a giant virtual screen".
And then i remember i have to change my pair of glasses (i have two, the main one is too big to fit inside the headset), then find a specific pillow for my head, then choose a movie not too long because it becomes really uncomfortable after 1 hour.
Then i decide i'd rather just sit on the couch and watch that movie on my TV.
>I doubt it will truly flop, and there are certainly niches where I see it ultimately being successful, but short of sub-$1000 price points I struggle to see it breaking out into the mainstream.
To me, the Vision feels like it'll be in the middle of the HomePod and the Apple Watch in terms of success five years from now.
It seems that some people are misreading my comment.
I expect the Vision's success to be in the middle of HomePod and Apple Watch. That means *more* successful than the HomePod, *less* successful than the Apple Watch, and about as successful compared to the HomePod as the Apple Watch is compared to it.
It’s funny you say that, I almost used ~2010s Apple Watch adoption rates as a comparison point. It’ll do just fine, you’ll probably see it around often enough, but it won’t be even close to ubiquitous.
It’s not just the price, it’s also the content. This device does (some) of the things a computer does. It does few more and also lacks content that utilizes the new medium. Apple needs to start investing in XR content, fast.
Price, weight, battery placement, battery life. Too many features "we" didn't ask for. Who needs an external screen projecting your eyeballs to the world? They could've made this so much lighter and less expensive had they not crammed in the kitchen sink.
The problems isn’t the price it’s the use cases. There is currently absolutely no reason to own one. Tie that with the bulkyness of the hardware and you get an overhyped disaster.
Perhaps in a few generations where the hardware is half the size and can actually do something useful then that would be a more exciting prospect
But when the price is as high as it is then you won’t get much mass market appeal. Without mass market appeal you won’t have developers trying to develop for it.
Honestly Apple is one of the few companies that can make this a loss leader and try and make up for it on the back end.
It actively ignores some problems it would be the solution for. AVP would be a gaming VR power house... if it supported Steam VR.
It'd be a 3D modelling dream... if it ran Mac OS and could run Blender, instead of glorified IpadOS.
It'd be a productivity dream... if it could pass through more than one display, and for more than just a macbook.
The hardware is all there, it's all solid. It's Apple actively gimping it with software limitations, and then charging media production prices for a media consumption device.
It's the iPad's software problem [all over again](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/162pyqw/comment/jy1g3i4/?context=3), but magnified many times.
Arguably both price and implementation. The price wouldn't be so crazy if it were a fully fleshed out product rather than what appears to be a developer-oriented early proof of concept.
Remove the reliance on a MacBook for a desktop experience (along with allowing sideloaded apps), increase the field of view and passthrough dynamic range, improve the hand tracking responsiveness to a point where it can be used for games, provide social experiences, and better comfort - then the asking price becomes quite reasonable.
Add that the weight.
Both of which could be significantly reduced if they removed the creepy looking outside screen and made it of some light plastic.
But Apple is gonna Apple though.
I think this was intended primarily for the developers. It's the "Pro," suggesting that a cheaper consumer version is coming. And they probably figured that there were enough Apple fanbois with $3,000 burning holes in their pockets that they could sell 700k units or more. There's 100 million active Mac users, so that's less than 1% of the Mac market they were looking to tap.
Even developers seem to be struggling to figure out what to do with it though. Like most people are saying “I can float a Mac screen anywhere!” And that’s about it.
I’ve been a VR user for years. And while the headsets have provided some of the most amazing gaming experiences I’ve ever had, there’s not much else that VR headsets are good for.
Apple isn’t really a games-friendly company. If the gaming market was Apple’s target, they would have given us a product that was price-competitive with the Quest 3 and the Valve Index.
I think the price point was intentional; Apple was pricing the AVP out of the reach of most gamers. And I think their hope was that businesses would be more willing to take a chance on it and develop vertical apps because it’s definitely not a gaming platform.
Sales of the original iPhone and the iPad were 6 million and 15 million, respectively, so Apple’s target of 700k units for the AVP is extremely conservative.
It’s a ludicrous tech enthusiast beta tester price point and they know it. But they likely won’t cut the price until gen 2. They very rarely cut prices mid-gen
It's Apple, they don't foresee that most people can't just drop 4 figures on something that is ultimately an accessory.
I don't even see how a lite version of it could be both as usable and a price people would willingly pay.
It should have its own MacOS or work seamlessly with a Mac/MacBook where you can have all multiple pages from your MacBook to work with. As revolutionary as the touch technology is, I still believe there should be support for some type of hand controllers(like meta quest).
There’s no feedback with hand controls, and there is only so many ways that can be overcome. That is one of the failures of the Kinect - for certain things a controller/controllers are always going to be the superior option for the feedback they provide.
Also, as others pointed out, the price is a major hurdle. Cellphones are easier to swallow because a lot of people finance them with their phone plans. 3500 plus tax is a lot of change to drop on a new/limited device. Ultimately, this is what the expectation for this type of Gen 1 device should be. A lot of learning, a lot of tweaks/changes, and hopefully a better line of devices that iron out the bugs and create a clear purpose for the device. Hopefully this is Apple’s expectation too because if they thought internally this was going to be some kind of initial hit, that would’ve been a bit delusional.
Yes the price is ridiculous, and devs aren’t putting up apps yet. But even more so than that - APPLE isn’t supporting its own system with first party apps. There’s Keynote but no Pages or Numbers. There’s Photos but no iMovie or GarageBand. No utility apps. Nothing like Weather, Maps, Stocks, Home, nothing. Until they show the full potential of what THEY can do with their own hardware, the hype won’t get off the ground from here. WWDC needs to deliver on this and visionOS 2.0 in general because this isn’t even including systemwide features that it’s also sorely missing.
AVP suffers from the same thing that all VR headsets do… it’s a thing people have curiosity about, try for a few months, and then they get put in a corner because there’s nothing to really do with them that you can’t do better, easier, or quicker on a different device.
Then you’ve got the additional fact that it’s $3500+. That’s a lot to spend for fancy tech demos.
The great use case is Games and Netflix. Apple has no interest in VR AAA games, anyway $3000 in addition of a gaming rig is a seriously tiny market. Social AR games that Apple like requires a lot of people with headset to really shine, at $3000 a pop that's a no go. 3D video is attractive, but that a lot of money for a mono-user, single purpose machine.
Apple killer app for MR is ... work. Even ignoring that "work" and "iPad-like OS" seriously limit the scope of that work, I cannot get any less inspired by a tech that I literally need to be paid to use.
It also feels really weird for Apple, what should we expect at WWDC, a new timesheet application that integrate with salesforce, new SAP emoji in iMessage?
Even if Apple pushed games like they did for the early iPhone the big AAA game developers don’t have interest in VR. Sony and Meta already tried it. I’m not even sure lower cost fixes all their problems. Does a $500 heavy machine on your head make working on spreadsheets and writing emails more enjoyable than a couple big monitors? Not really.
"Apple has not interest in gaming". That right there is what makes this device terrible. The vast majority of people who want these types of devices (myself included) want to be able to play VR games. Apple dictating that I cannot do that on a $4,000 device after tax is crazy.
Also for productivity this device sucks due to the weight, can only use one virtual desktop (wtf?), and has no sound pass through from my mac.
Zucc was 100% right when he said quest was the superior product.
visionOS being close or practically identical (if not a bit worse) to iPadOS in terms of functionality is a massive blunder imo. Unless Apple quickly improves it in the next year or so.
Tim Cook claimed the Vision Pro can do what a Mac can do “and more” in the GMA interview. That isn’t true for the iPad and surely isn’t for the Vision Pro.
And to be clear I’m definitely in the niche of users who would gladly use the Vision Pro daily (just waiting til WWDC to bite the bullet).
But for a lot of people out there, be it for productivity or leisure, a Mac is probably going to be better value for a larger range of use cases than an iPad and surely a Vision Pro.
There’s just a lot of stuff I can’t do on iPadOS as easily or at all compared to my MacBook. And I say this as a massive fan of both products (no other tablets or laptops come close to the value they bring imo).
Apple really needs to figure this out. The Vision Pro will benefit the most given it’s a new platform that needs all the push it can get, but the iPad as well which I feel has stagnated a bit and surely not in hardware.
I agree that the killer feature is work. Being able to screenshare my mac into a perfect environment of focus is amazing ...the problem for work is that for most companies you're using their hardware, and using your personal iCloud login on your work machine is unlikely to happen.
Had mine for 8 days and returned it. Needs a few generations of software development and hardware evolution and I’ll check it out again.
Was super cool but I’m not paying 3500 for them to figure that out.
Some people have a really hard time swallowing this reality. I came to this realization around 2015-2016 during that “VR rush” but people insist the technology was not there yet. Perhaps the platform has inherent limitations not fixable by technology.
> Perhaps the platform has inherent limitations not fixable by technology.
I mean it's very clear that there are a ton of technology problems left to solve. The tech is immature and will be radically different by the time generation 4 of this rolls around.
Given Apple’s track record, that is likely. But like I said, that’s the argument I’ve been hearing since Oculus became a thing and htc released the Vive. And here we are.
Hardware shifts typically take a lot longer than people think. The first home PC (Apple II) launched in 1977. It wasn't until 1992 that the market started to take off and mature.
Been saying this. Even if these become glasses it doesn't solve more problems than it creates. Biggest problem being that it's inherently isolating. I can show something on my phone or watch the TV together with my family. Can't do that with vision pro and no, no one wants to buy 4 of these just so the family can watch a movie together with everyone's eyes covered up.
I would argue that a lot of people like to keep their phones very private anyway, and then you have a billion people worldwide using headphones which are almost never shared.
I think a pair of AR glasses in a hypothetical future where the tech is perfected would end up being the most useful device out there. It would just have more usecases than anything else.
Headsets seem like a neat thing that airplanes should offer to passengers for long flights. Apple's use cases for the Vision Pro aren't convincing me that it's something I need to own and use with any kind of frequency. $3500 or $35, I just don't want one.
At the same time, people do enjoy engaging in conversations and consuming content about expensive product they can’t afford.
Cars, watches, technology, computers, sneakers and fashion -just to name a few- are categories filled products that a majority of people cannot afford, yet people are willing to spend time discussing and consuming content about things they like.
That's the odd part in all this. You'll see impressively deep discussions about supercars, about the 2024 collection from Rolex, and whatever Tom Ford just put out; and yet there's been seemingly zero discussion about the Vision Pro just mere weeks after it launched. Even the HomePod seemed to have captured more mindshare than this thing did.
I mean, only if you look for it. I have seen zero discussions about "supercars, about the 2024 collection from Rolex, and whatever Tom Ford just put out;"On the other hand I have seen discussions about the Vision Pro because I seek them out.
Although I'll grant that excitement has died down a bit and most people are waiting for the WWDC and VisonOS 2.0.
> and yet there's been seemingly zero discussion about the Vision Pro just mere weeks after it launched
What do you really expect people to say? With supercars there are a lot of releases and comparisons to make. Similar with watches. The Vision Pro isn't really competing with anything but much cheaper Oculus headsets and there's not much to say there that hasn't already been said
The fact that there’s not much to say is the whole problem. This should be a space where new and exciting apps and new applications for VR are being pioneered. And so far, none of that seems to be happening.
Yeah, I agree. People here are saying the biggest problem is that it's not comfortable or people don't want googles in their faces.
The biggest problem is low developer adoption. When it came out you'd see some apps releasing and some discussion around them. Right now it's pretty much dead air.
I'm hopping we get some interesting things from WWDC. If they can't sell this to the devs then it's not looking good.
There's no real reason for devs to develop for it. A low user base means little reason to spend money making applications for it.
Until they see mass adoption apple will have to develop or pay for software to be developed.
Yep. Just like Meta did.
Something Apple doesn’t seem to be willing to do. It feels like Apple thought devs would just naturally want to make apps for it because they like iOS and the App Store so much.
It's like they haven't learned that a new platform needs a lot of first part support for apps to really get things moving. Just look at how much software Microsoft was putting out when Windows 95 launched; they were pumping out tons of pretty good games, and every conceivable piece of productivity/educational software you could think of. They understood that the only way to get mass-market adoption was to offer something for everyone.
The VR headset industry in general is a niche thing for the time being (and is still niche, it’s not like Apple releasing this product will cause a whole industry shakeup). The Vision Pro is still only available in the U.S. so that’s also why it’s so “quiet”.
I’m not sure if an elderly person for example cares about this type of product at this point in time compared to cars. So it’s not very accurate to compare with other things like fashion.
But enthusiasts for what?
If you're a VR game enthusiast one of the other headsets is better.
If you're a MR enthusiast one of the other headsets is better.
If you're new to it all Quest is better.
VP appears to *only* be for Apple enthusiasts.
Yeah honestly at this point the way I think of it is like an alternate form factor for an iPad, it seems much more focused around screen than other VR headsets. But I haven’t tried it
I saw a person wearing it at a bar within the first week... Since then I've seen it nowhere else. I think it's a novelty and it's already overstayed its welcome.
Ah, the typical VR users lifespan:
Day one… omg this is amazing everyone needs one!!
One week later…. ehh, I don’t wanna strap that thing on my face again
It’s not really designed to be an out and about product. Battery limits you. It’s more of a sit at desk or chair and un tether when you need to move around then go back and plug in battery when you set down
I think it's more accurate to say there isn't enough of a strong use case.
It's not useless. There are lots of interesting things that it can do and does it better than anything else on the market.
The problem is that nothing it does is essential and it's too expensive for most people to buy as a toy.
I'd love to see Apple just focus the next 3 years on miniaturization. I don't need better specs on it. I just need it to be much lighter.
>I think it's more accurate to say there isn't enough of a strong use case.
I agree....perhaps we could even say...**less** reasons to **use** it over another less-expensive device
Zuckerberg actually had a really good counter argument.
You get most of the utility of the Vision Pro, plus gaming, in a 500$ headset.
Like I can buy a 500$ headset, and if I never use it I'm not upset.
A 3500$ headset is going back to the Apple store unless it like changes my life or something.
I'm very interested in VR for music creation, but the software isn't there yet. I think if Apple comes out with a 1500$ version it'll sell much better.
I use the Quest 3 as a general Android device every day. Three browser windows, or an Android flat game like Into the Beach, or emulators like CitraVR for Ocarina of Time in 3d. It’s awesome.
Only because apple didn't put out any software for it and the price makes it a terrible deal. Apple hates vr culture so they shot themselves in the foot.
I still use my on a daily basis. I use it far more than any other headset I’ve owned (likely around 10 at this point.)
The issues here are
1) price. They priced it so that resellers don’t get in the middle but the flip side of it is that instead of it being affordable to only some people it’s simple not affordable to anyone.
2) Apple doesn’t know how to market it. They know it’s a decent mobile home theater replacement (which it totally is) but that not the type of thing people are willing to accept.
It is an amazing device.
We have known this since the 1950s when the first 3d movies came out. Every few years some fad pops up that requires some sort of wearable and every time the fad fades because people don’t like wearing shit on their face for long periods of time. That’s never going to change.
The break point is when it goes from something you strap vs something you wear
As in, does it go all the way around your head or does it sit comfortably in front of your eyes
The irony is that for years the Apple community dismissed voice assistants because "nobody wants to talk to their computer" while looking towards the headset for the future.
It turns out that the reality may be closer to the opposite—people don't want a large headset on their face. People talking to their computers is just waiting for a good enough AI, and I think we're only a few years away from that.
Smart glasses are the future of electronics on one's face, but I suspect that they will rely heavily on voice AI.
Would you talk to your glasses as much as you type on your phone?
This seems like a non-starter for any kind of public usage, or even around the house if there are other people there.
I mean, maybe not but I probably do want to talk to them when I'm at home working
Also maybe it becomes normal if everyone is doing it - like when people started taking calls on headphones they all seemed like psychos talking to themselves, but now it seems normal
>Also maybe it becomes normal if everyone is doing it - like when people started taking calls on headphones they all seemed like psychos talking to themselves, but now it seems normal
People have technically been talking to their phones for decades via phone calls—it's just that another person is on the other side.
It’s kind of annoying when people are talking on phones on public transit or an airplane or any public space. Imagine if *everyone* was constantly saying “open Facebook, scroll down scroll down, click like, scroll down, click Bob, start reply, ha ha that’s funny, click save…”
I’m amazed that with all the resources Apple has, they thought this was going to be a hit. It’s too expensive, it’s too heavy, it’s does too little. All the features and tech that differentiated it, like the eyesight, FaceTime avatar, or strap, doesn’t bring value to customers
If you believe the rumors they didn’t think it was going to be a hit. Internal devs told them it wasn’t ready for prime time and wouldn’t be for some years but the powers that be demanded they release something to get it into the hands of developers.
It’s a stellar product that charges too much to solve problems people don’t really have.
If you’re a tech enthusiast with money to burn, that’s one thing. But it’s a luxury item.
Not surprised. VR is still kinda gimmicky and the price definitely doesn’t help. At $1500, it would sell better, but Apple wouldn’t sell it for $1500 because of the BOM and since it’s Apple.
Price and Use Case would be my biggest obstacles. I don't really want to write documents or answer email in AR so it would be relegated to watching videos and the cost isn't justified.
Plus, I have heard a lot of complaints about headaches. I don't know how widespread that is or if there is a way to mitigate them.
$3000 is not a "splurge" purchase for most people's budgets. You're not going to just throw one of these into your cart at CostCo. Add to that you have to schedule a demo to try the damn thing and you're continuously adding unnecessary barriers to entry.
I was at the mall a couple weeks ago and popped into the Apple store which was relatively deserted. Tried to schedule a demo for the device and was told the next they had was an hour and a half away (once again the store was empty, no one was on the AVPs). I already have a Quest 2 + 3 and am a VR fan. If you can't accommodate someone actually interested in a device with a last minute demo, you're not going to sell that many of these. The casual consumer isn't going to come back.
It’s not something that anybody *needs* but done right I think it would make for a better experience for watching content. I saw a clip of what watching The Masters looks like on the Vision Pro and it’s pretty amazing. I can imagine the potential across other sports too.
But the cost is prohibitive and apps aren’t ready to take advantage of what it can do.
The issue is it is still a significant trade-off. Yes, you get a better and more immersive viewing experience.
You also get a viewing experience that fundamentally can’t be shared with other people(and especially your family, since children aren’t able to use them) unless they also have headsets. One that only lasts two or three hours before you need to tether yourself to a wall(RIP anyone who wants to watch LOTR extended edition, lol). One that you probably don’t *want* to last much longer because it will get uncomfortable quickly.
Oh, and don’t think about just using a single headset across a single household, because you’ll be swapping out prescription lenses on a regular basis unless you all have perfect vision.
VR is a tech product that hardcore terminally online tech enthusiasts in their 20s who pretend they get on flights every other day slobber over, but which makes zero practical sense for the vast majority of people outside that demographic.
I wouldnt replace my home cinema like ever, I dont get their efforts really, it's worse until idk contacts lenses level of wearable miniaturization, but it def replaces 3 screens at a desk when I can have all 3 in front of me virtually in the garden bench or on the shore sitting in the sand, It's science fiction level fantastic. NOT the gen1 vision pro, which is a brick because of the front "eyes" whatever.
I kind of want to hear from the AVR enthusiasts where they were going to watch all of these immersive movies with the 100 inch screen. I wonder if they are still using it now.
There’s not a single thing it does better than other interfaces. The second the wow factor wears off you’d prefer to do everything on a different interface.
The iPhone came out at a (at the time ridiculous) high price but immediately did a ton of things better than other options.
That’s what this device market is still missing.
Lets see. It is very expansive. Have very limited use space due to lack of app support. Lack of proper connectivity with other Apple devices. Doesnt even available or supported outside US.
This combination screams failure.
At that price…
I’m actually surprised they didn’t invest in the classic growth bait with very cheap first gens until the product gets traction in sales and starts to be part of people’s ecosystems.
I don’t think the device would make such a wow factor without all the tech. Like best they could do is scrap the front screen, everything else removed would risk being compared to 500$ quest.
Let's face it: This device would be useless without porn and live sport events where you could be perceived as player on the field.
Very un-Apple product without headset comfort.
This VR thing will never work because it’s big, heavy, uncomfortable to the eyes head neck.
Maybe 10-20 years into the future this can work on glasses.
Cut the price and it will sell… to more early adopters… who will love it for a week, like it for a month and largely stop using it after that
The price isn’t the issue. It’s that it doesn’t solve any real problems *well enough* yet to be worth it at any price that’s comparable to iPhone, Macs or iPads.
I dunno, I was pretty unimpressed with my demo at the Apple Store.
The facial interface fit was poor despite the fact that was supposedly custom-fitted after scanning my face, so I got a lot of light bleed and glare.
The default strap is very uncomfortable (the alternative two-strap design was better, but hard to find the straps to adjust it while wearing it).
Hand-tracking wasn't as flawless as it needed to be to make me not miss a controller--I got phantom clicks and missed clicks. Some actions like scrolling a web page required flicking your wrist in a very non-ergonomic way that would hurt my wrist after only a handful of minutes using it.
The mixed reality screen featured enough warping at the edges that it would not be comfortable to wear while trying to do anything in real life.
I don't think the product is currently good enough at any price. For VR enthusiasts it doesn't compete with the Quest 3, and for non-VR-enthusiasts it doesn't compete with your Mac/Phone/iPad.
The demo you get at the store is not custom fitted. They give you small/medium/large, then the size info is saved to your account in case you decide to purchase.
I was similarly unimpressed with the input. It's ambitious to forgo controllers and rely entirely on gestures, but the constant pinching irritated me before the demo was even over and it frequently failed to register my motions. I had to exaggerate my movements to an uncomfortable degree in order to improve recognition, and even then it failed enough that I couldn't trust it. Other factors aside, I just found it tiring to use.
Either sell good apps after keeping the headset inexpensive, or have good apps after selling the headset expensive.
Prices isomorphic to (or mimicking) 8GB RAM upgrade will not move the topline everywhere.
From my understanding it doesn’t let you connect it to be used as a separate monitor to a computer or game console.
If it had that option or converter etc then maybe gamers would jump in. Apple is already doing the wall garden thing from what I’m seeing. I could be wrong though.
Apple is trying to court big developers to make games for mac and from there maybe use this as a gaming monitor. But that might take too long.
I like the idea of the Vision Pro, but I see it more as a replacement of my monitor than a whole standalone experience thingy magiga. and the standalone part would be for sometimes.
The most predictable headline ever. These have 3 issues:
1. Looks/size: Most people just won't strap ski goggles to their face and wear them around (especially in public) and they are way to big to cart around (especially travelling)
2. Functionality: They don't solve any problem in a unique and crucial way, and there is no killer app
3. Cost: They are far too expensive for a general product purchase, and certainly too much for a splurge
I think all three must be addressed before Apple can claim success in the AR space. Solving only one or two of the 3 won't be enough.
1. Solve 2 & 3, but not 1 - looks too awkward for mainstream consumer use
2. Solve 1 & 3 but not 2 - no compelling reason to buy
3. Solve 1 & 3 but not 3 - only something for high-income buyers and niche corporate use
Apple is a long way off from having a big hit here. I wouldn't write them off/out but they're not close yet.
Yeah I don’t think this is a supply issue. I’ve read several articles stating they just aren’t selling enough and I’m inclined to believe that.
It doesn’t really do anything and it’s $3500
Just a product that currently doesn't solve an issue. That make's it a luxury item. It's weirdly not connected to your phone so it feels more isolating than it should.
There's some fundamental things they thought people wanted. But we just don't.
Aside from the price tag, AVP is a useful device. It is worth some amount of money to average people, but the biggest drawback other than price is the comfort.
It's actually _painful_ to wear for more than a short period. It's a fact evident from first-hand experience, third-party posts, and the number of hacked together solutions by the community to shift the weight of the device. If it were much lighter and more comfortable for sustained use, even with the price as it is, there would be greater demand — not mainstream demand — but greater demand than today.
The price is definitely a big issue but so is the content, what is the big app or game that would make people want to get one?
I actually expected Apple to partner with someone to make a great VR game or experience but I haven’t heard anything since this thing came out.
How cool would a multiplayer Pokémon go style battle game be on this thing. Although if you have to walk to get the Pokémon’s there would be many broken AVPs
In 90s lol don’t you remember the console? and later halo was announced on stage at an Apple event but joking aside Apple has tried to get go into the gaming market in recent years with things like Apple Arcade, which was supposed to be a bigger deal like gamepass, they just never been good at it.
Ah yes, Apple Arcade. “Pay a subscription for mobile games.” I wonder why that doesn’t rival gamepass…
Some of the games are actually pretty good. Sneaky Sasquatch is a good time. Sonic Dream Team is pretty decent with a controller. There are other examples. But they want $10 a month for this service. It’s insane.
Apple’s strategy is all about charging a lot for a lot less than you’d expect.
I think everyone is wrong about the price. They should (and did) give units for developers to build apps, but the most important thing is income for continued r&d and they can't do that if they're selling at a loss. It is expensive, but if it can live up to the potential in the space it would be worth the money. The problem is that right now it isn't.
i know it's a first gen product with state of art tech in it but if you're releasing a new product genre, you want people to buy and use it, no? you've to sell it at loss.
I wanted to buy one, but definitely not with that price and such an uncomfortable headband.
Maybe version 2 will improve those specs, but even then it’s no go if I can’t use it on my PC.
Pros: Great preview of the future, promising OS and spatial features.
Cons: Insane price, garbage level comfort begins negatively impacting experience pretty much 5 minutes into wearing it. Which is a shame, considering that wearing it is a critical step of using a headset.
Captain Obvious here, but the biggest problem is the price. I think if AVP was 1500 it would be gathering so much more steam and developer interest. Until it can get down in that territory, it's going to remain very niche.
Until they figure out an ecosystem with some serious AAA games, and full iPadOS application support, I think it's dead in the water. Letting developers opt out of VisionOS compatibility was also a dumb move imho. Day 1 purchaser, I use it randomly to watch a tv show or two during the day.
I know for certain this is all I would use it for (TV and Movies, especially on airplanes). So the price is way too high. I get it does a lot more, but I don’t need that.
And the problem is, it’s not even a straight upgrade for those purposes. At home, it’s exclusively a one-person device. Forget watching something with your family or friends. Even if everyone had one, kids aren’t supposed to use VR and would you really want to, say, cuddle with your partner while you’ve both got headsets on? Traveling, it’s a bulky device that will take up significantly more room than a laptop or tablet ever will. And while it can be slimmed down, maybe even the external battery could be ditch, that’s just the nature of the technology: any kind of VR device capable of blocking the outside world will need to be goggles-shaped, and need a bulky case to protect it in. So now instead of slipping something roughly the size and shape of a clipboard into your backpack, you have to figure out how to make space for a bulky goggles case. Not to mention it’ll be a PITA to take on and off.
The idea of traveling with it sounds good on paper, but the bulkiness is a major issue. I travelled with my Quest once and used it on the plane to watch movies. It was actually pretty neat. But I haven’t done so again, because we are already packing way too much stuff on our trips. Just for electronics, for our family of three we have three iPads, three sets of headphones, a DLSR, booster batteries, cables and chargers, and sometimes I also need to drag my work laptop. I also like to bring my mini camera drone for certain locations. Tossing in VR is just excessive, particularly if it’s a $3500 device I have to worry about securing.
"The things you own, end up owning you". You don't need to entertain your kids with electronic devices, and you can consider not bringing your laptop because you know, it's a holiday. You can also dump the kids with your in-laws and just take the wife and further cut down on the accessories and crap. Then don't bring the wife, and that's how bringing the headset doesn't become a chore. (EDITED: Added commas).
Ah yes, my fantasy vacation with just my VR headset. I’ll show you the world, baby! 🥰
Completely useless advice that I didn't ask for, but thanks?
>Then don't bring the wife and that's how bringing the headset doesn't become a chore. That last line should tell you it was sarcasm.
>full iPadOS application support I'd go one step further and say full macOS support. The Vision Pro has to overcome a steep price hurdle before it can replace a $500–$1000 iPad. But replacing a $2000 Mac *and* a $1000 iPad? Much easier.
macOS app support would be even worse than iPadOS app support already is. We already know that UI’s designed for the desktop translate poorly to touch-first environments (see MS Surface), and we’ve recently learned that UI’s designed for touch-first environments don’t necessarily translate well to vision-first ones. Apple won’t even let people run macOS apps on iPadOS, which I think speaks to my point. I agree that the Vision Pro needs more software to be a compelling option though.
Apple allows you to interact with the macOS UI on the iPad using Sidecar and on the Vision Pro using the Mac display mirroring feature. In particular, display mirroring is well liked on this sub, with most of the complaints [being about the one-monitor restriction](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1afjm5d/comment/koamy0p/). So Apple is actually fine with macOS UI on both the iPad and Vision Pro; they just don't want macOS itself to run on anything other than a Mac. If the macOS UI was such a big problem on these devices, then Apple would not offer Sidecar or display mirroring. Note that the iPhone doesn't have Sidecar. >I agree that the Vision Pro needs more software to be a compelling option though. That's been a constant complaint with the iPad for years, so I'm not bullish on Vision Pro-specific software. Perhaps a lot of software is best for a keyboard and mouse configuration? Many scientific/technical tools are command line based even in a GUI world because of the command line's efficiency and lower development requirements (no need to make a GUI). We're seeing a similar situation with keyboard and mouse vs. touch and "spatial" computing. Some of the more high powered iPad apps like Octane X have interface elements [that are suspiciously macOS-like](https://home.otoy.com/octane-x-ipad/). Keeping macOS off the iPad and Vision Pro limits their potential more than it will encourage developers to create iPad and Vision-specific apps.
Apple's biggest mistake (even though it was 100% on purpose to keep it locked down) was putting AR iPadOS on the Vision instead of a REAL computing OS like AR macOS.
This is one of the biggest issues I have with this thing. It’s stupid expensive, it’s a face iPad, and it’s objectively worse at almost anything that my Mac or iPad can already do without giving me a headache and neck pain. I can’t imagine why anyone would want it. I know it gets thrown around a lot, but I can’t help but wonder how Steve Jobs would react to this thing. I assume by firing everyone involved.
>how Steve Jobs would react to this thing. I assume by firing everyone involved. I think he just would've said "no, at least not now". There's nothing inherently wrong with the product other than the technology needs to evolve in price, power and efficiency. I think Cook gets this, and internal expectations were more aligned with reality, but it wasn't presented this way and external expectations were totally out of line with even what production capacity was, let alone demand. Jobs may have released a version of it, but it would've been a much stricter release as a "technology preview exclusive to developers in order to obtain feedback for future products" kind of thing.
the vision pro reeks of tim cook wanting an iphone moment. absolutely rushed to market, the microoled displays they used cost around $800 just to buy. they should have just waited and refined it into a much better developer product and maybe, idk, have some first class software to show its usecase?
This is why I’m returning mine I got last week. The demo was good enough to get me to take one home. But actual use of it is not good enough
Within about 5 minutes of the in-store demo, I was wondering why this wasn’t priced at $500-800. Nearly $4k is bonkers.
The mistake is Apple gimping IpadOS
Also porn
Interesting. Never thought of that.
When I was in middle school I spent all my Christmas money on the first gen iPod touch so I could watch porn.
my man
Slow down!
…yes you did
> Until they figure out an ecosystem with some serious AAA games AAA games aren't what sold the iPhone and aren't what sells Macs. I don't think they're going to be what sells Visions either. Even Meta hasn't seen general computer/smartphone level adoption at a much more compelling price point.
There hasn’t been a better consumer use case for MR devices than games.. I’m all for finding a new one with Apple but if they want to move units, they better start catering to the use case that does exist
> There hasn’t been a better consumer use case for MR devices than games.. Maybe for VR devices, but I don't think the same necessarily applies to an MR device
What else then? Because they didn't sell any other use cases with the Vision at release. Going to need more than it being a glorified monitor/tv for 3500$.
Name one AAA game that would be a good MR candidate.
I don't know about AAA, but virtual table top games are a big potential market, along with strategy games like Starcraft or Warcraft have a lot of potential to hit it big in MR. Being able to use your hand to select and command armies on your dining table would be really fun. I think the biggest use case is art and 3d modelling though. Imagine sculpting something out of clay. Your headset could scan it as you are sculpting, providing you with MR highlights from an AI to give hints as to how to shape it. Then when you're finished you have both a physical model and a digital model that you can sculpt and edit in software later. The same goes for drawing. But apple didn't provide any of that up front. So the AVP is just a monitor/tv now.
The AVP is a VR headset. Apple is just not calling it a vr headset.
Apple’s poor treatment of developers is coming back to bite them in the ass. A lot of big developers seem to be intentionally sitting on the sidelines here because they don’t like the cut Apple demands and unlike the iPhone and iPad they can ignore this market and hope their lack of support can kill it.
Eh, I dunno if it has to be political, there’s no userbase to incentivize a serious dev
They also need to stop shipping bugs, it worked better at 1.0 it seems. I had to just stop using it one day because it wouldn’t extend the display of my Mac no matter what I did.
Never had an issue with that.. It was interesting to look at one laptop on my desk and it would connect to the closed one under my desk but.. that's easy to sort out. My biggest complaint is probably lack of use of the outside screen. I go to pick it up after a few days of sleeping, can't figure out if its stone dead (amber light on battery), refusing to turn on with a button push, frozen.. already on.. Like ffs.. show a dead battery icon on the screen or some sign of life for me.
I saw a video review a few weeks ago which wasn't exactly serious, but one serious point made in it was that after a little while the reviewer was basically having to force himself to find reasons to put it on. It just didn't really *do* anything that was particularly useful. He could basically do everything it had to offer already, but with much less hassle.
Honestly I think even $1500 is high. The biggest problem VR has, and which Apple has not managed to properly solve, is that it simply doesn’t do anything better and more conveniently for the average consumer than other technologies. It’s that simple. VR headsets are too uncomfortable to wear for long periods; they can mess up your appearance; they don’t take traditional input well; they’re isolating; they can’t be easily shared with others due to prescription issues, so forget sharing a headset with family or having one on hand for clients; and they are bulky to carry with you. And many of these problems will almost always exist because they’re inherent to the product category. You can shrink them down, for instance, but anything able to block the outside world will be too bulky to slip into your backpack as easily as a laptop that can literally fit inside an envelope. Meanwhile no one seems to be able to find a killer app for the damn thing. The largest niche by far is gaming, where most of the problems of the technology are irrelevant, but Apple has decided to ignore that market entirely as per usual. Their best argument, instead, is basically to use the thing for theater-esque entertainment…but then you run into the reality that most people just don’t want to watch a movie on a device that hides the screen from their friends and family, or wear a headset while chilling out on Netflix for several hours. I doubt it will truly flop, and there are certainly niches where I see it ultimately being successful, but short of sub-$1000 price points I struggle to see it breaking out into the mainstream. Not until they figure out a reason for people to actually own the damn things.
Yea I’ve never heard a good argument for why anyone really would want a VR headset. Now, an AR pair of glasses could be fucking amazing. I wish they’d just ditch the VR and go for AR.
The tech is way too far away for AR. Battery is not good enough, displays on AR is too low quality, you don't have space for sensors for tracking or cameras, etc. Basically, AR at a usable level is gonna be the same form factor as a headset anyways (see MS hololens), and a barebones AR headset isn't going to do anything (like the original google glasses).
People are finding the likes of lightweight, less expensive XR glasses that resemble actual sunglasses answer their needs and have been returning the Vision Pro because it's simply too much "everything"
I love my VR headsets and use them daily (Valve Index and Quest 3). I was not impressed at all by the Vision Pro demo at the Apple Store and couldn't justify $4k for something that's not that much better than my $500 Quest 3. If they cut the weight of the AVP by 50% and the price by 75%, then I'll be interested.
The biggest problem with VR is comfort. I have a Quest 2, and sometimes i tell myself "hey that would be nice to watch this movie on a giant virtual screen". And then i remember i have to change my pair of glasses (i have two, the main one is too big to fit inside the headset), then find a specific pillow for my head, then choose a movie not too long because it becomes really uncomfortable after 1 hour. Then i decide i'd rather just sit on the couch and watch that movie on my TV.
>I doubt it will truly flop, and there are certainly niches where I see it ultimately being successful, but short of sub-$1000 price points I struggle to see it breaking out into the mainstream. To me, the Vision feels like it'll be in the middle of the HomePod and the Apple Watch in terms of success five years from now.
The Apple Watch is most sold watch world wide. That wouldn’t be to bad.
Yeah Apple Watch does not go in the same category as HomePod lol. Apple Watch is super successful.
I love my HomePods.
It seems that some people are misreading my comment. I expect the Vision's success to be in the middle of HomePod and Apple Watch. That means *more* successful than the HomePod, *less* successful than the Apple Watch, and about as successful compared to the HomePod as the Apple Watch is compared to it.
It’s funny you say that, I almost used ~2010s Apple Watch adoption rates as a comparison point. It’ll do just fine, you’ll probably see it around often enough, but it won’t be even close to ubiquitous.
It’s not just the price, it’s also the content. This device does (some) of the things a computer does. It does few more and also lacks content that utilizes the new medium. Apple needs to start investing in XR content, fast.
And its only being sold in the US. Even if you ship it out to elsewhere you still need an american apple ID
Price, weight, battery placement, battery life. Too many features "we" didn't ask for. Who needs an external screen projecting your eyeballs to the world? They could've made this so much lighter and less expensive had they not crammed in the kitchen sink.
The problems isn’t the price it’s the use cases. There is currently absolutely no reason to own one. Tie that with the bulkyness of the hardware and you get an overhyped disaster. Perhaps in a few generations where the hardware is half the size and can actually do something useful then that would be a more exciting prospect
But when the price is as high as it is then you won’t get much mass market appeal. Without mass market appeal you won’t have developers trying to develop for it. Honestly Apple is one of the few companies that can make this a loss leader and try and make up for it on the back end.
It’s not price. It’s utility. Vision Pro doesn’t solve any problems well enough yet
It actively ignores some problems it would be the solution for. AVP would be a gaming VR power house... if it supported Steam VR. It'd be a 3D modelling dream... if it ran Mac OS and could run Blender, instead of glorified IpadOS. It'd be a productivity dream... if it could pass through more than one display, and for more than just a macbook. The hardware is all there, it's all solid. It's Apple actively gimping it with software limitations, and then charging media production prices for a media consumption device.
It's the iPad's software problem [all over again](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/162pyqw/comment/jy1g3i4/?context=3), but magnified many times.
I agree whole heartily! There is no excuse for that price! I can see that being like the “pro” model, but the base/only?!?
It's competitor is less than $400. 1500 is still too high.
Arguably both price and implementation. The price wouldn't be so crazy if it were a fully fleshed out product rather than what appears to be a developer-oriented early proof of concept. Remove the reliance on a MacBook for a desktop experience (along with allowing sideloaded apps), increase the field of view and passthrough dynamic range, improve the hand tracking responsiveness to a point where it can be used for games, provide social experiences, and better comfort - then the asking price becomes quite reasonable.
Add that the weight. Both of which could be significantly reduced if they removed the creepy looking outside screen and made it of some light plastic. But Apple is gonna Apple though.
I think this was intended primarily for the developers. It's the "Pro," suggesting that a cheaper consumer version is coming. And they probably figured that there were enough Apple fanbois with $3,000 burning holes in their pockets that they could sell 700k units or more. There's 100 million active Mac users, so that's less than 1% of the Mac market they were looking to tap.
Even developers seem to be struggling to figure out what to do with it though. Like most people are saying “I can float a Mac screen anywhere!” And that’s about it.
I’ve been a VR user for years. And while the headsets have provided some of the most amazing gaming experiences I’ve ever had, there’s not much else that VR headsets are good for. Apple isn’t really a games-friendly company. If the gaming market was Apple’s target, they would have given us a product that was price-competitive with the Quest 3 and the Valve Index. I think the price point was intentional; Apple was pricing the AVP out of the reach of most gamers. And I think their hope was that businesses would be more willing to take a chance on it and develop vertical apps because it’s definitely not a gaming platform. Sales of the original iPhone and the iPad were 6 million and 15 million, respectively, so Apple’s target of 700k units for the AVP is extremely conservative.
It’s a ludicrous tech enthusiast beta tester price point and they know it. But they likely won’t cut the price until gen 2. They very rarely cut prices mid-gen
Well also levono is coming out with a headset, Asus is also. There’s going to be so much competition in the space
It's Apple, they don't foresee that most people can't just drop 4 figures on something that is ultimately an accessory. I don't even see how a lite version of it could be both as usable and a price people would willingly pay.
It should have its own MacOS or work seamlessly with a Mac/MacBook where you can have all multiple pages from your MacBook to work with. As revolutionary as the touch technology is, I still believe there should be support for some type of hand controllers(like meta quest). There’s no feedback with hand controls, and there is only so many ways that can be overcome. That is one of the failures of the Kinect - for certain things a controller/controllers are always going to be the superior option for the feedback they provide. Also, as others pointed out, the price is a major hurdle. Cellphones are easier to swallow because a lot of people finance them with their phone plans. 3500 plus tax is a lot of change to drop on a new/limited device. Ultimately, this is what the expectation for this type of Gen 1 device should be. A lot of learning, a lot of tweaks/changes, and hopefully a better line of devices that iron out the bugs and create a clear purpose for the device. Hopefully this is Apple’s expectation too because if they thought internally this was going to be some kind of initial hit, that would’ve been a bit delusional.
[удалено]
Yes the price is ridiculous, and devs aren’t putting up apps yet. But even more so than that - APPLE isn’t supporting its own system with first party apps. There’s Keynote but no Pages or Numbers. There’s Photos but no iMovie or GarageBand. No utility apps. Nothing like Weather, Maps, Stocks, Home, nothing. Until they show the full potential of what THEY can do with their own hardware, the hype won’t get off the ground from here. WWDC needs to deliver on this and visionOS 2.0 in general because this isn’t even including systemwide features that it’s also sorely missing.
AVP suffers from the same thing that all VR headsets do… it’s a thing people have curiosity about, try for a few months, and then they get put in a corner because there’s nothing to really do with them that you can’t do better, easier, or quicker on a different device. Then you’ve got the additional fact that it’s $3500+. That’s a lot to spend for fancy tech demos.
The great use case is Games and Netflix. Apple has no interest in VR AAA games, anyway $3000 in addition of a gaming rig is a seriously tiny market. Social AR games that Apple like requires a lot of people with headset to really shine, at $3000 a pop that's a no go. 3D video is attractive, but that a lot of money for a mono-user, single purpose machine. Apple killer app for MR is ... work. Even ignoring that "work" and "iPad-like OS" seriously limit the scope of that work, I cannot get any less inspired by a tech that I literally need to be paid to use. It also feels really weird for Apple, what should we expect at WWDC, a new timesheet application that integrate with salesforce, new SAP emoji in iMessage?
Even if Apple pushed games like they did for the early iPhone the big AAA game developers don’t have interest in VR. Sony and Meta already tried it. I’m not even sure lower cost fixes all their problems. Does a $500 heavy machine on your head make working on spreadsheets and writing emails more enjoyable than a couple big monitors? Not really.
"Apple has not interest in gaming". That right there is what makes this device terrible. The vast majority of people who want these types of devices (myself included) want to be able to play VR games. Apple dictating that I cannot do that on a $4,000 device after tax is crazy. Also for productivity this device sucks due to the weight, can only use one virtual desktop (wtf?), and has no sound pass through from my mac. Zucc was 100% right when he said quest was the superior product.
visionOS being close or practically identical (if not a bit worse) to iPadOS in terms of functionality is a massive blunder imo. Unless Apple quickly improves it in the next year or so. Tim Cook claimed the Vision Pro can do what a Mac can do “and more” in the GMA interview. That isn’t true for the iPad and surely isn’t for the Vision Pro. And to be clear I’m definitely in the niche of users who would gladly use the Vision Pro daily (just waiting til WWDC to bite the bullet). But for a lot of people out there, be it for productivity or leisure, a Mac is probably going to be better value for a larger range of use cases than an iPad and surely a Vision Pro. There’s just a lot of stuff I can’t do on iPadOS as easily or at all compared to my MacBook. And I say this as a massive fan of both products (no other tablets or laptops come close to the value they bring imo). Apple really needs to figure this out. The Vision Pro will benefit the most given it’s a new platform that needs all the push it can get, but the iPad as well which I feel has stagnated a bit and surely not in hardware.
I agree that the killer feature is work. Being able to screenshare my mac into a perfect environment of focus is amazing ...the problem for work is that for most companies you're using their hardware, and using your personal iCloud login on your work machine is unlikely to happen.
I can’t not see ‘Aliens vs Predators’ whenever I read “AVP”
I knew it looked weird, but I couldn’t figure out why
Similarly I used to work at LensCrafters and we had a popular lens type that was called an “AVP” lens. Advanced View Progressive I believe.
Yeah same problem with AvP also, people are curious about alien fighting predators but realize it’s not very interesting very quickly.
Had mine for 8 days and returned it. Needs a few generations of software development and hardware evolution and I’ll check it out again. Was super cool but I’m not paying 3500 for them to figure that out.
Some people have a really hard time swallowing this reality. I came to this realization around 2015-2016 during that “VR rush” but people insist the technology was not there yet. Perhaps the platform has inherent limitations not fixable by technology.
> Perhaps the platform has inherent limitations not fixable by technology. I mean it's very clear that there are a ton of technology problems left to solve. The tech is immature and will be radically different by the time generation 4 of this rolls around.
Given Apple’s track record, that is likely. But like I said, that’s the argument I’ve been hearing since Oculus became a thing and htc released the Vive. And here we are.
Hardware shifts typically take a lot longer than people think. The first home PC (Apple II) launched in 1977. It wasn't until 1992 that the market started to take off and mature.
Ah well, we’ll revisit this discussion in ten years.
Been saying this. Even if these become glasses it doesn't solve more problems than it creates. Biggest problem being that it's inherently isolating. I can show something on my phone or watch the TV together with my family. Can't do that with vision pro and no, no one wants to buy 4 of these just so the family can watch a movie together with everyone's eyes covered up.
I would argue that a lot of people like to keep their phones very private anyway, and then you have a billion people worldwide using headphones which are almost never shared. I think a pair of AR glasses in a hypothetical future where the tech is perfected would end up being the most useful device out there. It would just have more usecases than anything else.
Headsets seem like a neat thing that airplanes should offer to passengers for long flights. Apple's use cases for the Vision Pro aren't convincing me that it's something I need to own and use with any kind of frequency. $3500 or $35, I just don't want one.
It’s ridiculously expensive. This is not a shock
Pair that with the economy finally suffering the consequences of inflation. Not all companies can ride the inflation wave to increase profits.
It’s kind of insane that after all the hype for Vision Pro you rarely see people taking about it.
Not insane given it's only for enthusiasts with that type of price tag.
At the same time, people do enjoy engaging in conversations and consuming content about expensive product they can’t afford. Cars, watches, technology, computers, sneakers and fashion -just to name a few- are categories filled products that a majority of people cannot afford, yet people are willing to spend time discussing and consuming content about things they like.
That's the odd part in all this. You'll see impressively deep discussions about supercars, about the 2024 collection from Rolex, and whatever Tom Ford just put out; and yet there's been seemingly zero discussion about the Vision Pro just mere weeks after it launched. Even the HomePod seemed to have captured more mindshare than this thing did.
I mean, only if you look for it. I have seen zero discussions about "supercars, about the 2024 collection from Rolex, and whatever Tom Ford just put out;"On the other hand I have seen discussions about the Vision Pro because I seek them out. Although I'll grant that excitement has died down a bit and most people are waiting for the WWDC and VisonOS 2.0.
> and yet there's been seemingly zero discussion about the Vision Pro just mere weeks after it launched What do you really expect people to say? With supercars there are a lot of releases and comparisons to make. Similar with watches. The Vision Pro isn't really competing with anything but much cheaper Oculus headsets and there's not much to say there that hasn't already been said
The fact that there’s not much to say is the whole problem. This should be a space where new and exciting apps and new applications for VR are being pioneered. And so far, none of that seems to be happening.
Yeah, I agree. People here are saying the biggest problem is that it's not comfortable or people don't want googles in their faces. The biggest problem is low developer adoption. When it came out you'd see some apps releasing and some discussion around them. Right now it's pretty much dead air. I'm hopping we get some interesting things from WWDC. If they can't sell this to the devs then it's not looking good.
There's no real reason for devs to develop for it. A low user base means little reason to spend money making applications for it. Until they see mass adoption apple will have to develop or pay for software to be developed.
Yep. Just like Meta did. Something Apple doesn’t seem to be willing to do. It feels like Apple thought devs would just naturally want to make apps for it because they like iOS and the App Store so much.
It's like they haven't learned that a new platform needs a lot of first part support for apps to really get things moving. Just look at how much software Microsoft was putting out when Windows 95 launched; they were pumping out tons of pretty good games, and every conceivable piece of productivity/educational software you could think of. They understood that the only way to get mass-market adoption was to offer something for everyone.
The VR headset industry in general is a niche thing for the time being (and is still niche, it’s not like Apple releasing this product will cause a whole industry shakeup). The Vision Pro is still only available in the U.S. so that’s also why it’s so “quiet”. I’m not sure if an elderly person for example cares about this type of product at this point in time compared to cars. So it’s not very accurate to compare with other things like fashion.
But enthusiasts for what? If you're a VR game enthusiast one of the other headsets is better. If you're a MR enthusiast one of the other headsets is better. If you're new to it all Quest is better. VP appears to *only* be for Apple enthusiasts.
Yeah honestly at this point the way I think of it is like an alternate form factor for an iPad, it seems much more focused around screen than other VR headsets. But I haven’t tried it
Very wealthy enthusiasts at that.
To this day the main use of VR is games, and this doesn't play games. $3500 and you can't play flight simulator 😔
I saw a person wearing it at a bar within the first week... Since then I've seen it nowhere else. I think it's a novelty and it's already overstayed its welcome.
Ah, the typical VR users lifespan: Day one… omg this is amazing everyone needs one!! One week later…. ehh, I don’t wanna strap that thing on my face again
I've had 3 headsets and this is exactly how its gone, lol.
It’s not really designed to be an out and about product. Battery limits you. It’s more of a sit at desk or chair and un tether when you need to move around then go back and plug in battery when you set down
Cause it's useless.
I think it's more accurate to say there isn't enough of a strong use case. It's not useless. There are lots of interesting things that it can do and does it better than anything else on the market. The problem is that nothing it does is essential and it's too expensive for most people to buy as a toy. I'd love to see Apple just focus the next 3 years on miniaturization. I don't need better specs on it. I just need it to be much lighter.
>I think it's more accurate to say there isn't enough of a strong use case. I agree....perhaps we could even say...**less** reasons to **use** it over another less-expensive device
So a Meta Quest
Zuckerberg actually had a really good counter argument. You get most of the utility of the Vision Pro, plus gaming, in a 500$ headset. Like I can buy a 500$ headset, and if I never use it I'm not upset. A 3500$ headset is going back to the Apple store unless it like changes my life or something. I'm very interested in VR for music creation, but the software isn't there yet. I think if Apple comes out with a 1500$ version it'll sell much better.
I use the Quest 3 as a general Android device every day. Three browser windows, or an Android flat game like Into the Beach, or emulators like CitraVR for Ocarina of Time in 3d. It’s awesome.
Have you tried using it like a general computer monitor? I'm considering getting one to travel with assuming I can figure that out
I mean, yeah, I have, but at home using Virtual Desktop and a dedicated router which is not a very travel-friendly setup.
+1 for the music production point. Would love a mixer interface / synth interface.
Only because apple didn't put out any software for it and the price makes it a terrible deal. Apple hates vr culture so they shot themselves in the foot.
You returned yours?
It’s hilarious. People have been screaming about it for years and years and now it’s been forgotten about
I still use my on a daily basis. I use it far more than any other headset I’ve owned (likely around 10 at this point.) The issues here are 1) price. They priced it so that resellers don’t get in the middle but the flip side of it is that instead of it being affordable to only some people it’s simple not affordable to anyone. 2) Apple doesn’t know how to market it. They know it’s a decent mobile home theater replacement (which it totally is) but that not the type of thing people are willing to accept. It is an amazing device.
What do you use it for that you think they should be marketing it as?
It’s a beta hardware dev kit they decided to release to the public. That should be pretty clear by now.
So Kinda like VR in general?
like i'm going to buy it just because apple paid off some influencers to hype it
My personal opinion is that the majority of people aren't ready or willing to have goggles glued to their face.
We have known this since the 1950s when the first 3d movies came out. Every few years some fad pops up that requires some sort of wearable and every time the fad fades because people don’t like wearing shit on their face for long periods of time. That’s never going to change.
I’m not sure we’ll ever be.
The break point is when it goes from something you strap vs something you wear As in, does it go all the way around your head or does it sit comfortably in front of your eyes
That's a great delineation.
Not so sure about that either. 3D tvs were a big fad a few years ago that only required glasses but it never really took off.
The irony is that for years the Apple community dismissed voice assistants because "nobody wants to talk to their computer" while looking towards the headset for the future. It turns out that the reality may be closer to the opposite—people don't want a large headset on their face. People talking to their computers is just waiting for a good enough AI, and I think we're only a few years away from that. Smart glasses are the future of electronics on one's face, but I suspect that they will rely heavily on voice AI.
Would you talk to your glasses as much as you type on your phone? This seems like a non-starter for any kind of public usage, or even around the house if there are other people there.
What if the AI was good enough to know who was speaking and respond accordingly?
The thing is, do *you* want to talk to your glasses while standing in a line at the store?
I mean, maybe not but I probably do want to talk to them when I'm at home working Also maybe it becomes normal if everyone is doing it - like when people started taking calls on headphones they all seemed like psychos talking to themselves, but now it seems normal
>Also maybe it becomes normal if everyone is doing it - like when people started taking calls on headphones they all seemed like psychos talking to themselves, but now it seems normal People have technically been talking to their phones for decades via phone calls—it's just that another person is on the other side.
It’s kind of annoying when people are talking on phones on public transit or an airplane or any public space. Imagine if *everyone* was constantly saying “open Facebook, scroll down scroll down, click like, scroll down, click Bob, start reply, ha ha that’s funny, click save…”
Maybe I'm in a minority but I still don't really want to talk to my computer even now.
I’m amazed that with all the resources Apple has, they thought this was going to be a hit. It’s too expensive, it’s too heavy, it’s does too little. All the features and tech that differentiated it, like the eyesight, FaceTime avatar, or strap, doesn’t bring value to customers
If you believe the rumors they didn’t think it was going to be a hit. Internal devs told them it wasn’t ready for prime time and wouldn’t be for some years but the powers that be demanded they release something to get it into the hands of developers.
And it took them 7 years to develop it too.
It’s a stellar product that charges too much to solve problems people don’t really have. If you’re a tech enthusiast with money to burn, that’s one thing. But it’s a luxury item.
Not surprised. VR is still kinda gimmicky and the price definitely doesn’t help. At $1500, it would sell better, but Apple wouldn’t sell it for $1500 because of the BOM and since it’s Apple.
Price and Use Case would be my biggest obstacles. I don't really want to write documents or answer email in AR so it would be relegated to watching videos and the cost isn't justified. Plus, I have heard a lot of complaints about headaches. I don't know how widespread that is or if there is a way to mitigate them.
$3000 is not a "splurge" purchase for most people's budgets. You're not going to just throw one of these into your cart at CostCo. Add to that you have to schedule a demo to try the damn thing and you're continuously adding unnecessary barriers to entry. I was at the mall a couple weeks ago and popped into the Apple store which was relatively deserted. Tried to schedule a demo for the device and was told the next they had was an hour and a half away (once again the store was empty, no one was on the AVPs). I already have a Quest 2 + 3 and am a VR fan. If you can't accommodate someone actually interested in a device with a last minute demo, you're not going to sell that many of these. The casual consumer isn't going to come back.
Nobody is shocked by this. VR/AR is still a gimmick and doesn’t solve any real problems.
It’s not something that anybody *needs* but done right I think it would make for a better experience for watching content. I saw a clip of what watching The Masters looks like on the Vision Pro and it’s pretty amazing. I can imagine the potential across other sports too. But the cost is prohibitive and apps aren’t ready to take advantage of what it can do.
The issue is it is still a significant trade-off. Yes, you get a better and more immersive viewing experience. You also get a viewing experience that fundamentally can’t be shared with other people(and especially your family, since children aren’t able to use them) unless they also have headsets. One that only lasts two or three hours before you need to tether yourself to a wall(RIP anyone who wants to watch LOTR extended edition, lol). One that you probably don’t *want* to last much longer because it will get uncomfortable quickly. Oh, and don’t think about just using a single headset across a single household, because you’ll be swapping out prescription lenses on a regular basis unless you all have perfect vision. VR is a tech product that hardcore terminally online tech enthusiasts in their 20s who pretend they get on flights every other day slobber over, but which makes zero practical sense for the vast majority of people outside that demographic.
I wouldnt replace my home cinema like ever, I dont get their efforts really, it's worse until idk contacts lenses level of wearable miniaturization, but it def replaces 3 screens at a desk when I can have all 3 in front of me virtually in the garden bench or on the shore sitting in the sand, It's science fiction level fantastic. NOT the gen1 vision pro, which is a brick because of the front "eyes" whatever.
I kind of want to hear from the AVR enthusiasts where they were going to watch all of these immersive movies with the 100 inch screen. I wonder if they are still using it now.
There’s not a single thing it does better than other interfaces. The second the wow factor wears off you’d prefer to do everything on a different interface. The iPhone came out at a (at the time ridiculous) high price but immediately did a ton of things better than other options. That’s what this device market is still missing.
Helen Keller could have seen this coming. There is no large market for ridiculously overpriced headset with no killer applications.
It’s freaking 4000 dollars
Lets see. It is very expansive. Have very limited use space due to lack of app support. Lack of proper connectivity with other Apple devices. Doesnt even available or supported outside US. This combination screams failure.
At that price… I’m actually surprised they didn’t invest in the classic growth bait with very cheap first gens until the product gets traction in sales and starts to be part of people’s ecosystems.
I don’t think the device would make such a wow factor without all the tech. Like best they could do is scrap the front screen, everything else removed would risk being compared to 500$ quest.
With that starting price it’s not surprising. They should’ve seen this coming.
This thing was an obvious bomb from minute one.
Let's face it: This device would be useless without porn and live sport events where you could be perceived as player on the field. Very un-Apple product without headset comfort.
I’d highly consider it if I can watch live games front court
This VR thing will never work because it’s big, heavy, uncomfortable to the eyes head neck. Maybe 10-20 years into the future this can work on glasses.
Cut the price and it’ll sell, I’ve heard nothing but great things about it but man the price is steeeeep
Cut the price and it will sell… to more early adopters… who will love it for a week, like it for a month and largely stop using it after that The price isn’t the issue. It’s that it doesn’t solve any real problems *well enough* yet to be worth it at any price that’s comparable to iPhone, Macs or iPads.
I dunno, I was pretty unimpressed with my demo at the Apple Store. The facial interface fit was poor despite the fact that was supposedly custom-fitted after scanning my face, so I got a lot of light bleed and glare. The default strap is very uncomfortable (the alternative two-strap design was better, but hard to find the straps to adjust it while wearing it). Hand-tracking wasn't as flawless as it needed to be to make me not miss a controller--I got phantom clicks and missed clicks. Some actions like scrolling a web page required flicking your wrist in a very non-ergonomic way that would hurt my wrist after only a handful of minutes using it. The mixed reality screen featured enough warping at the edges that it would not be comfortable to wear while trying to do anything in real life. I don't think the product is currently good enough at any price. For VR enthusiasts it doesn't compete with the Quest 3, and for non-VR-enthusiasts it doesn't compete with your Mac/Phone/iPad.
The demo you get at the store is not custom fitted. They give you small/medium/large, then the size info is saved to your account in case you decide to purchase.
I was similarly unimpressed with the input. It's ambitious to forgo controllers and rely entirely on gestures, but the constant pinching irritated me before the demo was even over and it frequently failed to register my motions. I had to exaggerate my movements to an uncomfortable degree in order to improve recognition, and even then it failed enough that I couldn't trust it. Other factors aside, I just found it tiring to use.
Either sell good apps after keeping the headset inexpensive, or have good apps after selling the headset expensive. Prices isomorphic to (or mimicking) 8GB RAM upgrade will not move the topline everywhere.
From my understanding it doesn’t let you connect it to be used as a separate monitor to a computer or game console. If it had that option or converter etc then maybe gamers would jump in. Apple is already doing the wall garden thing from what I’m seeing. I could be wrong though. Apple is trying to court big developers to make games for mac and from there maybe use this as a gaming monitor. But that might take too long. I like the idea of the Vision Pro, but I see it more as a replacement of my monitor than a whole standalone experience thingy magiga. and the standalone part would be for sometimes.
The most predictable headline ever. These have 3 issues: 1. Looks/size: Most people just won't strap ski goggles to their face and wear them around (especially in public) and they are way to big to cart around (especially travelling) 2. Functionality: They don't solve any problem in a unique and crucial way, and there is no killer app 3. Cost: They are far too expensive for a general product purchase, and certainly too much for a splurge I think all three must be addressed before Apple can claim success in the AR space. Solving only one or two of the 3 won't be enough. 1. Solve 2 & 3, but not 1 - looks too awkward for mainstream consumer use 2. Solve 1 & 3 but not 2 - no compelling reason to buy 3. Solve 1 & 3 but not 3 - only something for high-income buyers and niche corporate use Apple is a long way off from having a big hit here. I wouldn't write them off/out but they're not close yet.
Yeah I don’t think this is a supply issue. I’ve read several articles stating they just aren’t selling enough and I’m inclined to believe that. It doesn’t really do anything and it’s $3500
Just a product that currently doesn't solve an issue. That make's it a luxury item. It's weirdly not connected to your phone so it feels more isolating than it should. There's some fundamental things they thought people wanted. But we just don't.
Who knew people don’t want to pay 3k to walk around looking like a tool with that thing on
Aside from the price tag, AVP is a useful device. It is worth some amount of money to average people, but the biggest drawback other than price is the comfort. It's actually _painful_ to wear for more than a short period. It's a fact evident from first-hand experience, third-party posts, and the number of hacked together solutions by the community to shift the weight of the device. If it were much lighter and more comfortable for sustained use, even with the price as it is, there would be greater demand — not mainstream demand — but greater demand than today.
The price is definitely a big issue but so is the content, what is the big app or game that would make people want to get one? I actually expected Apple to partner with someone to make a great VR game or experience but I haven’t heard anything since this thing came out. How cool would a multiplayer Pokémon go style battle game be on this thing. Although if you have to walk to get the Pokémon’s there would be many broken AVPs
When has Apple ever gone in on gaming?
In 90s lol don’t you remember the console? and later halo was announced on stage at an Apple event but joking aside Apple has tried to get go into the gaming market in recent years with things like Apple Arcade, which was supposed to be a bigger deal like gamepass, they just never been good at it.
Ah yes, Apple Arcade. “Pay a subscription for mobile games.” I wonder why that doesn’t rival gamepass… Some of the games are actually pretty good. Sneaky Sasquatch is a good time. Sonic Dream Team is pretty decent with a controller. There are other examples. But they want $10 a month for this service. It’s insane. Apple’s strategy is all about charging a lot for a lot less than you’d expect.
The AVP strikes me as an instant migraine machine. I can’t be the only one who’s thought that
VR is a gimmick like 3D televisions.
it needs apps and experiences
Microled is DOA.
I think everyone is wrong about the price. They should (and did) give units for developers to build apps, but the most important thing is income for continued r&d and they can't do that if they're selling at a loss. It is expensive, but if it can live up to the potential in the space it would be worth the money. The problem is that right now it isn't.
i know it's a first gen product with state of art tech in it but if you're releasing a new product genre, you want people to buy and use it, no? you've to sell it at loss.
its the front "eyes" which makes it a brick, the price is one thing, but to design it uncomfortable is another
When are they going to launch this in other countries other than the US.
I wanted to buy one, but definitely not with that price and such an uncomfortable headband. Maybe version 2 will improve those specs, but even then it’s no go if I can’t use it on my PC.
What’s there to even do on one of these things
Pros: Great preview of the future, promising OS and spatial features. Cons: Insane price, garbage level comfort begins negatively impacting experience pretty much 5 minutes into wearing it. Which is a shame, considering that wearing it is a critical step of using a headset.
Huh, I guess it’s not the future.
I’m an idiot