Comment by jw1224

> Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.

I was extremely surprised that shared reality was completely absent from the presentation. Apparently the sensors on these devices don't enable creating a coordinate system that multiple devices can collaborate on/in. You can't look at the same objects in space together.

This is hard stuff, but I'm stunned they're shipping it before solving that problem.

> ... Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people ...

I will point to this article: "Why Americans are lonelier and its effects on our health" [1] that claims that "some surveys reveal that around 60 percent of people in the U.S. right now report feeling lonely on a pretty regular basis. And that's pretty devastating from a public health perspective".

I don't know the real number but it connect with the market potential. Also, Apple is really great on hitting the mark. Playing with words, I don't think Mark is as good as Apple.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-americans-are-lonelier....

> a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.

Will it, though? Of course you could build a home theater with better sound, but I'd bet that the spatial audio built into AirPods delivers better sound that most peoples' home theater setups (which is generally just a TV with built in sound or a mediocre soundbar).

> You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.

Hey - the world's biggest computer company just went up on stage along with the director of the world's biggest entertainment conglomerate and made that 'bold assumption'. They're probably pretty careful about these sorts of things.

> You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.

Raises hand. I'm in for that. I'm a VR fan but my soapbox has always been that AR is the true future.

> Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.

In the same way that when the iPhone came out there were individual devices that could do each feature better than the iPhone could, yes :)

If you look at video consumption, "individual" devices (phones, tablets, laptops) make up about 50% of viewing time. TV the rest. I don't think the multiple people angle is going to kill this considering how much content is consumed individually already.

A home cinema also has to be researched, purchased separately, takes up space, etc. Any pair of $200 Bose headphones sounds better than the old iPhone ear pods...and yet...

> it's insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboard.

We're talking about replacing monitors, not text buffers or keyboards!

> it's insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboard

Totally agree. I just want to use this to replace my big bulky monitor that I can't take with me wherever I go and that makes my small place look a little more junky.

> You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.

Well Apple showed someone using the headset while lying down in bed. I’d say that Apple is making a bold statement about the comfort of their product. We’ll need to wait for hands on reviews to determine if it indeed is as comfortable as Apple implies it is.

> You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.

I've seen people pass out in VRChat with their headsets on. Some people on VRC are on there for 12+ hours a day. It's a fascinating sub culture I was totally shocked to learn about. People drink and do drugs while listening to music at a virtual rave. Multiple rooms full every Friday, Saturday 80-120 people in the room hanging out. I found myself up till 6 am lost in the music.

By Gen3 in 5 years, people will begin to buy these like iPhones and then multiple people will be able to watch via SharePlay.

3D images are probably coming to iPhone 15 or iPhone 16 so the posts about "who's gonna wear this to take pictures" are already moot.

This is a developer/enthusiast focused niche release providing perfect beta testing grounds while technology will shrink this device to a smaller and more practical form factor.

In 3-4 years, the current Vision Pro will be the standard Apple Vision product with a smaller form factor while a new Pro product will have more advanced features and lose its external battery.

I also think that Apple Vision will be successful but Gen1 is not where its at for the vast majority of users.

> Smart watches have been anything but a groundbreaking technological revolution.

I think Apple has made a tactical error here. The days of the shrinking iPhone are long gone, but not forgotten. It was the iPhone 3G that was a turning point for people who hadn't bought an iPhone yet. It was smaller with better battery life.

If the Apple Watch 3 had followed a similar pattern, they would have had to skip adding the next additional sensor to the device, but I think in the long term that would have just delayed us one design cycle but still given us a thinner and lighter watch, which we would have needed for a deeper impact.

For me it could go either way. I am willing to put up with wearing a headset if it unlocks some new use cases. But we really need to know the specs. I haven't seen anyone mention a field of view, refresh rate, pixel per degree, etc. And even with these specs I would need to actually try it to get a holistic feel for the product and its software.

> Because it's insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboard.

And why would you think this would seek to replace that, rather than complementing it? Fill up your entire vision with forty text buffers. Use a keyboard on a twelve-inch-deep shelf on one side of your bedroom with no monitor taking up space behind it.

$3k: replaces a laptop, TV and computer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khMcq66_HeU

I used to think Apple TV was unimpressive. I had an Android TV which turned to shit after like 3 years. Apple TV though? Runs like a dream, still gets updates, has nice integrations with my iPhone. It's one of the best "plug and play" Apple devices there is. It "just works".

I went from finding it unimpressive to it being my first recommendation for anyone getting a TV. Screw regular smart TV software, just get the TV with the best panel and use Apple TV. So long as the TV doesn't break, you won't need to upgrade for a long long time.

Unironically, the Apple TV is my favorite Apple device. It does exactly what it says it does, is inexpensive, and has a good interface. It just works.

Apple TV is easily my favourite Apple product. Of all the Apple products it's the one that works flawlessly and gets out of my way. I could give up my Mac and switch to Windows before I would switch to an Apple TV competitor.

You are high as a kite. AppleTV is one of the greatest things in my househould. The UI is world's beyond whatever ad-filled garbage "smartOS" my TV uses.

I wouldn't really make a statement like the above, and I can't say I necessarily agree with it... that being said, other folks on this thread are kinda missing the point OP made: it's not that Apple TV isn't good. It's that it isn't, and never really was, revolutionary.

It's an arguably best-in-class app-based TV watching experience. But its market share is pretty small years after launch, it hasn't caused much change/adaptation in the market as a whole as a result of existing, and it's not really at the center of any kind of cultural conversation.

I am really curious to learn more details about Vision Pro (like... how much does it weigh?), and would be even more curious to learn about the market fit research Apple must have done to believe there's a place for this device, especially at this price point. The biggest omission for me was the placement of the headset as device on which to view movies, and see pictures of your kids, while at the same time completely sidestepping the question of how you'd do that together with your family, which is how these activities are typically performed in a household with children.

Using a product I already paid for without getting served any ads is pretty revolutionary /s

Once people get an AppleTV, do they go back to a chromcast/roku/firestick/media pc?

It has a higher MSRP than the others, but once you get one…

Apple TV is great, I’ve bought a few over the years

Seriously? You still stuck in the 2d world!

lol, except the Apple TV is awesome...?

Apple TV is excellent? Is there a better device? (If you don’t want to use the apps bundled with tv).

No wireless. Less pixels than an 8K TV. Lame.

Are you including the remote which, for free, comes with no mute button?

Yes, Google Glass was fun, and geeky, but was SO bad.

This seems to be an actual well thought out product. The resolution is a lot higher than the meta quest 3, and delays will be super small.

They're marketing this for productivity, which for me is the main selling point for VR at this point. I want a more spatial desktop, and I want multiple screens on the go.

My take would be that it would be Apples track record of making software work well with the hardware, more seamlessly than either Samsung or Meta.

Just look at the virtual avatar they demoed compared with Meta’s. Apple went with a more professional looking avatar instead of a cartoony one.

Another app that was shown was a Birds Eye view of a basketball game. I’d love to be able to watch a sporting event live from that perspective (if I could stomach the entry fee for the experience).

I was on the fence about this product, thinking that there wouldn’t be many good use cases, but their presentation gave some activities that I’d want to try on the hardware. Whereas Meta’s presentation didn’t show anything I was interested in.

Apple is giving developers 6+ months to make even more interesting apps. I think there’s a good chance that this could be a successful product. But I should hold my judgement until I’ve seen the caveats of this device (ie comfort, battery life, display quality, etc). I’m sure we’ll see more in-depth looks in the coming months. We can judge it more fairly when these reviews come out.

I have an Oculus2 and a PSVR2, and the Apple headset seems like an entirely different thing. It's meant to replace your mac computer and your tv.

Yes with the headsets I have, you can surf the web and technically try to write code, but it's not a good experience. And those displays basically still suck. You can see the pixels, and the lenses create weird effects. If Apple has solved this, and the presence of the screen and lenses is just "forgotten", it's going to be a huge step forward. It'll be a device to actually be productive on, let alone watch movies and play games, IMO.

I think the:

- existing apple ecosystem;

- the fact that this looks far more AR focused than the VR focused stuff I've currently seen;

- the public's perception of the Apple brand and its build quality (questionable if real, but an undeniable public perception nonetheless) could get around the "ugly sweat box" vibe you've described;

- the willingness for app-makers to build for the ecosystem;

- the 4k and (apparent) visual quality;

...could make this successful, or at least iPad-like in terms of dominating a market.

Hard to know for sure though until we get some actual reviews and footage of people wearing it.

People are going to reply to you and say "what made the iPod different from the Nomad"... inarguably the iPod was hugely successful where the Nomad wasn't.

I don't think it's a great comparison. The MP3 players in the pre-iPod era were all made by tiny players no-one had heard of. The Oculus in particular has absolutely massive backing and still hasn't amounted to a lot.

I suspect the differentiator will be software, not hardware. In particular the willingness of third parties to create software. Apple has a good record there at least.

The sweat box is actively cooled this time. I'm concerned about the price as well though, even if it is fantastic beyond all expectations of what was presented that's a really hard price for most to justify for the feature set shown. Showing things like true and proper Disney+ integration day 1 gives hope for big name support vs just special one off demos for headsets of the past though. At the same time, they are going to need a lot more properly integrated apps for it to reach success status.

No controllers, no waving your arms about. Eye tracking and hand gestures for navigation. Screen on the front that shows your face to make it feel less isolating. I don't know that it'll be a success but it's a lot more than just putting an Apple logo on it.

> ... bring the powerful capabilities of their Mac into Vision Pro wirelessly, creating an enormous, private, and portable 4K display with incredibly crisp text.

If this "incredibly crisp text" is true, then I want it. Nobody has done this yet.

Usually Apple comes along and builds it so well that people will actually start using it. Oculus and the others are still a pretty niche thing.

What compelling use cases did the average consumer see for carrying around a computer in their pocket before Apple released the iPhone? There were a bunch of devices on the market all kinda doing what iPhone did, but Apple made it make sense for the average consumer.

> What's different about it compared to Occulus or Samsung Gear or any other existing attempts at this?

It's sexy. Also, it's Apple, which means–given the price tag–it's unlikely to be shit, and if it is, I'll have some semblance of support.

The difference is the AR, which will eventually make it wearable in everyday life. When setting the perimeter, the Oculus already shows the surrounding using it's integrated cameras. This will be the future. I don't think the first version of Apple's AR mask will be a huge success, because it still looks too dorky. But in a few years you will see many people wearing sunglasses that double as phone screens all the time.

> What about slapping an Apple logo on it and pricing it even further out of reach changes that in your mind?

Probably the fact that Apple has an excellent track record of entering nascent consumer electronics markets late (e.g. iPod, iPhone, Apple Watch) at high price points, nailing the execution, and eventually dominating said markets with arguably superior products.

It's the same story again and again. If you've already decided Apple is charging $3000 for "slapping an Apple logo on it" and nothing else, you may as well have been one of the people back in ~2001 who swore up and down that the iPod was just an overpriced late entry in a market full of mature, attractive offerings like the Archos Jukebox line. In retrospect, to be clear, you would have looked quite silly.

I'm not saying this thing is absolutely going to be a success, but the problem with previous attempts at virtual displays has been that the execution is always shit, and Apple's greatest strength is nailing the execution. I don't think betting against them here is a good bet.

Thr fact that the battery is separate should be a huge improvement for comfort because one of the biggest problems with most existing devices is their weight. Another thing to check is how much heat the device transfers to the user. Or in general the comfort. Also the fact that you can easily see you surroundings should help.

Most VR so far has been designed to isolate you from your surrounding environment, and is the opposite. Also the ability to use it without controllers makes the whole thing feel less intrusive/burdensome to use.

Probably the fact that this uses microOLED at a much higher resolution than anything before.

And that it's very light weight and more comfortable fitting and probably wont be a sweatbox.

Gaming could be much be better on a VR/AR device, and a reason to put on a "ugly sweat box" initially. Apple did not go deep into that, only a brief segment about the Unity collab. Maybe gaming is not their forte right now.

Apple Vision v3 will not be a sweat box. And even right now, Occulus interface has to evolve to match this. Controller has to be optional. It has to be AR.

I've said this before, but Apple's attention to detail might finally bridge the uncanny valley to actually good AR. I can elaborate a bit more when I get on my computer.

Less space than a nomad, too

The idea of hybrid AR/VR - adjusted by a dial (crown) - is very clever. As is a high-resolution display.

But the form factor is a problem.

If it had all of the capabilities announced but combined with the Google Glass form factor of ultra thin & light - then it would be a device more revolutionary than the iPhone.

But the form factor makes it much more niche.

And the tech just doesn't exist in the year 2023 to make a device with that sweet-spot combination of high capability and tiny form factor.

(My two cents, which I am hoping ages better than the infamous HN Dropbox comment.)

You do recall that when the iPhone came out we already had Blackberry, HTC, Windows Mobile, Nokia already making smart phones with touch screens and apps right?

Sure the experience was terrible, but that's the same play here. Apple generally takes a technology space which is a little early and poorly done by others, and ships a great experience across hardware, software, and ecosystem to capture a market.

Not sure how you can say it’s incremental. I’d say it’s quite a jump from the other mixed reality products we’ve seen so far

That's definitely a big concern about the physical pen. If it's too heavy or if it's too hot, it will overperform or perform some CPU intense work. Also the fitting using your eye with such a close contact with the digital device is another issue.

Was there really an 'iPhone moment', though?

The success of the iPhone has been all about the 'incremental progress'.

but it's AR?

>> Can we comfortably use it for 8+ hours a day?

With 2 hours of battery life this is not a problem.

I'm not sold on eyes as a pointer just yet. The Quest Pro can do this and it does not feel great. Based on experience with a lot of other headsets:

> Can we comfortably use it for 8+ hours a day?

No. Even if the ergonomics are perfect, the screens aren't good enough for this.

> Is text really crisp enough for productivity usage?

If they match the leaked resolution, no.

>This is going to be massive in the workspace, thats where I think people probably underestimate it.

I don't think companies are going to spring this much for a headset and laptop until there's very obvious benefits, but maybe I've just been short-changed with shitty equipment my whole career.

Companies trying to get people to go back to the office, then ordering them VR headsets will be the height of tech irony.

Google Glass tried to pivot towards industrial use (eg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IK-zU51MU4 ) - it didn't seem to go very well.

Speaking as a total non-expert here: assuming workspaces _look_ good, I think this will entirely depend on software. What will it be like to use this with a keyboard? Will the OS be as siloed as iOS?

This morning, my mac wouldn't boot. I tried to write on my iPad instead. It was a nightmare: too cumbersome to move between apps, Zotero nearly unworkable, hard to navigate different file versions. If the OS works more like iOS than macOS, I can't imagine it being as useful as computers save for very specific applications.

For me 100% of the excitement is about the bajillion business ideas I've had hoping that VR would become more popular, when it just simply didn't get there.

Industry is where I'm a lot more excited.

The price is to high for companies.

Laptop budget is 1-3k.

And people steal expensive shit. Alone the stealing is a deal breaker alone.

And we have working cheap AR glasses.

I REALLY don't want a doctor performing surgery on me with this thing on their face.

What about $3500 says "accessibility" to you? You're just re-vomiting out all of the same promises VR companies have been making for the past half decade. No company is going to spend $3500 on a tool that easily breaks for low stakes jobs and is untested/unreliable for high stakes jobs.

I completely agree with your point about risk. When we're talking about risk, the opposite of risk is a great benefit, just like a starship. Captain Kirk said great risk we have, the more potential gain we probably gain. Stand-up work environment is also huge for me. I don't like sitting all the time in front of a desk. But I'm not sure if I sit down, all the benefits gonna last. Maybe it's just a choice. Maybe I can sit down doing some different kind of things. Or maybe I can lay on my bed, just do something else. The gesture interface has to be rock solid. I agree. Especially you're already doing something more fine-tune level things.For example, you want to manipulate a 3D object, but I think we can, or the engineering can finally overcome those difficulties by using those optical algorithms to track, to kind of think about a new way to interact with computer. Actually, if you think about the way we communicate with computer, all we're talking about is the keyboard, but does the keyboard is the only solution to all the problem we have? I don't think that is the only problem. The battery lapsed two hours, I'm not sure what exactly they mean. If it's just two hours, maybe it's a replaceable charge or something like that, maybe we can bring a bigger external battery. I'm not sure, but if it's just only working for two hours, that's going to be some potential issues here.

IMHO the biggest risk factor is that without a mass market version (running iPhone apps in a window doesn't count) the developers won't reach the critical mass you need to support a novel piece of hardware like this. $3500 is a shit ton to spend on a toy that lets you have a virtual Mickey Mouse standing next to a screen playing a Disney movie.

If nobody is buying the product then developers have no incentive to buy one either. The only software for it will be demos from Apple and extremely expensive bespoke professional applications for businesses, and that market is far too small for Apple to ever recoup their R&D costs, much less ongoing expenses.

The only way I see this working is if Apple themselves invent a killer application for the headset. Even then its going to struggle to find buyers at that price point. It doesn't matter how cool your hardware is if nobody can afford it. It's hard to see how they would even cut down the existing hardware to make a version for real people.

Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with this comment as well. It is because how portable this device is, you have to think about the... Imagine you have an infinite amount of screen just in your pocket. What you say causes what you do, and that's a huge thing.

At 3500 this will be niche at best. They'll sell half the units of Watch Ultra if they're lucky.

Not for a while, but this is v1. When they’re cheaper, smaller and lighter who knows

Not only they don't realize it already exists, they don't realize how bad it is.

There's never enough resolution (even with 8K headsets), eye strain from trying to focus on virtual objects is real, and camera passthrough always look fake (and may even cause mild nausea). Not to mention that most folks don't really train their neck muscles to support significant extra weight on their heads on front-back axis (we typically tilt our heads much less than lean forward or backward, so headphones are not comparable).

I don't believe Apple have made some giant leap and included an autorefractor in there and made external cameras moveable and able to match you pupillary distance (and convergence!), then added some fancy magnetostrictive micro-mirror system to dynamically boost resolution at the areas you're focusing at. Not in this form factor, and if they would somehow magically make it they'd be boasting about it non-stop.

If they showcase it in Apple Stores I would definitely take a peek, and I would like to be wrong - but I'm pretty sure it's a pricey gimmick that won't be anywhere comfortable for any prolonged use.

> tiresome multiscreen development environment

...that fits in your bag. This is huge for folks like me that want to travel without lugging around a large display. If the visual integrity is there, it's gonna be worth it for me.

The scope for games on this is pretty narrow without the dual independently tracked controllers you get with the Quest/PSVR/etc.

They'd have to work with hand tracking (low accuracy, no buttons or sticks, no haptics) or a conventional console controller (limited immersion).

Nearly all existing VR games are built around dual controllers and would need significant reworking/compromises to be playable on the Vision Pro.

> It won't. Sadly. Can't justify spending 3K on... family calls, tiresome multiscreen development environment, finally - games? Won't happen unfortunately.

You missed one, porn.

This first version sure but if they're able to bring the costs down and maintain the relative power it's a pretty neat implementation of the idea.

The original iPhone was also a bit of a waste of money so that doesn't really disprove their point.

Sounds like the Vision Pro addresses your main issues - it's fully wireless, albeit with the somewhat ridiculous cord hanging off and battery pack in your pocket. And you can walk around your house with (presumably) near perfect pass through view of the real world. And then the resolution - I think you could be wrong about that. It's surprisingly hard to compare, but the Vision Pro is going to get you pretty close to high enough resolution that it doesn't matter any more.

It's interesting though you seem to view the fact that it's close to impossible to move your monitors as a plus - that part sounds very weird to me.

The dual-touchpad style VR keyboard like the original Vive has is probably the only usable virtual keyboard. Everything else is one by one, find and peck typing.

If you want to experience it, get a steam controller or a steam deck and use the trackpads on that keyboard. You get used to it very fast and you can get really usable typing speed.

It won't work for programming though because anything that needs more niche than basic punctuation would require chording or multiple inputs, which sucks.

The idea is that you'll use voice recognition instead of typing

They did show a virtual keyboard during the presentation.

> This literally amplifies your ass to the couch. I'm shocked. Stunned. And sad.

Were you “shocked/stunned/sad” about Apple TV? A product which physically relies on your ass being sat on the couch?

Think a little bigger here! This goes well beyond entertainment value. Imagine the general business uses in industry, manufacturing, medicine, conferencing, telecommunications, let alone any form of interpersonal interaction over long distances…

These are all things we take for granted with FaceTime, Google, GPT… All these are new but ubiquitous technologies, which allow us to enhance our human abilities and connect with each other in new and novel ways.

> TV viewing is often a social experience:

Sure but "for personal use" kinda excludes "social experience" here.

> it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema

In my previous flat, living along, a big TV just didn't fit anywhere. A sound system would also have annoyed the neighbours. Something like this would have been perfect for getting that 4K HDR viewing experience.

For me, the big difference is apps. I have a Quest and there's not much usable stuff for it. I can see a lot of those ipad/iphone/mac apps as useful on an AR device.

Quality also matters. I don't really like looking through the Quest for very long. Fresnel lenses and meh screen combined with a terrible processor means the visual experience isn't very good. I'd bet a lot that their custom lenses and screens combined with a decent SoC offer a HUGE jump in visual fidelity.

Yes, that part also shocked me. It looks like they've completely lost their mind, and don't realize they're shooting a remake of black mirror..

I think the remote worker in a hotel was a more likely take.

A lot will depend on the quality of the virtual avatar generated for you while in a video call.

I didn't think people would enjoy looking at a 6 inch screen while hunched over for every second of their waking lives, but here we are.

> Do you think people will enjoy living with a headset strapped to their face?

Yes, while they are working on something. I've often wanted to 'take my screen with me' as I moved to a different location.

I dunno, beats pulling out a phone and fumbling with the record button.

Apple likely started with the "Pro" moniker fully intending for non-pro versions to come out at lower price points.

You can invest in my opinions, from just $3999™!