It doesnt even do anything - toys usually do something. That cup and ball is more of a toy than Vision Pro.
A VR headset with no games or third party apps at launch? That's one fancy paper weight.
It's a cool laptop. You can work on your text document from a mountaintop or from the beach. Super cool. But you could also do the same thing on a Chromebook.
hard this.
-and not have a giant weight on your head while doing so.
the real issue is they tried to market it as some kind of tool...when in practice it is almost never the best tool for the job. if u need mobile computing, there are great options. if you need stationary OR mobile VR...there are already great options.
maybe if you JUST want to watch a movie it might be the best with the res? but even then i think there are competitors aren't there?
Yes you can do both. And Steam VR even though it’s a bit janky right now. You should definitely be able to use theater environments and scale for anything though. I hope they add that in 2.0.
Not with the clarity of an AVP. Not with the black level of an AVP. Not with the vibrant colors of an AVP. Not as well as an AVP.
You can watch TV with a cheap B&W TV. But it in no way compares to an OLED.
But it's 90% there, so more like comparing a 32" LCD tv to a 48" oled TV, where the oled costs 7 times the price (but has an apple logo)
The AVP is undeniably better in screen quality, but only incrementally so, not revolutionarily so
> But it's 90% there, so more like comparing a 32" LCD tv to a 48" oled TV, where the oled costs 7 times the price (but has an apple logo)
Ah... have you checked into the price of a LCD TV compared to an OLED? It is about 7 times cheaper. I got a couple of LCD TVs for $100. A cheap OLED is about $700-$800. So there you go.
Yeah, but the screens in the quest 3/pro aren't cheap bargain basement versions...
The quest pro lcds have localised dimming and very high colour range.
But hey, if you want to pay extra for the fruit logo then go ahead, I've never found it to be worth the premium so I'll stick to working in my quest 3 or quest pro every day
> Yeah, but the screens in the quest 3/pro aren't cheap bargain basement versions...
You can have that opinion if you want. I consider the screen in my Q3 the second worse of all my VR headsets. The worst being the Q2. Even compared to my other LCD headsets. The Q2/Q3 screens have really dull colors.
> The quest pro lcds have localised dimming and very high colour range.
The QP isn't 7 times cheaper than the AVP is it?
> But hey, if you want to pay extra for the fruit logo then go ahead, I've never found it to be worth the premium so I'll stick to working in my quest 3 or quest pro every day
As you brought up through your example. An AVP costs about as much over a Q3 as a OLED does over a LCD. So that premium is well justified. In fact, people scramble like mad to get an OLED for $700 if they can find it. They think it's a bargain to get that much more performance over a LCD for such a small premium.
I didn't pay retail price for my Quest Pro, and I'd be surprised if anyone does these days, but even at retail price, I still don't think an Apple Vision Pro is 3.5 times better than a Quest Pro, certainly not for my usage.
And yeah, a lot of people will pay a premium for OLED over LCD, but the vast majority of people will do perfectly fine with a QLED or LCD screen, so I still think Quest 3 or Pro gives 90% of the experience (and a much better experience in many such as gaming or productivity outside of Apple's walled garden) at 1/3 or 1/7 of the price
It's worthwhile if you want to use it fulltime (probably with a comfort mod) as a [virtual workspace](https://medium.com/immersedteam/working-from-orbit-39bf95a6d385), mobile theater, and ALVR gaming device that replaces physical setups.
If it served a purpose that was worth 4k, then the price would be acceptable. We buy cars at much higher prices because we feel they are worth it. Not many feel that this thing is worth the price because it doesn't do much.
I constantly asked people who pre-ordered (especially those who have never even tried a VR headset) what their use case was. As you said, if it's worth that much for a device that wasn't even on the market yet, then for that price, you would think it fit someone's use cases. Problem is that I saw time and time again that while some did make strong efforts to explain their use cases (justifying it compared to what you'd spend on a decent home theater, etc.), a majority either didn't really know or their use cases amounted to it integrating with their Apple devices. I don't want to shout "Apple fanboys will buy anything," but I still believe that a lot of Apple users have a tendency to put a lot of trust in Apple and that what they deliver is what they need for a premium experience, even if it really doesn't suit any of their use cases.
I told people. Unless money is not roadblock and you simply want to use the latest tech or you are actually a developer wanting to build apps for this device, I could barely find any use cases that justified such a price at the moment. I think it has lots of potential from what I've heard if the software matures down the road, but on launch? A device that nobody had used, for $3500+, no controllers, not much actual immersive software, etc., should have been a red flag.
If you got it, and your needs are met and like it, good for you.
But a huge majority of people could not realistically justify such a purchase at the moment.
I read the article(s) so you don't have to.
Summary: A contentless article, most probably AI written, that basically quotes no data of it's own. It cites a Mark Gurman article where he talked to some Apple Store employees and where he talks about his own experience of losing interest.
In short - the interest in Vision Pro may be down, but this garbage article is not the place to read about it.
Yeah this is all about laying the ground work, the same stuff meta / oculus / valve has been doing for a long time. No one in the VR space expected the gen 1 Vision Pro to be a mass-market product
Apple is not laying groundwork like Meta did. Meta created a large consumer base, cheap entry to development for it and funds much development for their ecosystem. Apple cant reach a wide audience due to the high price, development for the vision pro is much more expensive and apple is not funding any.
The Vision Pro is neither a development kit nor a consumer device. The Vision Pro is a halo product for apple to signal customers, shareholders and young talents how "innovative" they are. They needed this innovative image boost since they did nothing but re-release the same devices with minimal spec increases over the last years.
You're right. DK1, DK2, CV1, and arguably the Quest and Rift S. Quest 2 was the cheap one where they really pushed the price down as hard as possible for as long as possible.
I think people forget this modern era of VR is a decade old, and the consumer headsets started at 800 bucks for headset and motion tracked controllers.
Apple is a decade behind, though it'll take them far less than a decade to catch up if they keep at it.
Apple is a decade behind on developing a large install base with plenty of developer support and tracked controllers useable for gaming. But they’re not a decade behind with their screens, hand tracking, or pass through cameras. I think the only headset that may be better than them at any of those is the xr2 but I doubt it.
They seem to be going after the market where meta failed and gave up: productivity/work and movies. I assume once they fail at that like meta they’ll pivot to gaming. But Apple has never really tried to make a pure gaming machine so it will be interesting to see them try.
It’s funny that gaming is a huge market but when you’re trillion dollar companies like meta and apple it’s a consolation prize compared to getting businesses and work from home employees to use them
Apple has always been good at letting others do all the dirty work and then sweeping in and renaming everything so it looks like they came up with the tech. I'm sure others do it, too, but Apple makes it glaringly obvious.
It seems to me that they are laying the technical groundwork rather than the consumer base groundwork. Everyone already knows Apple and the moment they make an affordable headset that is worth buying people will be all over it. The challenge for them is making a headset that works well enough at a good form factor and price point, not getting people to buy into the brand.
I saw some devs being vocal about vision OS not being the easiest to work with, as they use very different models than other VR headsets. Right now they are trying to push the "we are apple, work on our environment".
It worked for the iPhone because it was the first device of its kind. I don't see how getting into an established market like this and having the same mentality can have that same level of success.
The thing is if Apple goes for the “walled garden” approach again with its entry into the VR space, I think *at best* they can hope for a large amount of initial interest (mainly driven by Apple fan boys), followed by a steep collapse in usage and sales.
That video the other day of Zuckerberg talking about the “open” model versus the “closed” model of tech ecosystem development was spot-on, I think.
VR is still in its infancy, but it’s still been around for years now and therefore is mature enough that the user base desires and is comfortable with that open model, so much so that I’d expect them to be very resistant to a company trying to establish a walled garden.
All of this to say: I don’t think it matters that they’re doing the technical groundwork now if they intend to go with the walled garden (which they might not). Their headset does nothing that other headsets can’t also do. They ought to be doing or at least indicating the direction they’re going for their consumer groundwork alongside their technical groundwork.
When Meta do technical groundwork, they produce a bunch of prototypes, most of which we never hear about but a handful of which are shown to journalists, whilst releasing consumer products with the tech they believe is viable, which also gives them feedback on which features were popular with consumers.
Apple released a prototype, into a market that has mature products.
We know or have good reason to suspect that Meta have prototyped everything in the Vision Pro, and didn't believe it was ready.
What technical groundwork? Many could have built the hardware given enough money. The challenge is to built it at a price that enough people would pay for the use it provides.
I know you are thinking their next headset would be cheaper, but they cant reduce the cost much. They can’t make a profit from app sales like Meta so they need to make a profit on the hardware. And the hardware they have can’t be reduced as that would place the new apple headset immediately behind a Quest 3.
Exactly. Sure Rift and S were costly and tethered - but Occulus and Meta put in their time, learned from their past products and released affordable ones with a vast array of improvements.
Meanwhile, here comes Apple (Does Less, Costs More) with its garden wall apps and a price point most consumers would never dream of dropping on a 1st gen product...Apple shot their shot and missed hard. Quest 3 is already awesome and whatever they release after will probly be even better. Apple is in the business of making hype and they succeeded in just that.
Lol dude I am as critical of Apple as any but Apple literally fabs their own silicone and lit a fire under the entire laptop markets ass with the M1 processor. They are innovating.
It’s TSMC who "fabs" it. I hope apples chips are made from silicon still and not silicone. And ARM based chips are nothing new. Phones have them, android tablets. We would be using ARM on the PC if we wouldn’t have so much legacy software. Apple was in the position to transition and made the right decision (Hey).
But i give you that much, it was very innovative how seamlessly they managed to transition.
Not sure why you're downvoted. You're right. There's nothing that costs $3500-$4000, outside of things that are extremely essentially like an AC unit in the south or a heater in the north, that most people have in their homes. Not even gamers, who are known to spend a ton on hardware, commonly spend that type of money on their entire gaming setup. GPUs like the 3090 and RTX 4090 make up less than 1% of Steam users.
*edit* your comment was negative when I looked. It's been upvoted now.
The AVP is priced very fairly IMO. It’s got the internals of a $2000 macbook and then some. Custom OLED displays that are the first to use a silicone substrate. Best in class eye tracking. Plus a whole lot more.
It’s confusing why people are saying it’s expensive. $3500 is normal money for a high end laptop or 3 phones lol.
It actually doesn't. It has the internals of an $800 iPad Pro + Sony's non-custom MicroOLEDs. It even has most of the same iPad apps. It doesn't have a macbook style OS with the macbook's hardware and software capabilities. If you want those things, you have to pair it with a macbook.
> Yeah this is all about laying the ground work, the same stuff meta / oculus / valve has been doing for a long time.
Oculus Rift CV1 and HTC Vive did both have an use case: Gaming. It might have not been as cut and dry as today with us knowing exactly what games and experiences (or rather fitness and social) would sell, but you could demo Pavlov, Onward, Echo VR and so on to someone and they would see immediately why you would want that and the potential of it.
Try demoing the Vision Pro as a monitor replacement to someone that has already an above average sized desktop screen. Try to sell people on the idea that they should want to use their iPad apps on a floating window in space with no haptic feedback wearing a heavy VR headset.
> No one in the VR space expected the gen 1 Vision Pro to be a mass-market product
The point is that there is no sense in Apple's limited use case strategy and there wouldn't at a more reasonable price.
But that's not really an issue. Not for us users and not for Meta. They're building a userbase for years and they're so far ahead already, they'll be hard to catch once the MR market will really explode in growth (and we're getting closer and closer to that moment).
The great thing about kids as a demographic is that they won't always be kids.
Meta has struggled to appeal to kids with some of their other products, and as problematic as kids screeching racist slurs in Gorilla Tag are for them, in 10 years these will be college students who they've built brand loyalty with.
Just imagine how you're going to feel when, some years from now, a colleague who's younger than you mentions that they met their now-spouse playing Gorilla Tag.
its the same approach epic is doing with their store when compared to steam.
EGS will kinda be like the quest in a decade, where kids have a library of free games as opposed to the older folks who already bought them all on steam and have no reason to shift over.
> Meta has struggled to appeal to kids with some of their other products
What are you talking about. Many use intagram and in Europe everyone uses WhatsApp. The Smart glasses are also a small success.
> I don't think meta is that far ahead of apple on userbase, apple they already have the apple ecosystem and it's way more than the 20 millions quest users that are almost all kids
Almost all kids? I think you need to provide more than anecdotal -insert game mostly kids play-evidence. Also, there is a reason the 14 to 49 demographic that is so important to advertisers is starting at 14. Kids and teens spend.
Apple, doesn't really has that much of an ecosystem when it comes to VR/MR and I really don't see iPad apps in space that much of a sells argument...
What sells in VR is gaming, fitness and social. Other than to mobile games developers Apple doesn't even have as many industry contacts as Meta there, which have now been booth having their own studios, second party developers that release under their branding and paying others for porting titles / exclusivity for over a decade now while Apple is in an open war with the world's biggest game engine provider.
Apple also doesn't know IMO how to market to a gaming audience that cares more about high numbers, openness and content libraries than what material the outer hull of a device is made of.
Apple does have a big stand in fitness but would need to make basically an (very gamified) app.
And IMO what is popular when it comes to social in VR isn't really related to 1:1 chats, even more so if you need a VR headset that even at a lower second gen price point would be way above what the mainstream user wants to pay for a VR headset.
that's an issue for apple. The apple vision pro is too expensive and too difficult to manufacture. There ain't enough headsets and there ain't enough users so there ain't much incentives to build apps
I’m honestly surprised the Index did as well as it did. It’s still a small market share but I really did not expect it to get as big for PCVR due to the cost barrier
Apple invited these reactions by describing the Vision Pro as the next big leap in personal computing. You can’t come out the door waving your dick and bragging about how your new device is going to be revolutionary, and not expect people to go into it with high expectations
yeah ... this is the price of Apple's extreme emphasis on their brand image and quality as the hallmark of their products. It's really hard for them to release an imperfect product and not conflict with that. But for early stage tech, you actually need to do that. So here they are releasing an early stage product with all kinds of limitations, and pretending like it's perfect and this actually creates the problem.
If they had come straight out and said "Hey y'all we're releasing a dev kit and we want you all to try it out and help us make it better" there would have been nothing but universal praise and excitement for that. But culturally they are just incapable of doing that.
None of those products cost $3500 at launch...this proved one thing to Apple, Vision Pro is a failure as is - now what, make a dumbed down version? Consumers won't flock to it, meanwhile Metal quest 3 is making strides and Valve is just biding its time to deliver on what Apple failed to do - Apple has an uphill battle that they made worse by releasing a shit product.
> Consumers won't flock to it
Haven't owned an iPhone or Mac in years but would probably check it out around 1-1.5k. Said as a Quest 3 owner.
Scrap the outside screen, premium machined metal, and fancy but unusable headband and I might be curious. Even the Quest 3 REALLY does need a new headstrap and battery back to make it useable (I don't mind the charging brick for the AVP).
well I do already have that, but I cant watch 3D movies on it
and ive been experimenting with Owl3D which uses AI to convert movies from flatscreen to 3D and im blown away by the results
Terminator 2 in 3D is sick. Watching it on the Quest 2 is kind of annoying.
It’s really great for playing PC games on a giant virtual screen.
I returned mine but before I did, I enjoyed playing games on a virtual screen while my partner watched tv. She’d watch The Bachelor and I’d cover it up with a big display that looked amazing.
I can do the same on my Q3 but the quest looks terrible compared to the AVP. The perceived resolution is much worse.
It’s not just too expensive, it’s a bad product. No controllers mean no good vr games or fitness apps. They want you to passively consume content instead, but 2 hour battery life means you can’t even make it through most full movies. And when I demoed it at an Apple Store, I was unimpressed with the accuracy and ergonomics of the hand controls. And you can’t stream PCVR like you can with other headsets.
Before I got my hands on the product, I thought it would be cool but expensive. But I now wouldn’t buy it even if it was half the price of a Quest 3.
That would be proportional to the headset cost!
The impression I got from the demo was very much that Apple thought they had invented VR, and therefore learned nothing from those who came before. It's an approach that can lead to some fresh thinking, but it also means you fail to avoid some obvious pitfalls.
How do people just go on the internet and talk about shit they don't even know about?
Of course you can stream PCVR like any other headset:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF6UehzYC68](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF6UehzYC68)
Yeah, I wasn't referring to what's possible using Testflight sideloading and external, third-party hardware (steamVR controllers). If Apple actually lets ALVR on the App Store, then I'll stand corrected. But I don't see them voluntarily doing that unless forced by the EU.
accessories are meh but the real kicker here is the increased cost from storage upgrades.
just like with their macbooks, apple wants to fleece you for more if you want a respectable amount of RAM or storage.
I tried it in store and it’s amazing. But yeah that price tag completely eliminates any serious purchaser unless they’re literally rich.
Paired with some questionable comfort choices makes it a hard sell. Really hope they develop it further so we can get one that’s actually affordable by us mortals.
No idea. I’m just impulsive and tech and gadgets are my hobby so I’m always buying shit. I’d like if it had more actual games like my Quest 3 like Eleven Table Tennis and other ones I can play in MR.
Oh well, the Vision will be a computing and media consumption device and my Quest 3 will be the game console
Load up apple music with crisp audio, my macbook pro mirrored in large, high quality floating in front of my eyes in a coffee shop. Walk grab a drink while all my windows are in the same place. The quality and resolution of video content is incredible
If VR headsets were 1/10th the size and weight, and had long battery life then everyone would want it.
The current gen of this tech is way too cumbersome for everyday use.
We need a few more iterations and groundbreaking innovations to turn this into a consumer device everyone on the planet wants to own.
Honestly, IMHO, I'm glad Apple failed with this one. (Happy they pushed the tech though) Think about how they would lock it up and shut you out even further.
It's yet to be seen, but Meta just OPENED UP the Eco system with the OS for their platform. That should bring more people in and grow the user base.
The price point for the Q3 is also a great entry into VR. Sure it's still expensive, but I just bought a $$1,000 video card, so $499 and $650 for the Q3s sits just right with me. Love the ease of use with the Q3.
> Meta just OPENED UP the Eco system
No. They dangled a lure. The stores are the ecosystem, and those will remain closed and tightly controlled.
> The price point for the Q3 is also a great entry into VR
They also sell them at a significant loss.
And the reason is that they want to capture the market. The company that is antithetical to the concept of personal privacy and whose CEO once called his users "Dumb Fucks" for trusting him, wants to capture the market, and you are falling for it, and helping to convince others, because of wishy-washy promises and a little bit of free money.
Amazing.
It’s really good that they’re forced meta to push themselves even more and improve their product. Meta is clearly ahead of the game, I hope apple sees that and start rethinking their strategy. Hopefully some Chinese brands will also step up their game to bring come true competition to meta
Even the Q2 is a viable option for a small budget. It fills the position of allowing people to see what this whole VR thing is about without dropping significant cash.
Apple is four thousand dollars or nothing. That's not remotely accessible for a huge swath of the population that could afford a 200 dollar headset.
Yeah, Apple is definitely going to throw in the towel literally less than 3 months after the launch of a product that was in development for a decade.
Not selling a billion units in the first quarter does not equal failure. If it's obvious to the barely sentient gamers in this sub that $4k is a shitload of money and they won't sell millions of units at that price, it's pretty obvious to them too. Meaning: that was never the success metric.
Anyway it's dumb to get salty that a bunch of teenagers don't know how anything actually works and believe that they're the first ones to realize extremely obvious things, soooo...
Probably the best take here. I get the feeling people are kissing apples ass because its good for VR that they dipped their toes and it is but I just think Apple in general has a lot of anticonsumer practices. Yes I said it.
Gotta say i can feel this big time. I've got a quest 3, and while initially I was really wowed by it, lately I've just been using it for eleven table tennis every now and then. Hearing the same from a friend, his headset is collecting dust.
Bought it mostly for games. While the initial impression was really great, after a while you sort of realise that it's still just a game with the same limitations as before, but a lot less comfort, and it kinda loses it's shine.
Really wish it was different, but there you go. Maybe the killer app or form factor is still around the corner.
Maybe it's not for everyone. I've been playing VR games every day on my quest 3 since I bought it and don't see myself coming back to flat gaming, especially since I discovered Skyrim FUS and the unreal 5 injector
For real, sitting down to play Jedi Fallen order is way more exciting with the UEVR injector. I'm like so excited when I get to visit a new world just to be in the atmosphere. Flat gaming just doesn't do that for me, the scale isn't there.
It's a very impressive toy, especially for the price point. It just need time for better apps/games/integration. Shit's going to start moving fast soon, betting another year or so.
I've had the Q3 for a few months now and I still really like it but I'd say the most obvious take is that the battery sucks and honestly when I decide not to pop it on my head its because of that.
Yeah I know I have one, but for the average vr user its kinda lame to have to buy additional 3rd party stuff for a standalone premium product like this.
I actually like the battery life, otherwise I'd be hooked up all night. It kinda 'organically' controls my gaming time to something that's probably more healthy (for me) anyways.
That is a good point and would not be surprised if that was worked into the design. Some people experience some fatigue after playing much longer than the battery will last and they'd associate that fatigue with the product. Which isnt a good thing in PR terms I suppose.
Same. I use it when I need to make something for it for work but otherwise I’d rather not have something strapped to my face when I already look at a monitor all damn day.
This is a problem with VR in general. I think it's a combination of things. Putting it on and using it is kind of a hassle. The amount of games and software in general is limited and so is the hardware. Also, as you say, VR does loose a bit of its magic as you get used to it.
Still, I personally use the Q3 quite regularly and I don't really do much flatscreen gaming anymore. You can get used to the comfort (and improve it) and Q3 in combination with a good PC and good wifi setup is really good with quite a few games available.
I think a problem with the AVP is that the kinda use they are aiming for really does not make sense if the headset is not comfortable and a hassle to use and the isolating aspect of VR also becomes a problem. For playing a game for an hour or two, it's not a big deal to be isolated (it's probably what you want) and the discomfort is not a big deal. For working or just watching TV it's a different story though.
I desperately want AVP to affect the rest of the VR world.
I want VR to be a real computing device. Like how phone, tablet, computer, are all basically just portals into your same digital world.
I want AVP to validate and normalize streaming movies and TV in VR. I want there to be updated official streaming apps for all the services. With 4k 3d content.
I want this not just for AVP, but also Quest and others.
I want AVP to succeed so the rest of the industry has to compete.
not the best comparison. oculus was making the rift for games. its goal was clear. people just didnt trust how much facebook would meddle in that, or just steer them into a different direction altogether.
with apple, what you see is what you get. we all knew what we expected, it was what they showed off. and it wasnt much. the tech was not made by some recently acquired company.
not to mention unlike the rift/quest, the AVP is more expensive than even some of the highest end devices, meaning price/accessibility isn't even on the AVP's side this time around in any capacity.
All of the hype about the AVP was recycled from ten years ago with the exact same result. Only the Quest has managed to get some real traction via gaming and loss-leader pricing. VR for consumers has been a continual disappointment from a business side perspective. So, no, Apple's typical gameplan of bringing nothing new but the logo won't work here.
It's almost built into VR as a unavoidable trap that there is always more *initial* hype than the long term use can sustain simply because it's so damn impressive when you first see it, but nearly all fo that is based on the *novelty* of the experience, not its *essential utility*. There are useful things that VR can do, but they are much more boring than anything that will impress you in a store demo. So there is a valley of death people have to cross after they buy it, the novelty wears off and they find the actual use cases that really do have value.
I use VR for 3 things:
Gaming: Apple won't let me PCVR
Work: limited to a single screen.
Porn: A heinous crime in the Apple ecosystem.
My Q3 does all of that brilliantly for a quarter of the price, so why would I even bother?
I'd definitely not shut myself off the world in a coffeeshop and rather watch the clouds, drinking red wine on airplanes ;D
but seriously, I see the airplane entertainment case, but can't see myself working in the current state of VR tech
The best part is that it’s all AR if you want to, so i still see the whole coffee shop in front of me :). It’s really a gamechanger compared to carrying around tons of monitor equipment
Yeah, I tried the thing, but actually working in it, in this hardware generation, I see this as no more than a 15min demo case. I thankfully have my life not requiring me to work from coffeeshops with more than an unplanned smartphone reply.
VR, for me, is exploring stuff that can't be had in 2D.
You feel 5 monitors in VR is better to work on long-term than a 43"+ 4K screen in real life? Resolution felt 'good' when I tried the Vision Pro, but nowhere close to a good PC setup yet.
I hope this doesn't stick as the conclusion of Vision Pro's launch story ... just like the meme that "every Quest is collecting dust" stuck around and caused great harm to people's perception of VR, these ideas can be super hard to shake off even when the story changes.
Having said that, I'm pretty surprised by what appears to me to be an uncharacteristically poor launch by Apple:
- Despite the device mainly being about content consumption, they don't appear to have had any major content in train to arrive post-launch. All the partnerships with Disney, sports, 3d movies etc etc seem to have fallen flat and once people consumed the content that came at launch there isn't much more.
- Then there's a similar story with Apps. They were giving out AVPs to developers 6 months before launch but we still haven't seen a flood of compelling apps. In fact, most of the compelling apps are "alternative" content avenues like emulators or connectors for PCVR etc.
- Launching with a single screen remote display killed it's main use case which is to be a portable monitor replacement. People just want / need more than one screen, so instead of it being better than status quo it was worse. People who are citing that this was too taxing on the hardware need to look at Immersed mirroring 5 screens on a Quest 2. It can't be that hard.
I could get it if they tried to do these things and failed .... But it's perplexing that they don't appear to have tried. It just looks like a bungled plan to me at the moment.
Predicting this thread:
-Apple haters saying "I knew this would happen" (which is not a far off take objectively)
-Apple fans contradicting this, touting it as rhe most successful device in history and noting they're wearing the damn thing as they type their post.
I'm shocked, absolutely shocked I say.
(Pretty sure I got downvoted into oblivion when I said this product will mostly be a nothing burger long term and will just be big for like a month.)
Same thing happened to me. I think its just vr enthusiasts trying to keep any and all hype around vr and I get that but apple just shit the bed as expected.
I'm all for keeping hype, but we also gotta be reasonable. It was obvious that a product aimed at "productivity" wasn't gonna advance the VR space much if any, especially when most other VR products are gaming oriented.
Best thing AVP was ever gonna do was make more people aware VR exists.
*"Lamborghini is a total failure of a company because 3 billion people haven't bought their cars yet.*
*Also like, a Camry costs $30k but a Lambo costs $250k. Doesn't Lamborghini know that this is really expensive and that most people can't afford it? Are they STUPID?! Yes, definitely. Only I am smart enough to have realized this extremely obvious, basic thing!"*
Not even a great example since consumer tech ***always*** starts expensive and gets cheaper and more capable, whereas supercars are kind of always expensive.
It literally isn't unless you want to game or only accept an extremely narrow definition of "productivity" carefully selected to exclude the AVP. There are many things the AVP is undeniably better at, and more importantly it's a **far** superior infrastructure (both software and hardware) for future development as a standalone computing platform. There's really no argument. A Raspberry Pi isn't more capable than a Macbook just because you don't care about Macbook apps and the RPi is better suited to what you do want to do.
The Quest 3 is better at gaming, having controllers (99% used for gaming), and being cheaper. That's...about it. The app ecosystem (again 99% gaming oriented) is definitely ahead of the AVP but that's a transient thing and eventually won't be the case, gaming aside.
Of course if those don't matter to you or your specific needs are better suited by a Q3 or other, that's OK. Everyone doesn't need to have the exact same preferences and needs.
definitely weekly (4/7 for sure), often close to daily.
I wrote about my experience about 3 weeks in *(it also definitely needed those 3 weeks to actually "understand" & "get to know" the device - that's also why everyone who "demo'd it at an Apple Store & didn't like it", isn't all too meaningful, imo)*:
[https://twitter.com/ezreeszy/status/1761078998489038994](https://twitter.com/ezreeszy/status/1761078998489038994)
Now 2 months later, usage is similarly semi-daily:
It's a device that gives you an actual virtual layer on top of reality, in which you can do all the things you already did, but often better. *(Not saying it doesn't have it's downsides, flaws & shortcomings, as pointed out ie. about productivity in the tweet)*
So main repeated use cases is "all what I would've used my phone/tv/tablet" instead:
YouTube, TikTok, Mails, Writing in Obsidian, Managing my day in Calendar/Asana, watching Movies, while being able to do all the social things like messaging/calling people etc. in the same virtual space seamlessly. Something other headsets just can't do as fluently.
Since then apps like "Splitscreen" have launched, which are basically "Immersed" but for Vision, which made the productivity use case much better. Even though I still don't work in it regularly, bc my IRL setup is still better.
The main changes in the last 2 months in terms of usage (+ having finally fixed the comfort issue for me, increasing usage & average usage duration), have been that it's now also usable as a PCVR headset that has hand, finger, face & eye tracking built in. This made me use it for Social VR or Sim-like Games via Steam.
Playing No Man Sky, Microsoft Flight Simulator or Elite Dangerous which can easily be played with HOTAS or wheels, are unmatched on AVP. If you really feel like it, you can also make it work with Index controllers & just go play normal games.
Yet, I still use my Quest 3 as the daily driver for regular gaming (since I don't need the ultra res & prefer the plug & go on the Quest 3 for games) & the Beyond for Social VR when I need full body tracking & don't feel like putting up with space calibrator.
As much as people (especially in this sub) don't like it when people say this: Vision Pro is not a VR headset. Yes it technically also can do VR stuff (see the SteamVR part above), but that's not what it's designed or intended to be used for. Once you understand that & see it more as described in the "virtual layer" section above, you'll actually "get it".
Is it worth 3,5-4k? For 90% of people definitely not. But so isn't 1,5k for a Beyond. And Gen 1 never was intended to be for 90% of people, clearly. Since there's just no other headset doing the things that Vision does, you either put down the dough if you get & want it or you don't - both is fine.
I mean yeah, it's basically just a test platform for now. I doubt Apple expected any real adoption beyond a bunch of die hard suckers or people with a lot of money buying it.
All they need to do to immediately course correct is add motion controls.
If they did this, it would open the flood gates to all the many Quest and Steam VR Unity games making their way over.
It’s too expensive, you can’t play games. It’s meant to be a computer in VR, but anyone that owns VR knows that although it’s cool to use their headsets as their monitor, it’s not as comfortable, specially for longer periods of time.
It doesn’t help that Meta quest 3 can deliver everything Apple does through apps, but maybe with worst hand tracking and it’s 7 times cheaper. For Vision Pro 2 Apple really needs to allow gaming, which maybe would have to force them to open their OS system, not sure if they’re willing to do that
Yep, VR seems to have that effect more than any other tech I’ve bought. Starts off well and amazing, then the sheer awkwardness of having to wear a large thing that covers half of your face gets a bit much, and it ends up spending more time on the shelf. Don’t see this changing till we get true light glasses style VR, as glasses are about the only thing I can wear on my face and not get annoyed with it.
> Don’t see this changing till we get true light glasses style VR
It would already help if companies would start making comfort a top priority instead of focusing on how the thing looks in marketing material. VisionPro with a top strap mod is reasonably comfortable. Apple not including one was just plain stupid. Ironically, they even had one in early marketing material. Meta didn't include one either on QuestPro either, neither did Microsoft's WMR line and even BigScreen only got one at the last minute.
It's like none of their developers actually uses the tech they build.
The reason it has dropped few apps is that mixed reality as a platform, vs AR or VR, is really new.
It shares a lot with both, but with some key differences and technical challenges. The sdks for meta and apple are still works in progress.
And while the AVP is pretty cool it's also unobtainable for most.
All the AVP did was introduce a new and NOVEL way of doing things that can already be done without it in a way more passive manner. (It's a cooler way to compute and or visually consume media at the cost of slight discomfort, and some settup thats a little more hassle than flipping open a laptop, or pulling out a phone.)
When it's New, people will put up with minor hurdles to try it our or even just say they tried it...but when that all fades, that little hurdle turns into a mountain and people stop caring. That's VR's biggest hurdle. It has to have a core functionality that people NEED or can get people addicted, that can't be accomplished in any other easier and more convenient way.
The smartphone introduced the inernet in your pocket and scrolling which is hugely addictive. A huge step forward from the laptop before it. It's why it had stuck for all these years. Headsets don't have that same evolutionary benefit that the transition from pc/laptop to smartphone had.
I use mine every day for work just about. It needs more native apps, but the idea that having a decently high res monitor you can position anywhere and lug anywhere with you easily and scale as needed while floating other apps in endless configurations to multitask has no use cases is interesting to me.
Having a MacBook to connect to it is pretty essential to getting the most out of it though.
The same things were said about iPhone, iPad, and the Apple watch.
Apple always plays the long game. They would have worked out the roadmap for the next 5-10 years. We will see cheaper models, more features and more software.
I'd almost like to say that if the Meta Horizon OS thing goes well, it's looking way more enticing for XR than Apple's closed ecosystem with very few apps and $3500+ hardware. Imagine a competing headset that uses Horizon OS but has a similar or even better chip than AVP and the software library of the Quest store, etc. Doesn't even need to be a Meta headset.
It’s like 3 thousand dollars, it’s huge on your face, and there isn’t much entertainment functionality at the moment. It’s there but there isn’t much of it.
Makes sense. It's too heavy to wear for its intended use case, from what I understand. Almost every review says it's uncomfortable after a half hour. I'm still pretty surprised Apple released a device that people will be uncomfortable using.
At a guess, though, they released it not because it's ready, but because they didn't want to wait any longer while Facebook deepened its stranglehold on the space. By having a headset out there, Apple has made a cultural impression and set expectations. People who would have associated VR, AR and XR with only Facebook will now think of Apple too.
I assume future iterations of the device probably won't be that much better than the Vision Pro in visual fidelity or functionality -- but weight, size and price will all be reduced. If the second Apple Vision headset functions just like the Vision Pro but comes in at half the weight, size and price, it's a triumph.
I don't see why people should be accustomed to spending $30,000+ on a car plus expensive maintenance and gas but not $10,000+ on a VR rig they'd use every day just so long as it lasts decently well. Right now lots of us have little choice but to own and keep a car but that could change. That disposable income would then be freed up to go elsewhere... like a SSS quality VR rig. Maybe then you don't need to travel maybe meeting in VR would be good enough.
Apple clearly waits for a new Vision OS update and a big reveal at the next WWDC. It will tell us a lot. I expect they will go big with AI and start selling the headset worldwide.
Rich people toys
It doesnt even do anything - toys usually do something. That cup and ball is more of a toy than Vision Pro. A VR headset with no games or third party apps at launch? That's one fancy paper weight.
It's a cool laptop. You can work on your text document from a mountaintop or from the beach. Super cool. But you could also do the same thing on a Chromebook.
hard this. -and not have a giant weight on your head while doing so. the real issue is they tried to market it as some kind of tool...when in practice it is almost never the best tool for the job. if u need mobile computing, there are great options. if you need stationary OR mobile VR...there are already great options. maybe if you JUST want to watch a movie it might be the best with the res? but even then i think there are competitors aren't there?
Video glasses like Xreal are much more usable for movies, form factor like sunglasses
The FOV and resolution are much worse.
So does a monitor also not do anything? Since, at a minimum, the AVP serves as a monitor.
Can i hook my pc to it? Or my ps5? Should at least be able to have an iMax environment to play my games for that price.
Yes you can do both. And Steam VR even though it’s a bit janky right now. You should definitely be able to use theater environments and scale for anything though. I hope they add that in 2.0.
Quest does that for significantly less
Not with the clarity of an AVP. Not with the black level of an AVP. Not with the vibrant colors of an AVP. Not as well as an AVP. You can watch TV with a cheap B&W TV. But it in no way compares to an OLED.
But it's 90% there, so more like comparing a 32" LCD tv to a 48" oled TV, where the oled costs 7 times the price (but has an apple logo) The AVP is undeniably better in screen quality, but only incrementally so, not revolutionarily so
> But it's 90% there, so more like comparing a 32" LCD tv to a 48" oled TV, where the oled costs 7 times the price (but has an apple logo) Ah... have you checked into the price of a LCD TV compared to an OLED? It is about 7 times cheaper. I got a couple of LCD TVs for $100. A cheap OLED is about $700-$800. So there you go.
Yeah, but the screens in the quest 3/pro aren't cheap bargain basement versions... The quest pro lcds have localised dimming and very high colour range. But hey, if you want to pay extra for the fruit logo then go ahead, I've never found it to be worth the premium so I'll stick to working in my quest 3 or quest pro every day
> Yeah, but the screens in the quest 3/pro aren't cheap bargain basement versions... You can have that opinion if you want. I consider the screen in my Q3 the second worse of all my VR headsets. The worst being the Q2. Even compared to my other LCD headsets. The Q2/Q3 screens have really dull colors. > The quest pro lcds have localised dimming and very high colour range. The QP isn't 7 times cheaper than the AVP is it? > But hey, if you want to pay extra for the fruit logo then go ahead, I've never found it to be worth the premium so I'll stick to working in my quest 3 or quest pro every day As you brought up through your example. An AVP costs about as much over a Q3 as a OLED does over a LCD. So that premium is well justified. In fact, people scramble like mad to get an OLED for $700 if they can find it. They think it's a bargain to get that much more performance over a LCD for such a small premium.
I didn't pay retail price for my Quest Pro, and I'd be surprised if anyone does these days, but even at retail price, I still don't think an Apple Vision Pro is 3.5 times better than a Quest Pro, certainly not for my usage. And yeah, a lot of people will pay a premium for OLED over LCD, but the vast majority of people will do perfectly fine with a QLED or LCD screen, so I still think Quest 3 or Pro gives 90% of the experience (and a much better experience in many such as gaming or productivity outside of Apple's walled garden) at 1/3 or 1/7 of the price
It’s a waste of money if money is a monthly scraping by. Worth it if you’re Logan Paul.
It's worthwhile if you want to use it fulltime (probably with a comfort mod) as a [virtual workspace](https://medium.com/immersedteam/working-from-orbit-39bf95a6d385), mobile theater, and ALVR gaming device that replaces physical setups.
It's just gadget for anyone who want to waste money.
Everyone will blame the price but it’s the lack of use cases.
Why not both?
It is both but one matters FAR more than the other.
If it served a purpose that was worth 4k, then the price would be acceptable. We buy cars at much higher prices because we feel they are worth it. Not many feel that this thing is worth the price because it doesn't do much.
Its also too big for what they want it to be. No one is going to wear this thing around all day.
I constantly asked people who pre-ordered (especially those who have never even tried a VR headset) what their use case was. As you said, if it's worth that much for a device that wasn't even on the market yet, then for that price, you would think it fit someone's use cases. Problem is that I saw time and time again that while some did make strong efforts to explain their use cases (justifying it compared to what you'd spend on a decent home theater, etc.), a majority either didn't really know or their use cases amounted to it integrating with their Apple devices. I don't want to shout "Apple fanboys will buy anything," but I still believe that a lot of Apple users have a tendency to put a lot of trust in Apple and that what they deliver is what they need for a premium experience, even if it really doesn't suit any of their use cases. I told people. Unless money is not roadblock and you simply want to use the latest tech or you are actually a developer wanting to build apps for this device, I could barely find any use cases that justified such a price at the moment. I think it has lots of potential from what I've heard if the software matures down the road, but on launch? A device that nobody had used, for $3500+, no controllers, not much actual immersive software, etc., should have been a red flag. If you got it, and your needs are met and like it, good for you. But a huge majority of people could not realistically justify such a purchase at the moment.
I did the half hour demo and the weight made it the least comfortable headset I've ever put on.
I read the article(s) so you don't have to. Summary: A contentless article, most probably AI written, that basically quotes no data of it's own. It cites a Mark Gurman article where he talked to some Apple Store employees and where he talks about his own experience of losing interest. In short - the interest in Vision Pro may be down, but this garbage article is not the place to read about it.
Thank you!
The most boring and predictable takes.
Yeah this is all about laying the ground work, the same stuff meta / oculus / valve has been doing for a long time. No one in the VR space expected the gen 1 Vision Pro to be a mass-market product
Apple is not laying groundwork like Meta did. Meta created a large consumer base, cheap entry to development for it and funds much development for their ecosystem. Apple cant reach a wide audience due to the high price, development for the vision pro is much more expensive and apple is not funding any. The Vision Pro is neither a development kit nor a consumer device. The Vision Pro is a halo product for apple to signal customers, shareholders and young talents how "innovative" they are. They needed this innovative image boost since they did nothing but re-release the same devices with minimal spec increases over the last years.
I think you forgot that Meta/Oculus had 3 headsets before their first cheap one.
You're right. DK1, DK2, CV1, and arguably the Quest and Rift S. Quest 2 was the cheap one where they really pushed the price down as hard as possible for as long as possible. I think people forget this modern era of VR is a decade old, and the consumer headsets started at 800 bucks for headset and motion tracked controllers. Apple is a decade behind, though it'll take them far less than a decade to catch up if they keep at it.
Apple is a decade behind on developing a large install base with plenty of developer support and tracked controllers useable for gaming. But they’re not a decade behind with their screens, hand tracking, or pass through cameras. I think the only headset that may be better than them at any of those is the xr2 but I doubt it.
A decade behind on cultivating a complete ecosystem, of which individual systems and hardware are one part of, yes.
They seem to be going after the market where meta failed and gave up: productivity/work and movies. I assume once they fail at that like meta they’ll pivot to gaming. But Apple has never really tried to make a pure gaming machine so it will be interesting to see them try. It’s funny that gaming is a huge market but when you’re trillion dollar companies like meta and apple it’s a consolation prize compared to getting businesses and work from home employees to use them
I hope to word process in 3d for 1.5 hours one day.
Apple has always been good at letting others do all the dirty work and then sweeping in and renaming everything so it looks like they came up with the tech. I'm sure others do it, too, but Apple makes it glaringly obvious.
It seems to me that they are laying the technical groundwork rather than the consumer base groundwork. Everyone already knows Apple and the moment they make an affordable headset that is worth buying people will be all over it. The challenge for them is making a headset that works well enough at a good form factor and price point, not getting people to buy into the brand.
I saw some devs being vocal about vision OS not being the easiest to work with, as they use very different models than other VR headsets. Right now they are trying to push the "we are apple, work on our environment".
It worked for the iPhone because it was the first device of its kind. I don't see how getting into an established market like this and having the same mentality can have that same level of success.
Fuck them. Their goal is to have Apple only developers. They're making everything different from anyone else (Swift, Metal, etc).
Swift is a cross platform language that compiles for Linux, Windows, Android, whatever.
The thing is if Apple goes for the “walled garden” approach again with its entry into the VR space, I think *at best* they can hope for a large amount of initial interest (mainly driven by Apple fan boys), followed by a steep collapse in usage and sales. That video the other day of Zuckerberg talking about the “open” model versus the “closed” model of tech ecosystem development was spot-on, I think. VR is still in its infancy, but it’s still been around for years now and therefore is mature enough that the user base desires and is comfortable with that open model, so much so that I’d expect them to be very resistant to a company trying to establish a walled garden. All of this to say: I don’t think it matters that they’re doing the technical groundwork now if they intend to go with the walled garden (which they might not). Their headset does nothing that other headsets can’t also do. They ought to be doing or at least indicating the direction they’re going for their consumer groundwork alongside their technical groundwork.
When Meta do technical groundwork, they produce a bunch of prototypes, most of which we never hear about but a handful of which are shown to journalists, whilst releasing consumer products with the tech they believe is viable, which also gives them feedback on which features were popular with consumers. Apple released a prototype, into a market that has mature products. We know or have good reason to suspect that Meta have prototyped everything in the Vision Pro, and didn't believe it was ready.
What technical groundwork? Many could have built the hardware given enough money. The challenge is to built it at a price that enough people would pay for the use it provides. I know you are thinking their next headset would be cheaper, but they cant reduce the cost much. They can’t make a profit from app sales like Meta so they need to make a profit on the hardware. And the hardware they have can’t be reduced as that would place the new apple headset immediately behind a Quest 3.
Exactly. Sure Rift and S were costly and tethered - but Occulus and Meta put in their time, learned from their past products and released affordable ones with a vast array of improvements. Meanwhile, here comes Apple (Does Less, Costs More) with its garden wall apps and a price point most consumers would never dream of dropping on a 1st gen product...Apple shot their shot and missed hard. Quest 3 is already awesome and whatever they release after will probly be even better. Apple is in the business of making hype and they succeeded in just that.
Early VR had the advantage of being exciting and new as well. We're a decade in at this point.
I wouldn't consider the Rift S to be that costly tbh. The AVP is an impressive piece of tech, but it's about double the price it should be.
The project has been under way since around 2012 at least. Apple eventually had to show *something* for their efforts.
Lol dude I am as critical of Apple as any but Apple literally fabs their own silicone and lit a fire under the entire laptop markets ass with the M1 processor. They are innovating.
It’s TSMC who "fabs" it. I hope apples chips are made from silicon still and not silicone. And ARM based chips are nothing new. Phones have them, android tablets. We would be using ARM on the PC if we wouldn’t have so much legacy software. Apple was in the position to transition and made the right decision (Hey). But i give you that much, it was very innovative how seamlessly they managed to transition.
The price alone is indicative of it not being mass market. Nothing that costs as much as a car down payment would be.
Forget car \_down payment\_... The entire cost of my car was only twice that.
Not sure why you're downvoted. You're right. There's nothing that costs $3500-$4000, outside of things that are extremely essentially like an AC unit in the south or a heater in the north, that most people have in their homes. Not even gamers, who are known to spend a ton on hardware, commonly spend that type of money on their entire gaming setup. GPUs like the 3090 and RTX 4090 make up less than 1% of Steam users. *edit* your comment was negative when I looked. It's been upvoted now.
The AVP is priced very fairly IMO. It’s got the internals of a $2000 macbook and then some. Custom OLED displays that are the first to use a silicone substrate. Best in class eye tracking. Plus a whole lot more. It’s confusing why people are saying it’s expensive. $3500 is normal money for a high end laptop or 3 phones lol.
It actually doesn't. It has the internals of an $800 iPad Pro + Sony's non-custom MicroOLEDs. It even has most of the same iPad apps. It doesn't have a macbook style OS with the macbook's hardware and software capabilities. If you want those things, you have to pair it with a macbook.
People are saying it's expensive because it released into a mature market as one of the most expensive devices with subpar functionality.
It actually costs more than my entire car.
> Yeah this is all about laying the ground work, the same stuff meta / oculus / valve has been doing for a long time. Oculus Rift CV1 and HTC Vive did both have an use case: Gaming. It might have not been as cut and dry as today with us knowing exactly what games and experiences (or rather fitness and social) would sell, but you could demo Pavlov, Onward, Echo VR and so on to someone and they would see immediately why you would want that and the potential of it. Try demoing the Vision Pro as a monitor replacement to someone that has already an above average sized desktop screen. Try to sell people on the idea that they should want to use their iPad apps on a floating window in space with no haptic feedback wearing a heavy VR headset. > No one in the VR space expected the gen 1 Vision Pro to be a mass-market product The point is that there is no sense in Apple's limited use case strategy and there wouldn't at a more reasonable price.
the issue is that meta specifilly does not factor rnd costs into the price of the headsets to establish the market.
But that's not really an issue. Not for us users and not for Meta. They're building a userbase for years and they're so far ahead already, they'll be hard to catch once the MR market will really explode in growth (and we're getting closer and closer to that moment).
[удалено]
The great thing about kids as a demographic is that they won't always be kids. Meta has struggled to appeal to kids with some of their other products, and as problematic as kids screeching racist slurs in Gorilla Tag are for them, in 10 years these will be college students who they've built brand loyalty with.
[удалено]
Just imagine how you're going to feel when, some years from now, a colleague who's younger than you mentions that they met their now-spouse playing Gorilla Tag.
its the same approach epic is doing with their store when compared to steam. EGS will kinda be like the quest in a decade, where kids have a library of free games as opposed to the older folks who already bought them all on steam and have no reason to shift over.
> Meta has struggled to appeal to kids with some of their other products What are you talking about. Many use intagram and in Europe everyone uses WhatsApp. The Smart glasses are also a small success.
> I don't think meta is that far ahead of apple on userbase, apple they already have the apple ecosystem and it's way more than the 20 millions quest users that are almost all kids Almost all kids? I think you need to provide more than anecdotal -insert game mostly kids play-evidence. Also, there is a reason the 14 to 49 demographic that is so important to advertisers is starting at 14. Kids and teens spend. Apple, doesn't really has that much of an ecosystem when it comes to VR/MR and I really don't see iPad apps in space that much of a sells argument... What sells in VR is gaming, fitness and social. Other than to mobile games developers Apple doesn't even have as many industry contacts as Meta there, which have now been booth having their own studios, second party developers that release under their branding and paying others for porting titles / exclusivity for over a decade now while Apple is in an open war with the world's biggest game engine provider. Apple also doesn't know IMO how to market to a gaming audience that cares more about high numbers, openness and content libraries than what material the outer hull of a device is made of. Apple does have a big stand in fitness but would need to make basically an (very gamified) app. And IMO what is popular when it comes to social in VR isn't really related to 1:1 chats, even more so if you need a VR headset that even at a lower second gen price point would be way above what the mainstream user wants to pay for a VR headset.
that's an issue for apple. The apple vision pro is too expensive and too difficult to manufacture. There ain't enough headsets and there ain't enough users so there ain't much incentives to build apps
I’m honestly surprised the Index did as well as it did. It’s still a small market share but I really did not expect it to get as big for PCVR due to the cost barrier
The Index was/is a good headset, it's just old now, and Valve has a lot of goodwill with pc gamers.
Apple invited these reactions by describing the Vision Pro as the next big leap in personal computing. You can’t come out the door waving your dick and bragging about how your new device is going to be revolutionary, and not expect people to go into it with high expectations
yeah ... this is the price of Apple's extreme emphasis on their brand image and quality as the hallmark of their products. It's really hard for them to release an imperfect product and not conflict with that. But for early stage tech, you actually need to do that. So here they are releasing an early stage product with all kinds of limitations, and pretending like it's perfect and this actually creates the problem. If they had come straight out and said "Hey y'all we're releasing a dev kit and we want you all to try it out and help us make it better" there would have been nothing but universal praise and excitement for that. But culturally they are just incapable of doing that.
It also still hasn't launched outside the US.
None of those products cost $3500 at launch...this proved one thing to Apple, Vision Pro is a failure as is - now what, make a dumbed down version? Consumers won't flock to it, meanwhile Metal quest 3 is making strides and Valve is just biding its time to deliver on what Apple failed to do - Apple has an uphill battle that they made worse by releasing a shit product.
> Consumers won't flock to it Haven't owned an iPhone or Mac in years but would probably check it out around 1-1.5k. Said as a Quest 3 owner. Scrap the outside screen, premium machined metal, and fancy but unusable headband and I might be curious. Even the Quest 3 REALLY does need a new headstrap and battery back to make it useable (I don't mind the charging brick for the AVP).
we can do without that ridiculous screen that shows the user's eyes.
It's too expensive..
Well I have to ask, what would I even use it for? And I have a Q3.
id really like it for watching movies but thats about it And im not spending 4k on that
I could make a really nice home theater system with big screen TV and 5.1 surround sound for that price.
well I do already have that, but I cant watch 3D movies on it and ive been experimenting with Owl3D which uses AI to convert movies from flatscreen to 3D and im blown away by the results Terminator 2 in 3D is sick. Watching it on the Quest 2 is kind of annoying.
Ooh, I'll have to check that out! I do have a 3D TV and there are films not released in 3D that I'd love to convert and watch that way.
in my experience it works best with live action movies but also works well for animated ones
Did you consider video glasses like the xreals etc?, can do 3d movies at a fraction of the price.
I am interested in the new xreals but theres nowhere you can demo them
It’s really great for playing PC games on a giant virtual screen. I returned mine but before I did, I enjoyed playing games on a virtual screen while my partner watched tv. She’d watch The Bachelor and I’d cover it up with a big display that looked amazing. I can do the same on my Q3 but the quest looks terrible compared to the AVP. The perceived resolution is much worse.
It’s not just too expensive, it’s a bad product. No controllers mean no good vr games or fitness apps. They want you to passively consume content instead, but 2 hour battery life means you can’t even make it through most full movies. And when I demoed it at an Apple Store, I was unimpressed with the accuracy and ergonomics of the hand controls. And you can’t stream PCVR like you can with other headsets. Before I got my hands on the product, I thought it would be cool but expensive. But I now wouldn’t buy it even if it was half the price of a Quest 3.
I would imagine the controllers will be introduced soon, now that the novelty has worn off. They will start at $1000.00. Each.
That would be proportional to the headset cost! The impression I got from the demo was very much that Apple thought they had invented VR, and therefore learned nothing from those who came before. It's an approach that can lead to some fresh thinking, but it also means you fail to avoid some obvious pitfalls.
How do people just go on the internet and talk about shit they don't even know about? Of course you can stream PCVR like any other headset: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF6UehzYC68](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF6UehzYC68)
Yeah, I wasn't referring to what's possible using Testflight sideloading and external, third-party hardware (steamVR controllers). If Apple actually lets ALVR on the App Store, then I'll stand corrected. But I don't see them voluntarily doing that unless forced by the EU.
Like all their products yes.
And it has no games.
$3500
$4,000 with tax and accessories.
accessories are meh but the real kicker here is the increased cost from storage upgrades. just like with their macbooks, apple wants to fleece you for more if you want a respectable amount of RAM or storage.
I tried it in store and it’s amazing. But yeah that price tag completely eliminates any serious purchaser unless they’re literally rich. Paired with some questionable comfort choices makes it a hard sell. Really hope they develop it further so we can get one that’s actually affordable by us mortals.
i love mine, i just dont have much use for it currently as the apps just arent there yet
What did you imagine yourself doing when you bought it? If you had a magic wand what app would you make with it?
No idea. I’m just impulsive and tech and gadgets are my hobby so I’m always buying shit. I’d like if it had more actual games like my Quest 3 like Eleven Table Tennis and other ones I can play in MR. Oh well, the Vision will be a computing and media consumption device and my Quest 3 will be the game console
Your hobby is buying stuff?
As a Q3 user, I'm curious, what can you do that I can't with my headset that cost like 20% of yours?
the 3D movies on iTunes and Disney Plus are great and the quality of the screens is spectacular. i own both headsets.
Load up apple music with crisp audio, my macbook pro mirrored in large, high quality floating in front of my eyes in a coffee shop. Walk grab a drink while all my windows are in the same place. The quality and resolution of video content is incredible
Cmon this isn’t a great device for music. People have proper speakers for that. It’s actually no better for music than my iPhone.
If VR headsets were 1/10th the size and weight, and had long battery life then everyone would want it. The current gen of this tech is way too cumbersome for everyday use. We need a few more iterations and groundbreaking innovations to turn this into a consumer device everyone on the planet wants to own.
Form factor is the #1 barrier to entry for sure.
Honestly, IMHO, I'm glad Apple failed with this one. (Happy they pushed the tech though) Think about how they would lock it up and shut you out even further. It's yet to be seen, but Meta just OPENED UP the Eco system with the OS for their platform. That should bring more people in and grow the user base. The price point for the Q3 is also a great entry into VR. Sure it's still expensive, but I just bought a $$1,000 video card, so $499 and $650 for the Q3s sits just right with me. Love the ease of use with the Q3.
> Meta just OPENED UP the Eco system No. They dangled a lure. The stores are the ecosystem, and those will remain closed and tightly controlled. > The price point for the Q3 is also a great entry into VR They also sell them at a significant loss. And the reason is that they want to capture the market. The company that is antithetical to the concept of personal privacy and whose CEO once called his users "Dumb Fucks" for trusting him, wants to capture the market, and you are falling for it, and helping to convince others, because of wishy-washy promises and a little bit of free money. Amazing.
It’s really good that they’re forced meta to push themselves even more and improve their product. Meta is clearly ahead of the game, I hope apple sees that and start rethinking their strategy. Hopefully some Chinese brands will also step up their game to bring come true competition to meta
Even the Q2 is a viable option for a small budget. It fills the position of allowing people to see what this whole VR thing is about without dropping significant cash. Apple is four thousand dollars or nothing. That's not remotely accessible for a huge swath of the population that could afford a 200 dollar headset.
Yeah, Apple is definitely going to throw in the towel literally less than 3 months after the launch of a product that was in development for a decade. Not selling a billion units in the first quarter does not equal failure. If it's obvious to the barely sentient gamers in this sub that $4k is a shitload of money and they won't sell millions of units at that price, it's pretty obvious to them too. Meaning: that was never the success metric. Anyway it's dumb to get salty that a bunch of teenagers don't know how anything actually works and believe that they're the first ones to realize extremely obvious things, soooo...
Probably the best take here. I get the feeling people are kissing apples ass because its good for VR that they dipped their toes and it is but I just think Apple in general has a lot of anticonsumer practices. Yes I said it.
Gotta say i can feel this big time. I've got a quest 3, and while initially I was really wowed by it, lately I've just been using it for eleven table tennis every now and then. Hearing the same from a friend, his headset is collecting dust. Bought it mostly for games. While the initial impression was really great, after a while you sort of realise that it's still just a game with the same limitations as before, but a lot less comfort, and it kinda loses it's shine. Really wish it was different, but there you go. Maybe the killer app or form factor is still around the corner.
Maybe it's not for everyone. I've been playing VR games every day on my quest 3 since I bought it and don't see myself coming back to flat gaming, especially since I discovered Skyrim FUS and the unreal 5 injector
For real, sitting down to play Jedi Fallen order is way more exciting with the UEVR injector. I'm like so excited when I get to visit a new world just to be in the atmosphere. Flat gaming just doesn't do that for me, the scale isn't there.
It's a very impressive toy, especially for the price point. It just need time for better apps/games/integration. Shit's going to start moving fast soon, betting another year or so.
I've had the Q3 for a few months now and I still really like it but I'd say the most obvious take is that the battery sucks and honestly when I decide not to pop it on my head its because of that.
Battery strap
Yeah I know I have one, but for the average vr user its kinda lame to have to buy additional 3rd party stuff for a standalone premium product like this.
Most people have battery banks and pockets. I have several of both.
I actually like the battery life, otherwise I'd be hooked up all night. It kinda 'organically' controls my gaming time to something that's probably more healthy (for me) anyways.
That is a good point and would not be surprised if that was worked into the design. Some people experience some fatigue after playing much longer than the battery will last and they'd associate that fatigue with the product. Which isnt a good thing in PR terms I suppose.
[удалено]
I was going to say the same thing about p0rn..
Same. I use it when I need to make something for it for work but otherwise I’d rather not have something strapped to my face when I already look at a monitor all damn day.
This is normal. VR retention is abysmal on all headsets.
This is a problem with VR in general. I think it's a combination of things. Putting it on and using it is kind of a hassle. The amount of games and software in general is limited and so is the hardware. Also, as you say, VR does loose a bit of its magic as you get used to it. Still, I personally use the Q3 quite regularly and I don't really do much flatscreen gaming anymore. You can get used to the comfort (and improve it) and Q3 in combination with a good PC and good wifi setup is really good with quite a few games available. I think a problem with the AVP is that the kinda use they are aiming for really does not make sense if the headset is not comfortable and a hassle to use and the isolating aspect of VR also becomes a problem. For playing a game for an hour or two, it's not a big deal to be isolated (it's probably what you want) and the discomfort is not a big deal. For working or just watching TV it's a different story though.
I desperately want AVP to affect the rest of the VR world. I want VR to be a real computing device. Like how phone, tablet, computer, are all basically just portals into your same digital world. I want AVP to validate and normalize streaming movies and TV in VR. I want there to be updated official streaming apps for all the services. With 4k 3d content. I want this not just for AVP, but also Quest and others. I want AVP to succeed so the rest of the industry has to compete.
I don't want this. I love VR but we don't need people living inside of their phones more than they already do.
These comments are very similar to what people on this sub were saying about Oculus/Facebook in the Rift and early Quest days.
not the best comparison. oculus was making the rift for games. its goal was clear. people just didnt trust how much facebook would meddle in that, or just steer them into a different direction altogether. with apple, what you see is what you get. we all knew what we expected, it was what they showed off. and it wasnt much. the tech was not made by some recently acquired company.
not to mention unlike the rift/quest, the AVP is more expensive than even some of the highest end devices, meaning price/accessibility isn't even on the AVP's side this time around in any capacity.
All of the hype about the AVP was recycled from ten years ago with the exact same result. Only the Quest has managed to get some real traction via gaming and loss-leader pricing. VR for consumers has been a continual disappointment from a business side perspective. So, no, Apple's typical gameplan of bringing nothing new but the logo won't work here.
It's almost built into VR as a unavoidable trap that there is always more *initial* hype than the long term use can sustain simply because it's so damn impressive when you first see it, but nearly all fo that is based on the *novelty* of the experience, not its *essential utility*. There are useful things that VR can do, but they are much more boring than anything that will impress you in a store demo. So there is a valley of death people have to cross after they buy it, the novelty wears off and they find the actual use cases that really do have value.
I use VR for 3 things: Gaming: Apple won't let me PCVR Work: limited to a single screen. Porn: A heinous crime in the Apple ecosystem. My Q3 does all of that brilliantly for a quarter of the price, so why would I even bother?
what work does your Q3 (or Apple) let you do better than a good sized monitor / keyboard combo would?
I can’t bring my huge monitor setup to the coffee shop or the airplane
I'd definitely not shut myself off the world in a coffeeshop and rather watch the clouds, drinking red wine on airplanes ;D but seriously, I see the airplane entertainment case, but can't see myself working in the current state of VR tech
The best part is that it’s all AR if you want to, so i still see the whole coffee shop in front of me :). It’s really a gamechanger compared to carrying around tons of monitor equipment
Yeah, I tried the thing, but actually working in it, in this hardware generation, I see this as no more than a 15min demo case. I thankfully have my life not requiring me to work from coffeeshops with more than an unplanned smartphone reply. VR, for me, is exploring stuff that can't be had in 2D.
5 monitors :)
You feel 5 monitors in VR is better to work on long-term than a 43"+ 4K screen in real life? Resolution felt 'good' when I tried the Vision Pro, but nowhere close to a good PC setup yet.
It makes almost no sense when the Quest 3 exists for so much cheaper
I hope this doesn't stick as the conclusion of Vision Pro's launch story ... just like the meme that "every Quest is collecting dust" stuck around and caused great harm to people's perception of VR, these ideas can be super hard to shake off even when the story changes. Having said that, I'm pretty surprised by what appears to me to be an uncharacteristically poor launch by Apple: - Despite the device mainly being about content consumption, they don't appear to have had any major content in train to arrive post-launch. All the partnerships with Disney, sports, 3d movies etc etc seem to have fallen flat and once people consumed the content that came at launch there isn't much more. - Then there's a similar story with Apps. They were giving out AVPs to developers 6 months before launch but we still haven't seen a flood of compelling apps. In fact, most of the compelling apps are "alternative" content avenues like emulators or connectors for PCVR etc. - Launching with a single screen remote display killed it's main use case which is to be a portable monitor replacement. People just want / need more than one screen, so instead of it being better than status quo it was worse. People who are citing that this was too taxing on the hardware need to look at Immersed mirroring 5 screens on a Quest 2. It can't be that hard. I could get it if they tried to do these things and failed .... But it's perplexing that they don't appear to have tried. It just looks like a bungled plan to me at the moment.
*Insert shocked emoji*
Predicting this thread: -Apple haters saying "I knew this would happen" (which is not a far off take objectively) -Apple fans contradicting this, touting it as rhe most successful device in history and noting they're wearing the damn thing as they type their post.
I'm shocked, absolutely shocked I say. (Pretty sure I got downvoted into oblivion when I said this product will mostly be a nothing burger long term and will just be big for like a month.)
Same thing happened to me. I think its just vr enthusiasts trying to keep any and all hype around vr and I get that but apple just shit the bed as expected.
I'm all for keeping hype, but we also gotta be reasonable. It was obvious that a product aimed at "productivity" wasn't gonna advance the VR space much if any, especially when most other VR products are gaming oriented. Best thing AVP was ever gonna do was make more people aware VR exists.
Yep nail on the head. Its basically the Palm Pilot of vr. Everything I saw about it was just kind of a heh, thats neat but thats all?
ITT: People who don't own a Vision Pro, talking about why Vision Pro is supposed to be bad.
*"Lamborghini is a total failure of a company because 3 billion people haven't bought their cars yet.* *Also like, a Camry costs $30k but a Lambo costs $250k. Doesn't Lamborghini know that this is really expensive and that most people can't afford it? Are they STUPID?! Yes, definitely. Only I am smart enough to have realized this extremely obvious, basic thing!"* Not even a great example since consumer tech ***always*** starts expensive and gets cheaper and more capable, whereas supercars are kind of always expensive.
Except in this case, the Camry is the more capable car.
It literally isn't unless you want to game or only accept an extremely narrow definition of "productivity" carefully selected to exclude the AVP. There are many things the AVP is undeniably better at, and more importantly it's a **far** superior infrastructure (both software and hardware) for future development as a standalone computing platform. There's really no argument. A Raspberry Pi isn't more capable than a Macbook just because you don't care about Macbook apps and the RPi is better suited to what you do want to do. The Quest 3 is better at gaming, having controllers (99% used for gaming), and being cheaper. That's...about it. The app ecosystem (again 99% gaming oriented) is definitely ahead of the AVP but that's a transient thing and eventually won't be the case, gaming aside. Of course if those don't matter to you or your specific needs are better suited by a Q3 or other, that's OK. Everyone doesn't need to have the exact same preferences and needs.
daily / weekly users here? main repeated usecase?
definitely weekly (4/7 for sure), often close to daily. I wrote about my experience about 3 weeks in *(it also definitely needed those 3 weeks to actually "understand" & "get to know" the device - that's also why everyone who "demo'd it at an Apple Store & didn't like it", isn't all too meaningful, imo)*: [https://twitter.com/ezreeszy/status/1761078998489038994](https://twitter.com/ezreeszy/status/1761078998489038994) Now 2 months later, usage is similarly semi-daily: It's a device that gives you an actual virtual layer on top of reality, in which you can do all the things you already did, but often better. *(Not saying it doesn't have it's downsides, flaws & shortcomings, as pointed out ie. about productivity in the tweet)* So main repeated use cases is "all what I would've used my phone/tv/tablet" instead: YouTube, TikTok, Mails, Writing in Obsidian, Managing my day in Calendar/Asana, watching Movies, while being able to do all the social things like messaging/calling people etc. in the same virtual space seamlessly. Something other headsets just can't do as fluently. Since then apps like "Splitscreen" have launched, which are basically "Immersed" but for Vision, which made the productivity use case much better. Even though I still don't work in it regularly, bc my IRL setup is still better. The main changes in the last 2 months in terms of usage (+ having finally fixed the comfort issue for me, increasing usage & average usage duration), have been that it's now also usable as a PCVR headset that has hand, finger, face & eye tracking built in. This made me use it for Social VR or Sim-like Games via Steam. Playing No Man Sky, Microsoft Flight Simulator or Elite Dangerous which can easily be played with HOTAS or wheels, are unmatched on AVP. If you really feel like it, you can also make it work with Index controllers & just go play normal games. Yet, I still use my Quest 3 as the daily driver for regular gaming (since I don't need the ultra res & prefer the plug & go on the Quest 3 for games) & the Beyond for Social VR when I need full body tracking & don't feel like putting up with space calibrator. As much as people (especially in this sub) don't like it when people say this: Vision Pro is not a VR headset. Yes it technically also can do VR stuff (see the SteamVR part above), but that's not what it's designed or intended to be used for. Once you understand that & see it more as described in the "virtual layer" section above, you'll actually "get it". Is it worth 3,5-4k? For 90% of people definitely not. But so isn't 1,5k for a Beyond. And Gen 1 never was intended to be for 90% of people, clearly. Since there's just no other headset doing the things that Vision does, you either put down the dough if you get & want it or you don't - both is fine.
I mean yeah, it's basically just a test platform for now. I doubt Apple expected any real adoption beyond a bunch of die hard suckers or people with a lot of money buying it.
Were there many fans before launch or during launch? lol
Just a little vocal group.
All they need to do to immediately course correct is add motion controls. If they did this, it would open the flood gates to all the many Quest and Steam VR Unity games making their way over.
It's just simply way too expensive. If it was $1000, I MIGHT get it. At $3500 there is absolutely no f'ing way.
It’s too expensive, you can’t play games. It’s meant to be a computer in VR, but anyone that owns VR knows that although it’s cool to use their headsets as their monitor, it’s not as comfortable, specially for longer periods of time. It doesn’t help that Meta quest 3 can deliver everything Apple does through apps, but maybe with worst hand tracking and it’s 7 times cheaper. For Vision Pro 2 Apple really needs to allow gaming, which maybe would have to force them to open their OS system, not sure if they’re willing to do that
Yep, VR seems to have that effect more than any other tech I’ve bought. Starts off well and amazing, then the sheer awkwardness of having to wear a large thing that covers half of your face gets a bit much, and it ends up spending more time on the shelf. Don’t see this changing till we get true light glasses style VR, as glasses are about the only thing I can wear on my face and not get annoyed with it.
> Don’t see this changing till we get true light glasses style VR It would already help if companies would start making comfort a top priority instead of focusing on how the thing looks in marketing material. VisionPro with a top strap mod is reasonably comfortable. Apple not including one was just plain stupid. Ironically, they even had one in early marketing material. Meta didn't include one either on QuestPro either, neither did Microsoft's WMR line and even BigScreen only got one at the last minute. It's like none of their developers actually uses the tech they build.
Yeh, my friend got one and it has been sitting on the shelf for a month. Not really used after using it for tech demos
The reason it has dropped few apps is that mixed reality as a platform, vs AR or VR, is really new. It shares a lot with both, but with some key differences and technical challenges. The sdks for meta and apple are still works in progress. And while the AVP is pretty cool it's also unobtainable for most.
All the AVP did was introduce a new and NOVEL way of doing things that can already be done without it in a way more passive manner. (It's a cooler way to compute and or visually consume media at the cost of slight discomfort, and some settup thats a little more hassle than flipping open a laptop, or pulling out a phone.) When it's New, people will put up with minor hurdles to try it our or even just say they tried it...but when that all fades, that little hurdle turns into a mountain and people stop caring. That's VR's biggest hurdle. It has to have a core functionality that people NEED or can get people addicted, that can't be accomplished in any other easier and more convenient way. The smartphone introduced the inernet in your pocket and scrolling which is hugely addictive. A huge step forward from the laptop before it. It's why it had stuck for all these years. Headsets don't have that same evolutionary benefit that the transition from pc/laptop to smartphone had.
Apple probably anticipated this. The first round is for enthusiasts and developers.
I use mine every day for work just about. It needs more native apps, but the idea that having a decently high res monitor you can position anywhere and lug anywhere with you easily and scale as needed while floating other apps in endless configurations to multitask has no use cases is interesting to me. Having a MacBook to connect to it is pretty essential to getting the most out of it though.
Boy, we really have missed Steve. All Apple had been since he died is a one trick Pony.
With that price tag, this was bound to happen
yeah cause quest 3 does 90% of what it does at a fraction of the price. 3500 for a vr headset are you fucking kidding me
The same things were said about iPhone, iPad, and the Apple watch. Apple always plays the long game. They would have worked out the roadmap for the next 5-10 years. We will see cheaper models, more features and more software.
I'd almost like to say that if the Meta Horizon OS thing goes well, it's looking way more enticing for XR than Apple's closed ecosystem with very few apps and $3500+ hardware. Imagine a competing headset that uses Horizon OS but has a similar or even better chip than AVP and the software library of the Quest store, etc. Doesn't even need to be a Meta headset.
The FOV is comical.
Failure because it’s big brand but if they release such thing as a small company and get such a grade, they’d be genius 🫨
Once again, no killer app
As if anyone is surprised about that.
Because it’s so fucking expensive
Apple's Virtual Boy.
It's a Dev kit. Kinda apples fault though for not making that more clear. Edit: grammar
This isn’t a consumer friendly device and wasn’t designed to be lol.
Or it was designed to be consumer friendly and failed…
It’s like 3 thousand dollars, it’s huge on your face, and there isn’t much entertainment functionality at the moment. It’s there but there isn’t much of it.
Makes sense. It's too heavy to wear for its intended use case, from what I understand. Almost every review says it's uncomfortable after a half hour. I'm still pretty surprised Apple released a device that people will be uncomfortable using. At a guess, though, they released it not because it's ready, but because they didn't want to wait any longer while Facebook deepened its stranglehold on the space. By having a headset out there, Apple has made a cultural impression and set expectations. People who would have associated VR, AR and XR with only Facebook will now think of Apple too. I assume future iterations of the device probably won't be that much better than the Vision Pro in visual fidelity or functionality -- but weight, size and price will all be reduced. If the second Apple Vision headset functions just like the Vision Pro but comes in at half the weight, size and price, it's a triumph.
All my headsets needed 3rd party tools to make them bearable, ngl, even the Q3.
I'm not mad about it... we don't need $3500+ "consumer" vr systems.
I don't see why people should be accustomed to spending $30,000+ on a car plus expensive maintenance and gas but not $10,000+ on a VR rig they'd use every day just so long as it lasts decently well. Right now lots of us have little choice but to own and keep a car but that could change. That disposable income would then be freed up to go elsewhere... like a SSS quality VR rig. Maybe then you don't need to travel maybe meeting in VR would be good enough.
if the software was there, sure, but right now it sits more in the 10,000$ for a massive TV kind of niche from a consumer perspective
It did what it needed to. Set a high price anchor, so the next gen can be both cheaper and better.
Apple clearly waits for a new Vision OS update and a big reveal at the next WWDC. It will tell us a lot. I expect they will go big with AI and start selling the headset worldwide.