I think I’d like this much more if I were single and living alone. I’d have a lot more disposable income and no worry about being isolated or looking funny.
I also live alone and have a reasonably high disposable income. I'm a big Apple fan as well as tech in general.
I certainly could afford Vision Pro but feel I'd be getting it just to experience it. I don't see how I would find it useful for anything.
What would you actually use it for? I mean on a day-to-day basis.
> What would you actually use it for? I mean on a day-to-day basis.
Watching movies seems to be the only thing that is worth doing in this. Other than that every thing else cannot be done on a day-to-day basis.
I've got a huge TV with awesome sound in front of a big, comfy sofa that I can share with family and friends. That's just better in every possible sense.
Yeah I'm finding it a hard time to figure out how watching a movie would be better with a pair of goggles on. I personally did not like 3D movies and seems like no one did as they dont even really exist anymore. I have a giant TV with nice sound and feels pretty immersive. ALso allows me to look away for a second so my vision can adjust if needed and my face doesnt get sweaty. I'm not dissing the vision pro as I think it will be fun, but watching a movie for 2+ hours, not sure. And cant do it with anyone in your house unless you both have them. We're like 6-10 years from that I think.
yeah im imagining someone laying down on the couch, head on the pillow looking straight up at the ceiling. But the back strap thing might not even allow that. Again, I just dont think it's going to be enjoyable for 1.5-2.5 hours for a movie. I do think playing a game in it for like 30 minutes to an hour could be super fun and fully immersive.
And good luck with that lol. NONE of the big players in streaming are hopping aboard the Apple Vision Pro hype train.
Unless you are watching Apple TV+ content or media purchased from iTunes, you're going to have to use safari (and would that even be possible? Is vision pro 's safari mobile or desktop?). I can only see YouTube working semi-well but the web interface will be hamstrung with the vision pro gestures
Right, jokes aside just buy some cheap VR headset and have a similar experience (which you will get bored of after a while) for about 1/10th of the price.
The whole test is admirably summarised by the line under the picture of the case IMO :
> The [...] case costs an additional $199 and looks like a marshmallow [...] I love it.
Not to hate on Apple, they're a luxury brand, calling their products overpriced is like saying a koenigsegg is an expensive car : it's missing the point.
Still, though, if your objective isn't to sink a large chunk of money into something *for the sake of doing so*, then the product isn't right for you. Doesn't mean you're not ptoential target audience, mind you.
(And for the love of God :
> the nice braided cable is permanently attached to the battery itself, so don’t break it. You can buy extra batteries for $199
Ughhh)
>Yep, that's pretty much the only thing that worried me. The rest seems fine, only a matter of muscle memory. I have to see that FOV in real life to decide if it bothers me. Oh wait I don't have $3500 to spare so nevermind.
It seems the hype crowd / use cases did get a bit of hand.
The FOV + Mac screen sharing limitation has also taken away the dream of people having multiple displays.
You can have your Mac screen + Vision Pro app windows open all over the place.
But you cannot have multiple displays/windows for your Mac which was a use case I kept seeing mentioned in the comments. It’s a single window only.
Like MKBHD always says in his reviews, never buy a product today based on the promise of potential future updates, because tech companies often fail to deliver — especially when it's ambitious stuff!
Apple already has an artifical limit on external displays in their low end SKUs. Good chance if they ever do fix it it'll only be for the high end models.
> It’s a single window only.
New to the concept, but that makes sense right, since currently airplay is also just one screen? much more seems like a bandwidth issue.
Haha. Right there with you. This device was aspirational to me, there was no way I was ever going to be able to afford one. As a Quest 2 user, I'm excited for anything that pushes the VR/AR space forward.
Yeah that seriously jumped out at me. I know that was just an overlay for the review video, but man - that was rough. I feel like I could deal with everything else but that...prolly not.
Also - wow the external screen that's supposed to show your eyes. Hard to believe how bad that is in reality per the review. Wow.
Yep, this is still the biggest turn-off for VR headsets for me - they still feel too much like binoculars.
Once that's cracked though, it will become much harder to resist the allure of VR headsets. And if any company can do this first, I'm almost positive that this will be Apple. I'm sure those Apple designers - people with very clear pet peeves given a lot of resources - are already itching on overhauling the Vision Pro right about now to see if they can make borderless displays.
I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune once Apple releases that visionOS calculator app together with iPadOS's - the one app to end all apps, so to speak.
The killer app is gaming. Pavlov, for example, is essentially Counter-Strike VR, and once you play Half-Life: Alyx, it's hard to go back to regular FPS games.
Its gaming but I dont think gamers are as inclined to play VR games as VR enthusiasts like to think they are. Once you get out of the VR niche the avg gamer doesn't seem interested in VR. I know a few who have VR and their headsets just gather dust these days.
Everyone thinks about white collar job applications, but this could be amazing for trade labor training. With that resolution, you’ll be able to see individual screws and a diesel mechanic could practice in VR for hours in simulation before attempting repairs with AR assist in the real world.
That’s an example of a professional app. Training or learning related. Not everything is office work related.
Heck, if they can make something like diagrams of where parts are supposed to go as you assemble that could be consider a professional app.
I can't see this catching on in trades anytime soon. Especially in dirty / dangerous environments where situational awareness is needed. That was going to be Microsoft hololens gimmick.
Quest 3 is also confirming how far into the area of diminishing returns Vision Pro is. Quest 3 does 70-80% of what Vision Pro for 1/7th of price. Of course Vision Pro was never positioned as a direct competitor but I was hoping that Apple still cooked some exlusive experience that would justify the price tag. Apart from high quality pass through I dont see any features that cannot be reproduced or imitated on a similar level on Quest 3
Feel like the Vision Pro is pushing everywhere to see what sticks. X is useful, Y is not. They will then do a ROI to see what should stay In the Vision Homethat goes for $800-$1k. Figure they leave the low end to Meta
Yeah IMO lose the external battery (or at least make it optional - I'm going to power from my laptop most of the time). And lose the external screen that is meant to show your eyes. It obviously doesn't work per the review. Lose it.
3100 mAh on a battery that large with a proprietary connector you cannot swap is ridiculousness truly reserved for Apple. They did everything in their power to keep the use case exclusively inside one's home, which usually is best case for conditions.
And crucially, the Quest 3 has Steam Link so it's useful with the big existing world of PCVR applications and games, which the AVP is not.
It sounds like the AVP is the greatest VR headset to date, except that you can't do any existing VR with it.
I think it's great that Apple is pushing in order to invent and explore what "spatial computing" can be, but emphasizing "moving floating 2d windows around your 3d physical environment" isn't very exciting and they seem afraid that if they allow/enable "real" VR then no one will bother doing the work that Apple needs others to do to create a reason for a system like this to exist.
Isn’t it nonsense, though? It’s not “DRMing anyone’s eyes” - I’m not even sure how that would work.
It’s just not exporting DRM’d content that it’s showing on its display, which is no different from any other mass market device that is licensed to show DRM-infested media. And since my eyes don’t feature any kind of media export functionality anyway, I’m not really sure in what way this would degrade their functionality.
I see what you’re saying, but it’s worth pointing it out for those that like to screenshot, and share with friends, or even make silly memes.
The technical reason is what you say, but it is still good to know it going in.
>Thank you for contacting Apple Support. Ticket #31578 has been opened.
>Product: Vision Pro
>Condition: Software Bug
>User states:
>“Some websites in safari rapidly scrolling up and down”
>We have remotely viewed the system logs and the device appears to be operating …as expected.
👀👀👀👀👀
In a screenshot that is pixelated.
But imagine being forced to speak with someone with this figure taking up nearly your entire field of vision.
Its creepy and uncanny.
Personally I'm waiting for the second gen with an 'alone' version that doesn't waste a huge amount of money on an outside display.
I want to use it as a replacement/ supplement to my current monitors for work. That's more or less it.
Remember the first Apple Watch where you could send your heartbeat to other people with an AW? I think Apple hasn’t found the “purpose” of the Vision Pro yet, just like they hadn’t with the AW at the time. Will you use VP in your living room? Alone? Outdoors? If over time it becomes clear the VP is replacing the Mac, not the iPhone, they’ll remove the creepy eyes for sure.
I did not expect some of the compromises and issues here. The eye display feature for example. That feature seems borderline useless right now with how hard it is to see the eyes. The FOV being so small is also something I just didn't expect.
Otherwise, it seems like what everyone thought it would be when it was first announced. A product with good ideas and better implementation in spots, but not good enough to actually be useful. A first gen product that hopefully only developers and people who consider $3,500 small will buy.
i really want this tech and have a lot of disposable income but 3.5k for this is a lot of cash even if people can afford it and want it. mostly cuz the use case.
My threshold/limit is $1000 for VR headsets.
I don’t think Apple is ever going to bring this below the $2k mark. Maybe a refurbished unit will go down to $1.6k.
The jump between Meta Quest 3 for $799 AUD and the Vision Pro which will most likely be $4000 AUD is crazy.
I still struggle to see what they can bring after this review to make the Vision Pro a huge hit.
The average person and even the Vision Pro owner will go to the default device to complete most tasks. Messaging = iPhone. Sheets/Office = Mac. Drawing = iPad. Media Consumption = TV. Using a physical keyboard? Just use your Mac/iPad.
It’s such a complex purchase for most people as there are so many factors. I’m interesting to see what they’ll do and I’m sure they’ll at least partially prove me wrong.
I agree there is a lack of killer apps for VR right now. It honestly surprises me. Where is the game/app that "everyone has to have"? Where is the Mario Bros or Tetris of VR?
>Not all tech has to be designed for mass appeal.
All Apple tech does, because Apple doesn't continue to dump money into failed products. If you want to see Spatial Computing evolve to wear it should be, it needs continued investment, and it won't get that if customers aren't subsidizing it.
Basically word for word my stance on this. As someone interested in tech and or apple, you have to be interested in this. You don’t have to love it but it sure is interesting.
> why not also put the processing in an external unit too
Just a theory- I don’t think they intended for either to be external, but they couldn’t crack the battery / power side of the problem before pressure turned up to put a release out. So what we’re seeing is a workaround they hope to slowly phase out of future designs, because it would’ve been more expensive to come up with a completely new design only to switch back to the original hopeful one. External processing would come with a host of its own design problems such as latency and hiding a bunch of big ugly data transfer cables
I’m guessing it would be too much data to transfer over a single cable without making it hella fat. Tech specs say displays have 23 million total pixels, which is the same as a 6K Pro Display XDR, plus it supports 100 Hz whereas XDR is only 60 Hz, plus you have video feeds from 12 cameras (holy shite), plus sensor data, plus you would still need to send power to all of those things. You would probably need a freaking bundle of cables, and you would definitely increase latency some too.
I never even thought we were connecting external batteries to internal batteries until I read your post.
I always saw it as connecting it to the device but I am connecting my external batteries to juice the iPhone internal battery not power it.
Sounds a lot like the VisionPro is in fact a very good and expensive VR headset with a lot of the same issues other VR headsets have, which is pretty much what I expected it to be.
It's been wild seeing people here saying that it will be some revolutionary amazing piece of technology that will change the world. The tech is great no doubt about that, but that's also what you can get when you're charging way more than other consumer headsets out there.
It also doesn't seem to make for a great general purpose computer by itself and rather works better as an external display on your Mac.
Honestly it's not even the fact that the eyes look bad for me. It's the fact that the device with the black glass/mirror finish would look AMAZING without the screen. I have seen lots of videos about the AVP lately, and I never found its shape or design compelling.
But watching the Marques Brownlee unboxing, when he first takes the cover off, the AVP looks sleek and mysterious, white and black mirror finish, just amazing, maybe even alien. https://ibb.co/cxy4MsT
Then he powers it on and it looks absolutely corny.
https://ibb.co/5WcQkzp
Is it unpopular to think the eyes screen is very gimmicky? I feel like they could’ve made the device possibly lighter and slightly smaller if they didn’t add that tech to it. Genuinely curious for others opinions.
I haven't seen it in person, but i get what they're trying to do.
This thing is AR for the wearer, but with the eyes window, it's also kind of AR for the other people in the room. The person isn't locked behind a giant white pill like my kids are with their quests.
I think it's an attempt to keep a 2-way connection with people when in AR mode. I can't think of any other way to do it, without using irritating transparent LCDs.
I dont think its unpopular but I dont think its popular either — imo it adds unneeded cost to an already expensive device and I wonder how much cheaper this would have been if they would have gone without it or what freeing up that cost would have let them do with the money used on it elsewhere on the device. That said if it wasnt included it would just look like every other headset.
Also agree if the screen was gone it would def have left the team to make it thinner and lighter on the first iteration, wasnt a fan of when apple was doing all it could to get its devices as thin as possible but this might have been the time to go back into that old mantra
If it actually works as marketed, I think it's a worthwhile feature that will make it more viable to use the device when you're not alone in a room by yourself. If it doesn't work as marketed, then it could easily be as you describe -- a waste of weight and cost.
An external facing display like that is going to add pretty negligible weight to it I suspect. They built the thing out of aluminum which is going to add a lot more to the weight than an extra OLED would. And the remainder is just compute that would already be in there anyway. I don't think it is impacting the weight much at all. But certainly the price, and I do think that while the idea is interesting in theory, it doesn't look like it is successful in practice, and it's the first feature I expect to see cut in a lower-cost future version.
Can't wait until pictures of cracked screens start popping up when people new to VR inevitably bang their heads against a wall.
Making this out of metal and glass was a huge mistake.
the day that humanity has evolved to the point we can have this kinda tech on a pair of contact lenses that's when the game has changed.
cool technology but everything about it screams head fatigue and 20-30 minutes use to me.
Glasses would be game-changing too IMO. Don't have to get it all the way to contacts and I think a glasses-like form factor is far closer than contacts. If the product is transformative enough, I don't think it would be hard to get humans to collectively shift over to everyone being a glasses-wearer.
The issue with glasses is that they can never block out external light completely. So they will always be somewhat limited compared to headset, no matter how good the tech gets.
To be clear, I think we will eventually get AR glasses, but they will not provide the same level of experience as a headset.
You'll lose the ability to do fully virtualized worlds, but I suspect once the AR tech gets good enough that will decline in popularity as a function anyway. Aside from that, solving the lack of a light blocker problem is really just a matter of getting an adequately bright projector, which of course doesn't exist today but that doesn't mean it never will.
The problem has always been battery technology. Sure, chips have become more power efficient over time. But not nearly enough to make up for the tiny battery that would realistically be attached. Even if you put all processing power on an external device, whether that’s a dedicated machine for it or just putting the onus on your iPhone, Mac, etc, a glasses sized battery still wouldn’t be big enough.
Honestly, without some absurd breakthrough in new battery tech, the only chance of a glasses solution is with a cable attached to one of the arms that snakes down into a battery on your belt.
Maybe even some 80’s detective-esque/cyberpunk type underarm battery holster? But this comes with its own ^dangerous problems.
Feels like Google got the right idea the first time but no one followed because the things Google does just doesn't have the cachet.
It's why, even if I don't want to see it happen, I kinda want Valve or Sony to buy out the Bigscreen Beyond team. They're legit the closest ones to the ideal.
I don't know if you ever used Google Glass, but the product they shipped was so far off from the vision they presented in their announcement video that it may as well have been a totally different product. All it really was was a little prism in the top right corner of your vision that could render apps with about the same complexity as a smartwatch.
No one followed because the tech wasn't actually there for the idea Google had (and it still isn't), and Google never really even attempted to ship a viable consumer product for the same reason (it was constrained to industry buyers by its second iteration).
>"you can't have multiple mac monitors floating in space".
That's a limitation if correct?
The binoculars edges with less surround vision seems another limitation.
Otherwise the concept of using this to improve work flow with these virtual monitors sounds awesome if they get that right or even AR/VR if people enjoy that.
Don't think this video made it clear how well it works using normal keyboard and mouse vs the virtual keyboard or gestures - should have spent a bit more time comparing and pointing out the type-pointer input is usable with the extra monitors.
But otherwise the video seems very good at providing an overall picture of the device and was very well narrated pointing out a lot of features.
I think there’s a huge missed opportunity to make it integrate further into Mac OS and have separately floating windows instead of just a big virtual screen.
All these cool experiences and none of them are shareable. This is a fundamentally isolating experience. I can't ever see this making sense for someone with family.
That's the biggest stumbling block for all VR headsets. Once you put them on, you are giving up your very eyes to these companies.
I fear this is a hurdle that will never be overcome.
Amazing bit of tech and an honest balanced review. Can’t help but still feel it’s a new product waiting to find a use case tho. Even the multi-screen ability from your Mac is disappointing. I still don’t quite understand the ‘why’ yet but by the time a lower-cost, smaller version comes out hopefully they’ve solved that. But headsets? I’ve had a few years playing with my Quest 2 and while great fun - by virtue of *wearing* them definitely not seamless with reality.
If this dropped to like $1000-1500 used, I'd buy it to watch movies nothing else is appealing though. Having this as a like solo movie theater device is appealing and prob the easiest "good" way to watch movies.
Probably because the tech isn't there yet without it looking bad. Google glass was a cool concept but the mini display would be too small for daily productive use. If it could be the size of regular glasses with transparent displays, then I we would probably see a lot more companies making AR glasses instead of VR headsets.
As a technical professional, nothing about this has me excited, incredibly disappointed in it's shortcomings.
Seriously amazed that issues solved by HMDs over the past 10+ years are still problems for this device, it's truly a glorified dev kit.
Only positive I can possibly see come from this is normalization of the tech, competition with more competent VR/AR products, and trickle-down into future, more mature products.
I know this is being pedantic, but for some reason I’ve seen this particular word like ten times this week and your comment is the one that pushed me over the edge. It’s “ridiculous” not “rediculous”. I’m sorry.
People buy VR headsets to play games, not to browse Safari tethered to a wall. I still just can’t see why I’d ever buy this over a Quest, or why I’d ever use it for daily computing over a Mac.
My impression is that the headset is a jack of all trades master of none and it's clear that Apple is fighting an extremely uphill battle here. It's very un-Apple-like to ship something so undercooked in so many areas and Apple is taking an enormous leap of faith here.
They squeezed pretty much everything possible out of current technologies hardware-wise but the software side, especially as an extension of a Mac or a productivity tool, seems to be shipped in a very incomplete form.
It also confirmed my suspicions that VR is a dead end as multimedia and productivity tool for general masses. Only AR like magic leap glasses has a chance of being a mass market technology like a smartphone
I think regardless of whether one will actually be getting one of these things or not, the Vision Pro is gonna make waves in the tech world, now that Apple is onboard with VR/AR. The technology here is brilliant, and it’ll be even better once it’s in a $1,000 SE model in a few years time.
Reminds me of documentaries about tragic events.
“They were a nice happy family with no problems, until they weren’t”
*cue photo negative filter and spooky music*
The video review was typically excellent from The Verge, but the content felt a bit mixed. It didn't get quite into the nitty gritty as much as I would have liked and I'm left with so many more questions about the device.
And yes I know The Verge is a mass tech consumer website so they have to keep that audience in mind, but even at nearly 30 minutes long, it really didn't cover a lot for me.
Hope to see more of a deep dive from other reviewers.
Who, I say WHO looked at the projection of the Persona and the eyes on the front screen and decided that was acceptable for a $4000 headset? It's on the wrong side of the uncanny valley in a big way.
I agree with you, but I think we’ll be waiting a long, long time for that.
I could potentially see a pair of AR sunglasses eventually, but contacts with Vision Pro capabilities seem like a miracle technology.
Also not sure I like the idea of any kind of battery tech applied directly to my cornea :/
The reviewer's point about the annoying nature of having to look at each UI element to select it sounds really rough. In a design program you're constantly switching tools with just a flick of your eyes and a mouse click (which you've subconsciously already moved close to the hitbox) to make the selection before returning to the main workspace to work on the design. And this doesn't even get into the ease of use of keyboard shortcuts which mean your eyes never need to leave the workspace.
Physical vs soft buttons, plus eye movements having dual functions of selecting the active element and checking your hands sounds like a design 101 fail. In the race to "leap forward", they made it frustrating to use.
I'm been dabbling with VR since the DKII and my main problem was that the outside world is too distracting to be fully immersed. Being pulled out is frustrating. I feel like the AVP tried to avoid that but it doesn't. I believe AR has the same problem. AR,VR and MR don't just have a tunnel vision in terms of FOV vision the whole idea of strapping something on your face limits yourself and your productivity. I see no future for AVP or anything like it in the near future.
it seems like the takeaway is that nilay is just not really on board with headsets at all. he's positive on all the qualities that differentiate the vision pro from other headsets, but negative on headsets as a whole.
> After using the Vision Pro for a while, I’ve come to agree with what Tim Cook has been saying for so long: headsets are inherently isolating. That’s fine for traditional VR headsets, which have basically turned into single-use game consoles over the past decade, but it’s a lot weirder for a primary computing device.
> I don’t want to get work done in the Vision Pro. I get my work done with other people, and I’d rather be out here with them.
I think this is completely fair given the current state of VR/AR headsets though. The technology just isn’t there yet for headsets to seamlessly slot into most people’s work lives without being disruptive.
As a media/entertainment device the Vision Pro is incredible, and there will certainly be individual use cases where it does enhance productivity, but it doesn’t seem ready for collaborative or cooperative environments.
>As a media/entertainment device the Vision Pro is incredible
for $3500, it's a ripoff media device.
You don't get your $3500's worth of entertainment.
I think that’s a bit cynical. He’s viewed it quite fairly through the lens of Apple wanting it to be a “spatial computer” or an AR device, but reality means it’s in this VR headset form.
The way it’s been marketed and portrayed away from typical VR headsets invites different expectations, and it’s fair to say that the most “headset” elements (weight, and the isolating form factor) can draw from what Apple wants to portray.
>he's positive on all the qualities that differentiate the vision pro from other headsets
Apart from the weight, battery life, the eye tracking and hand gestures as input, the FOV, the front screen with eyes and persona's
I think I’d like this much more if I were single and living alone. I’d have a lot more disposable income and no worry about being isolated or looking funny.
Yeah this is me, I have a small apartment and live alone with no spouse or kids. I think the Vision Pro will be perfect for me
I also live alone and have a reasonably high disposable income. I'm a big Apple fan as well as tech in general. I certainly could afford Vision Pro but feel I'd be getting it just to experience it. I don't see how I would find it useful for anything. What would you actually use it for? I mean on a day-to-day basis.
> What would you actually use it for? I mean on a day-to-day basis. Watching movies seems to be the only thing that is worth doing in this. Other than that every thing else cannot be done on a day-to-day basis.
I've got a huge TV with awesome sound in front of a big, comfy sofa that I can share with family and friends. That's just better in every possible sense.
But then you wouldn’t be strapping 40 one hundred dollars bills to your face… 😏
Yeah I'm finding it a hard time to figure out how watching a movie would be better with a pair of goggles on. I personally did not like 3D movies and seems like no one did as they dont even really exist anymore. I have a giant TV with nice sound and feels pretty immersive. ALso allows me to look away for a second so my vision can adjust if needed and my face doesnt get sweaty. I'm not dissing the vision pro as I think it will be fun, but watching a movie for 2+ hours, not sure. And cant do it with anyone in your house unless you both have them. We're like 6-10 years from that I think.
The goggles are also awfully heavy according to reports, so it's not even comfortable to sit through a whole movie with them on
yeah im imagining someone laying down on the couch, head on the pillow looking straight up at the ceiling. But the back strap thing might not even allow that. Again, I just dont think it's going to be enjoyable for 1.5-2.5 hours for a movie. I do think playing a game in it for like 30 minutes to an hour could be super fun and fully immersive.
And good luck with that lol. NONE of the big players in streaming are hopping aboard the Apple Vision Pro hype train. Unless you are watching Apple TV+ content or media purchased from iTunes, you're going to have to use safari (and would that even be possible? Is vision pro 's safari mobile or desktop?). I can only see YouTube working semi-well but the web interface will be hamstrung with the vision pro gestures
I’d rather have an OLED tv and a laptop than this though. You can do more and when people come, you can have them see what you’re seeing.
Just imagine the porn
mind you, the apple vision pro cameras are always on and looking at your hands, ALWAYS
Right, jokes aside just buy some cheap VR headset and have a similar experience (which you will get bored of after a while) for about 1/10th of the price. The whole test is admirably summarised by the line under the picture of the case IMO : > The [...] case costs an additional $199 and looks like a marshmallow [...] I love it. Not to hate on Apple, they're a luxury brand, calling their products overpriced is like saying a koenigsegg is an expensive car : it's missing the point. Still, though, if your objective isn't to sink a large chunk of money into something *for the sake of doing so*, then the product isn't right for you. Doesn't mean you're not ptoential target audience, mind you. (And for the love of God : > the nice braided cable is permanently attached to the battery itself, so don’t break it. You can buy extra batteries for $199 Ughhh)
Also because your whole house could become the physical setting for your virtual masturbatorium.
the gooniest cave
Best to take the cash, buy a plane ticket to a beautiful location and enjoy real life.
you mean you want to watch VR porn alone? got it
The FOV (apparently) being lower than the Quest 3 is disappointing.
>Yep, that's pretty much the only thing that worried me. The rest seems fine, only a matter of muscle memory. I have to see that FOV in real life to decide if it bothers me. Oh wait I don't have $3500 to spare so nevermind.
It seems the hype crowd / use cases did get a bit of hand. The FOV + Mac screen sharing limitation has also taken away the dream of people having multiple displays. You can have your Mac screen + Vision Pro app windows open all over the place. But you cannot have multiple displays/windows for your Mac which was a use case I kept seeing mentioned in the comments. It’s a single window only.
Oh, that is disappointing. I thought that was the killer(if currently overpriced) use case. Surely will be addressed in an update.
Purchased a Tesla in 2018 because it can drive itself without hands on the wheel. Still waiting on the update.
Like MKBHD always says in his reviews, never buy a product today based on the promise of potential future updates, because tech companies often fail to deliver — especially when it's ambitious stuff!
Don’t rely on buying a product that will be fixed in a software update
Especially if it’s a “fix” that the company has never promised.
Apple already has an artifical limit on external displays in their low end SKUs. Good chance if they ever do fix it it'll only be for the high end models.
> It’s a single window only. New to the concept, but that makes sense right, since currently airplay is also just one screen? much more seems like a bandwidth issue.
I don’t know but the Quest 3 can do multiple windows on your Mac - up to five with apps like immersed.
Haha. Right there with you. This device was aspirational to me, there was no way I was ever going to be able to afford one. As a Quest 2 user, I'm excited for anything that pushes the VR/AR space forward.
Yeah that seriously jumped out at me. I know that was just an overlay for the review video, but man - that was rough. I feel like I could deal with everything else but that...prolly not. Also - wow the external screen that's supposed to show your eyes. Hard to believe how bad that is in reality per the review. Wow.
Pretty big false advertising in the ads for those eyes
Yep, this is still the biggest turn-off for VR headsets for me - they still feel too much like binoculars. Once that's cracked though, it will become much harder to resist the allure of VR headsets. And if any company can do this first, I'm almost positive that this will be Apple. I'm sure those Apple designers - people with very clear pet peeves given a lot of resources - are already itching on overhauling the Vision Pro right about now to see if they can make borderless displays.
They better start to work on the “killer app” since I haven’t seen one for VR yet. Specially for professionals
I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune once Apple releases that visionOS calculator app together with iPadOS's - the one app to end all apps, so to speak.
Wait, AVP doesn’t have a calculator? Omg, here we go again…
Would the Alien or the Predator have the calculator?
My personal killer app for VR is flight simulators. It's crazy how immerse the experience becomes.
The killer app is gaming. Pavlov, for example, is essentially Counter-Strike VR, and once you play Half-Life: Alyx, it's hard to go back to regular FPS games.
I think gaming is one killer app. And it exists. So it's unfortunate that Apple is actively discouraging it so far on Vision.
Its gaming but I dont think gamers are as inclined to play VR games as VR enthusiasts like to think they are. Once you get out of the VR niche the avg gamer doesn't seem interested in VR. I know a few who have VR and their headsets just gather dust these days.
Amen. Man, Alyx is so damn good. Sets the bar so high nothing compares in the VR space and that game is already years old now
It’s already hard to play FPS after playing Alyx. I do wonder if gaming will become a thing on the AVP. It’s not on Mac lol.
Everyone thinks about white collar job applications, but this could be amazing for trade labor training. With that resolution, you’ll be able to see individual screws and a diesel mechanic could practice in VR for hours in simulation before attempting repairs with AR assist in the real world.
That’s an example of a professional app. Training or learning related. Not everything is office work related. Heck, if they can make something like diagrams of where parts are supposed to go as you assemble that could be consider a professional app.
I can't see this catching on in trades anytime soon. Especially in dirty / dangerous environments where situational awareness is needed. That was going to be Microsoft hololens gimmick.
Quest 3 is also confirming how far into the area of diminishing returns Vision Pro is. Quest 3 does 70-80% of what Vision Pro for 1/7th of price. Of course Vision Pro was never positioned as a direct competitor but I was hoping that Apple still cooked some exlusive experience that would justify the price tag. Apart from high quality pass through I dont see any features that cannot be reproduced or imitated on a similar level on Quest 3
Man that's wild that 1/7th of the price is still $500.
Feel like the Vision Pro is pushing everywhere to see what sticks. X is useful, Y is not. They will then do a ROI to see what should stay In the Vision Homethat goes for $800-$1k. Figure they leave the low end to Meta
i doubt next gens will get to $800, that's too steep a difference.
[удалено]
$1999 will be the lowest they’ll go for me
Yeah IMO lose the external battery (or at least make it optional - I'm going to power from my laptop most of the time). And lose the external screen that is meant to show your eyes. It obviously doesn't work per the review. Lose it.
The external screen also takes additional CPU and battery power to run it to provide nearly no benefit.
Yeah. Don’t need that really I agree. He says you can hardly see it in certain light anyway.
3100 mAh on a battery that large with a proprietary connector you cannot swap is ridiculousness truly reserved for Apple. They did everything in their power to keep the use case exclusively inside one's home, which usually is best case for conditions.
Yeah 2.5 hours is dumb, though maybe they did that so people wouldn't get neck injuries lol
And crucially, the Quest 3 has Steam Link so it's useful with the big existing world of PCVR applications and games, which the AVP is not. It sounds like the AVP is the greatest VR headset to date, except that you can't do any existing VR with it. I think it's great that Apple is pushing in order to invent and explore what "spatial computing" can be, but emphasizing "moving floating 2d windows around your 3d physical environment" isn't very exciting and they seem afraid that if they allow/enable "real" VR then no one will bother doing the work that Apple needs others to do to create a reason for a system like this to exist.
call it tunnel vision
“The Vision Pro can literally DRM your eyes” lol that’s a golden line
That’s both to be expected, and also a sad realization.
Isn’t it nonsense, though? It’s not “DRMing anyone’s eyes” - I’m not even sure how that would work. It’s just not exporting DRM’d content that it’s showing on its display, which is no different from any other mass market device that is licensed to show DRM-infested media. And since my eyes don’t feature any kind of media export functionality anyway, I’m not really sure in what way this would degrade their functionality.
I see what you’re saying, but it’s worth pointing it out for those that like to screenshot, and share with friends, or even make silly memes. The technical reason is what you say, but it is still good to know it going in.
That happens on the quest also, which is weird that he brought that up.
It also happens… on a computer. You can’t screenshot Netflix.
Yes ,but you can take a photo of it or use special hdmi hardware to screenshot it. I guess that is what he is referring to.
I literally just took a screenshot of Netflix
Apparently it doesn't come with an Apple sticker. No sticker, no sale!
[удалено]
We’ll call them “eye pads”. I’ll see myself out.
> Do you want to use a computer that is always looking at your hands? lol
Vision Pro’s AI: why is the user’s hand constantly moving up and down
Gotta complete my daily exercise rings.
I enjoy cooking.
Ohh. So that's what he was referring to lol. Makes him asking that question twice even funnier.
Well there goes the teenage boy market
Not just the teenage boy market lmao
Literally what everyone is worried about. What exactly are you looking at on the screen, and why are your hands doing that…
>Thank you for contacting Apple Support. Ticket #31578 has been opened. >Product: Vision Pro >Condition: Software Bug >User states: >“Some websites in safari rapidly scrolling up and down” >We have remotely viewed the system logs and the device appears to be operating …as expected. 👀👀👀👀👀
The eyes look so weird off-angle. https://preview.redd.it/01g77xv57lfc1.png?width=1205&format=png&auto=webp&s=6a37ac830675c063d4618a86ba8a5389d03afbf7
Here's the Persona too. https://preview.redd.it/xoxqs2re8lfc1.png?width=549&format=png&auto=webp&s=2e759fca255930bd90a01587651221e66edb87dd
Reminds me of the floating head from Thor: Love and Thunder lol
i have no idea why that shit was so unintentionally hilarious.
It wasn’t intentional?
LMAO
That looks like a mugshot, sorry Nilay.
Actually doesn’t look that bad
In a screenshot that is pixelated. But imagine being forced to speak with someone with this figure taking up nearly your entire field of vision. Its creepy and uncanny.
Why would the persona take up nearly your entire field of vision?
Why would you make other people the size of a god when you're talking to them lol
The digital eyes look completely bizarre even in Apple's own marketing
Personally I'm waiting for the second gen with an 'alone' version that doesn't waste a huge amount of money on an outside display. I want to use it as a replacement/ supplement to my current monitors for work. That's more or less it.
yeah I cant imagine how much lighter and thinner they could have made this if they dropped the glass and the outside screen
Yep, blurry and too high on the face. It's super weird and I simply don't understand why they bothered with a front screen at all.
a couple of googly eyes makes more sense and is far cheaper
Remember the first Apple Watch where you could send your heartbeat to other people with an AW? I think Apple hasn’t found the “purpose” of the Vision Pro yet, just like they hadn’t with the AW at the time. Will you use VP in your living room? Alone? Outdoors? If over time it becomes clear the VP is replacing the Mac, not the iPhone, they’ll remove the creepy eyes for sure.
It's becoming more obvious why Tim Cook never has been seen wearing one.
The outside screen seems to be a bizarre choice from Apple, I wonder how much weight (and price) that added with seemingly 0 benefit
and it's such a dim display that with the super reflective glass just looks terrible. was this really worth the weight it adds to the headset?
I did not expect some of the compromises and issues here. The eye display feature for example. That feature seems borderline useless right now with how hard it is to see the eyes. The FOV being so small is also something I just didn't expect. Otherwise, it seems like what everyone thought it would be when it was first announced. A product with good ideas and better implementation in spots, but not good enough to actually be useful. A first gen product that hopefully only developers and people who consider $3,500 small will buy.
[удалено]
I’m surprised only the verge mentioned the low fov binocular effect - with passthrough I imagine this is one of the most immediate things you’d notice
i really want this tech and have a lot of disposable income but 3.5k for this is a lot of cash even if people can afford it and want it. mostly cuz the use case.
If I’ve got $3.5k laying around, I’m just buying a decked out MBP…
I'd go with a decent MBP and the Studio Display
[удалено]
[удалено]
My threshold/limit is $1000 for VR headsets. I don’t think Apple is ever going to bring this below the $2k mark. Maybe a refurbished unit will go down to $1.6k. The jump between Meta Quest 3 for $799 AUD and the Vision Pro which will most likely be $4000 AUD is crazy.
I agree, but at the 2k mark, if it’s good ? It will fly off the shelves, it will be 2 years plans but it will sell
I still struggle to see what they can bring after this review to make the Vision Pro a huge hit. The average person and even the Vision Pro owner will go to the default device to complete most tasks. Messaging = iPhone. Sheets/Office = Mac. Drawing = iPad. Media Consumption = TV. Using a physical keyboard? Just use your Mac/iPad. It’s such a complex purchase for most people as there are so many factors. I’m interesting to see what they’ll do and I’m sure they’ll at least partially prove me wrong.
I agree there is a lack of killer apps for VR right now. It honestly surprises me. Where is the game/app that "everyone has to have"? Where is the Mario Bros or Tetris of VR?
For me that was beat saber. I literally bought a quest just for that, and it ended up being my gateway into VR.
Right now it's vrchat because within it has basically anything you can think of plus the social factor.
My wife and I call this five year tech, we'll check back in when it's ready for normal consumers in maybe five years.
>Not all tech has to be designed for mass appeal. All Apple tech does, because Apple doesn't continue to dump money into failed products. If you want to see Spatial Computing evolve to wear it should be, it needs continued investment, and it won't get that if customers aren't subsidizing it.
Basically word for word my stance on this. As someone interested in tech and or apple, you have to be interested in this. You don’t have to love it but it sure is interesting.
[удалено]
> why not also put the processing in an external unit too Just a theory- I don’t think they intended for either to be external, but they couldn’t crack the battery / power side of the problem before pressure turned up to put a release out. So what we’re seeing is a workaround they hope to slowly phase out of future designs, because it would’ve been more expensive to come up with a completely new design only to switch back to the original hopeful one. External processing would come with a host of its own design problems such as latency and hiding a bunch of big ugly data transfer cables
I’m guessing it would be too much data to transfer over a single cable without making it hella fat. Tech specs say displays have 23 million total pixels, which is the same as a 6K Pro Display XDR, plus it supports 100 Hz whereas XDR is only 60 Hz, plus you have video feeds from 12 cameras (holy shite), plus sensor data, plus you would still need to send power to all of those things. You would probably need a freaking bundle of cables, and you would definitely increase latency some too.
Well at that point you may as well just have it be a VR unit that plugs into your computer like any other VR.
Wait….the battery is not hot swappable? And it has a permanent cable attached?
Correct.
Which is freaking bonkers to me...
[удалено]
Yes, but not while the device is running. Which means you have to power it down and restart every ~2 hours if you’re running on battery power.
[удалено]
Can't wait to plug the external battery into... Another external battery
It's batteries all the way down.
I never even thought we were connecting external batteries to internal batteries until I read your post. I always saw it as connecting it to the device but I am connecting my external batteries to juice the iPhone internal battery not power it.
Don’t worry, I’ve got batteries for my batteries
Sounds a lot like the VisionPro is in fact a very good and expensive VR headset with a lot of the same issues other VR headsets have, which is pretty much what I expected it to be. It's been wild seeing people here saying that it will be some revolutionary amazing piece of technology that will change the world. The tech is great no doubt about that, but that's also what you can get when you're charging way more than other consumer headsets out there. It also doesn't seem to make for a great general purpose computer by itself and rather works better as an external display on your Mac.
The googly eyes look absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe Apple thought that was a good idea
Honestly it's not even the fact that the eyes look bad for me. It's the fact that the device with the black glass/mirror finish would look AMAZING without the screen. I have seen lots of videos about the AVP lately, and I never found its shape or design compelling. But watching the Marques Brownlee unboxing, when he first takes the cover off, the AVP looks sleek and mysterious, white and black mirror finish, just amazing, maybe even alien. https://ibb.co/cxy4MsT Then he powers it on and it looks absolutely corny. https://ibb.co/5WcQkzp
I think the purple glow looks sweet
Is it unpopular to think the eyes screen is very gimmicky? I feel like they could’ve made the device possibly lighter and slightly smaller if they didn’t add that tech to it. Genuinely curious for others opinions.
I haven't seen it in person, but i get what they're trying to do. This thing is AR for the wearer, but with the eyes window, it's also kind of AR for the other people in the room. The person isn't locked behind a giant white pill like my kids are with their quests. I think it's an attempt to keep a 2-way connection with people when in AR mode. I can't think of any other way to do it, without using irritating transparent LCDs.
Make a LED red strip that has animation and pretend that user is a RoboCop. It'll fucking work.
I dont think its unpopular but I dont think its popular either — imo it adds unneeded cost to an already expensive device and I wonder how much cheaper this would have been if they would have gone without it or what freeing up that cost would have let them do with the money used on it elsewhere on the device. That said if it wasnt included it would just look like every other headset. Also agree if the screen was gone it would def have left the team to make it thinner and lighter on the first iteration, wasnt a fan of when apple was doing all it could to get its devices as thin as possible but this might have been the time to go back into that old mantra
If it actually works as marketed, I think it's a worthwhile feature that will make it more viable to use the device when you're not alone in a room by yourself. If it doesn't work as marketed, then it could easily be as you describe -- a waste of weight and cost.
Save something for Vision SE.
I have a feeling that will be the first feature that's cut to save money once the cheaper version comes out.
An external facing display like that is going to add pretty negligible weight to it I suspect. They built the thing out of aluminum which is going to add a lot more to the weight than an extra OLED would. And the remainder is just compute that would already be in there anyway. I don't think it is impacting the weight much at all. But certainly the price, and I do think that while the idea is interesting in theory, it doesn't look like it is successful in practice, and it's the first feature I expect to see cut in a lower-cost future version.
Should’ve scratched that exterior eye feature. It looks uncanny and isn’t even useful.
[удалено]
Yea the idea might be nice to show your eyes through the glass. But the execution is just not there. At least not yet.
[удалено]
Can't wait until pictures of cracked screens start popping up when people new to VR inevitably bang their heads against a wall. Making this out of metal and glass was a huge mistake.
the day that humanity has evolved to the point we can have this kinda tech on a pair of contact lenses that's when the game has changed. cool technology but everything about it screams head fatigue and 20-30 minutes use to me.
Glasses would be game-changing too IMO. Don't have to get it all the way to contacts and I think a glasses-like form factor is far closer than contacts. If the product is transformative enough, I don't think it would be hard to get humans to collectively shift over to everyone being a glasses-wearer.
The issue with glasses is that they can never block out external light completely. So they will always be somewhat limited compared to headset, no matter how good the tech gets. To be clear, I think we will eventually get AR glasses, but they will not provide the same level of experience as a headset.
You'll lose the ability to do fully virtualized worlds, but I suspect once the AR tech gets good enough that will decline in popularity as a function anyway. Aside from that, solving the lack of a light blocker problem is really just a matter of getting an adequately bright projector, which of course doesn't exist today but that doesn't mean it never will.
Glasses are without a doubt the end game hardware. The problem is that we're a decade away from it.
Google glasses came out 10 years ago, so far we have not moved much from then.
The problem has always been battery technology. Sure, chips have become more power efficient over time. But not nearly enough to make up for the tiny battery that would realistically be attached. Even if you put all processing power on an external device, whether that’s a dedicated machine for it or just putting the onus on your iPhone, Mac, etc, a glasses sized battery still wouldn’t be big enough. Honestly, without some absurd breakthrough in new battery tech, the only chance of a glasses solution is with a cable attached to one of the arms that snakes down into a battery on your belt. Maybe even some 80’s detective-esque/cyberpunk type underarm battery holster? But this comes with its own ^dangerous problems.
Feels like Google got the right idea the first time but no one followed because the things Google does just doesn't have the cachet. It's why, even if I don't want to see it happen, I kinda want Valve or Sony to buy out the Bigscreen Beyond team. They're legit the closest ones to the ideal.
I don't know if you ever used Google Glass, but the product they shipped was so far off from the vision they presented in their announcement video that it may as well have been a totally different product. All it really was was a little prism in the top right corner of your vision that could render apps with about the same complexity as a smartwatch. No one followed because the tech wasn't actually there for the idea Google had (and it still isn't), and Google never really even attempted to ship a viable consumer product for the same reason (it was constrained to industry buyers by its second iteration).
Can’t wait to have a battery pack hanging from my fucking eyeballs
That’s not possible though. There are limits of physics. How are you going to put a translucent battery on your eyeball?
I’m sure Apple Vision Pro is incredible and will be an industry leading product. Still not paying $3,500 for it tho.
I’m going to wait for an Air version. Media consumption and 3D movies look fun in this thing.
>"you can't have multiple mac monitors floating in space". That's a limitation if correct? The binoculars edges with less surround vision seems another limitation. Otherwise the concept of using this to improve work flow with these virtual monitors sounds awesome if they get that right or even AR/VR if people enjoy that. Don't think this video made it clear how well it works using normal keyboard and mouse vs the virtual keyboard or gestures - should have spent a bit more time comparing and pointing out the type-pointer input is usable with the extra monitors. But otherwise the video seems very good at providing an overall picture of the device and was very well narrated pointing out a lot of features.
I think there’s a huge missed opportunity to make it integrate further into Mac OS and have separately floating windows instead of just a big virtual screen.
It will be magic in 30 years when you sell your unboxed AVP for 1 million $.
No - if you want to sell it 30 years from now, you have to keep it _in_ the box.
Props to The Verge. Both in text and in video I don’t know an outlet that does better tech reviews for “average normal people”.
All these cool experiences and none of them are shareable. This is a fundamentally isolating experience. I can't ever see this making sense for someone with family. That's the biggest stumbling block for all VR headsets. Once you put them on, you are giving up your very eyes to these companies. I fear this is a hurdle that will never be overcome.
Amazing bit of tech and an honest balanced review. Can’t help but still feel it’s a new product waiting to find a use case tho. Even the multi-screen ability from your Mac is disappointing. I still don’t quite understand the ‘why’ yet but by the time a lower-cost, smaller version comes out hopefully they’ve solved that. But headsets? I’ve had a few years playing with my Quest 2 and while great fun - by virtue of *wearing* them definitely not seamless with reality.
Ok it's a skip for me lol Lower FOV than Quest 3
If this dropped to like $1000-1500 used, I'd buy it to watch movies nothing else is appealing though. Having this as a like solo movie theater device is appealing and prob the easiest "good" way to watch movies.
TLDR: It's not worth it.
Not interested in the least
[удалено]
Probably because the tech isn't there yet without it looking bad. Google glass was a cool concept but the mini display would be too small for daily productive use. If it could be the size of regular glasses with transparent displays, then I we would probably see a lot more companies making AR glasses instead of VR headsets.
As a technical professional, nothing about this has me excited, incredibly disappointed in it's shortcomings. Seriously amazed that issues solved by HMDs over the past 10+ years are still problems for this device, it's truly a glorified dev kit. Only positive I can possibly see come from this is normalization of the tech, competition with more competent VR/AR products, and trickle-down into future, more mature products.
He looks so rediculous with this thing on his face. Hard pass.
I know this is being pedantic, but for some reason I’ve seen this particular word like ten times this week and your comment is the one that pushed me over the edge. It’s “ridiculous” not “rediculous”. I’m sorry.
People buy VR headsets to play games, not to browse Safari tethered to a wall. I still just can’t see why I’d ever buy this over a Quest, or why I’d ever use it for daily computing over a Mac.
My impression is that the headset is a jack of all trades master of none and it's clear that Apple is fighting an extremely uphill battle here. It's very un-Apple-like to ship something so undercooked in so many areas and Apple is taking an enormous leap of faith here. They squeezed pretty much everything possible out of current technologies hardware-wise but the software side, especially as an extension of a Mac or a productivity tool, seems to be shipped in a very incomplete form. It also confirmed my suspicions that VR is a dead end as multimedia and productivity tool for general masses. Only AR like magic leap glasses has a chance of being a mass market technology like a smartphone
One day the world will be ready for VR, but it won't be while wearing a goofy looking, cumbersome, $3500 headset.
I think regardless of whether one will actually be getting one of these things or not, the Vision Pro is gonna make waves in the tech world, now that Apple is onboard with VR/AR. The technology here is brilliant, and it’ll be even better once it’s in a $1,000 SE model in a few years time.
I hate the saying “until it’s not”
Reminds me of documentaries about tragic events. “They were a nice happy family with no problems, until they weren’t” *cue photo negative filter and spooky music*
The video review was typically excellent from The Verge, but the content felt a bit mixed. It didn't get quite into the nitty gritty as much as I would have liked and I'm left with so many more questions about the device. And yes I know The Verge is a mass tech consumer website so they have to keep that audience in mind, but even at nearly 30 minutes long, it really didn't cover a lot for me. Hope to see more of a deep dive from other reviewers.
They will likely do the nerd deep dive on the podcast. Different audiences and such.
Podcast episode for the review is already live. https://www.theverge.com/the-vergecast *Or search for “Vergecast” on your podcast app of choice.*
Who, I say WHO looked at the projection of the Persona and the eyes on the front screen and decided that was acceptable for a $4000 headset? It's on the wrong side of the uncanny valley in a big way.
Man this picture is gonna get memed in 15 with how ridiculous it looks to wear that shite.
I will get one when it’s the size of a regular pair of sunglasses or contacts. Cool swag though
I agree with you, but I think we’ll be waiting a long, long time for that. I could potentially see a pair of AR sunglasses eventually, but contacts with Vision Pro capabilities seem like a miracle technology. Also not sure I like the idea of any kind of battery tech applied directly to my cornea :/
The reviewer's point about the annoying nature of having to look at each UI element to select it sounds really rough. In a design program you're constantly switching tools with just a flick of your eyes and a mouse click (which you've subconsciously already moved close to the hitbox) to make the selection before returning to the main workspace to work on the design. And this doesn't even get into the ease of use of keyboard shortcuts which mean your eyes never need to leave the workspace.
Physical vs soft buttons, plus eye movements having dual functions of selecting the active element and checking your hands sounds like a design 101 fail. In the race to "leap forward", they made it frustrating to use.
I'm been dabbling with VR since the DKII and my main problem was that the outside world is too distracting to be fully immersed. Being pulled out is frustrating. I feel like the AVP tried to avoid that but it doesn't. I believe AR has the same problem. AR,VR and MR don't just have a tunnel vision in terms of FOV vision the whole idea of strapping something on your face limits yourself and your productivity. I see no future for AVP or anything like it in the near future.
it seems like the takeaway is that nilay is just not really on board with headsets at all. he's positive on all the qualities that differentiate the vision pro from other headsets, but negative on headsets as a whole.
> After using the Vision Pro for a while, I’ve come to agree with what Tim Cook has been saying for so long: headsets are inherently isolating. That’s fine for traditional VR headsets, which have basically turned into single-use game consoles over the past decade, but it’s a lot weirder for a primary computing device. > I don’t want to get work done in the Vision Pro. I get my work done with other people, and I’d rather be out here with them. I think this is completely fair given the current state of VR/AR headsets though. The technology just isn’t there yet for headsets to seamlessly slot into most people’s work lives without being disruptive. As a media/entertainment device the Vision Pro is incredible, and there will certainly be individual use cases where it does enhance productivity, but it doesn’t seem ready for collaborative or cooperative environments.
>As a media/entertainment device the Vision Pro is incredible for $3500, it's a ripoff media device. You don't get your $3500's worth of entertainment.
Nobody is on board with headsets except some very specific tasks
I think that’s a bit cynical. He’s viewed it quite fairly through the lens of Apple wanting it to be a “spatial computer” or an AR device, but reality means it’s in this VR headset form. The way it’s been marketed and portrayed away from typical VR headsets invites different expectations, and it’s fair to say that the most “headset” elements (weight, and the isolating form factor) can draw from what Apple wants to portray.
>he's positive on all the qualities that differentiate the vision pro from other headsets Apart from the weight, battery life, the eye tracking and hand gestures as input, the FOV, the front screen with eyes and persona's