The Vision Pro

[Joelist]

Okay, now we've seen it and also seen some online reactions (most of which are laughable). So here are some thoughts (hopefully not laughable but could be)...

1) This is being compared to VR headsets but it is Augmented Reality not Virtual Reality. The two are quite different especially in how the real and virtual environments interact.

2) Hardware wise it blows every other AR or indeed VR product away. Many more sensors running at far higher resolutions, far stronger onboard processing with capabilities that don't even exist in other products. Also top notch industrial design and materials.

3) It's a "version 1.0" release just like we saw the last time Apple introduced a new product line (Apple Watch). So there will be some places where software isn't in place yet and such.

4) Dismiss it at your own risk. People dismissed iPhone and Apple Watch and look where they are now. Give this product a couple of generations and it will be market defininig in my opinion.

 

[Citysnaps]

Though I don't have a need at this time, I'm totally stoked on what was released.

There's an astonishing amount of underlying tech in the device... custom chips, see-through hi-res displays, software, etc. Having that come together was the result of a ton of time, loads of systems/hardware/oftware engineering, and a boatload of $$$.

I can see a lot of potential applications. Especially when V2.0 is released. No doubt that's already been underway at least at the systems engineering level.


"1) This is being compared to VR headsets but it is Augmented Reality not Virtual Reality. The two are quite different especially in how the real and virtual environments interact."

Spot-on.

 

[Cmaier]

As I posted on mastodon, I’m pretty sure this thing is today’s equivalent of the Lisa, and I should be waiting for the Vision equivalent of Macintosh. But I still want one.

 

[Citysnaps]

Heh...

Here’s what Mark Zuckerberg thinks about Apple’s Vision Pro

One takeaway: “it costs seven times more.”

www.theverge.com

 

[Eric]

Okay, now we've seen it and also seen some online reactions (most of which are laughable). So here are some thoughts (hopefully not laughable but could be)...

1) This is being compared to VR headsets but it is Augmented Reality not Virtual Reality. The two are quite different especially in how the real and virtual environments interact.

2) Hardware wise it blows every other AR or indeed VR product away. Many more sensors running at far higher resolutions, far stronger onboard processing with capabilities that don't even exist in other products. Also top notch industrial design and materials.

3) It's a "version 1.0" release just like we saw the last time Apple introduced a new product line (Apple Watch). So there will be some places where software isn't in place yet and such.

4) Dismiss it at your own risk. People dismissed iPhone and Apple Watch and look where they are now. Give this product a couple of generations and it will be market defininig in my opinion.

Agreed, take note of the haters as those same people will be pre-ordering this thing and then crying when it's backordered for months. IMO this will be their biggest advancement since the iPhone and will finally bring AR/VR into the mainstream, especially once the prices come down.

 

[Joelist]

I agree most of the haters look foolish right now. I compare this to the first iteration of the Apple Watch. It has a lot of the same earmarks (really advanced tech, high price). Then look what happened with Apple Watch starting with version 3 - it took off like a rocket and now all the other high end watches are afterthoughts and it even has taken a lot of market share from players like fitbit. Vision will do the same either on v2 or v3.

 

[Citysnaps]

I agree most of the haters look foolish right now. I compare this to the first iteration of the Apple Watch. It has a lot of the same earmarks (really advanced tech, high price). Then look what happened with Apple Watch starting with version 3 - it took off like a rocket and now all the other high end watches are afterthoughts and it even has taken a lot of market share from players like fitbit. Vision will do the same either on v2 or v3.

Even going back to iPod:

"Who asked for a thousand songs in your pocket?"

 

[MEJHarrison]

Okay, now we've seen it and also seen some online reactions (most of which are laughable). So here are some thoughts (hopefully not laughable but could be)...

1) This is being compared to VR headsets but it is Augmented Reality not Virtual Reality. The two are quite different especially in how the real and virtual environments interact.

I get the sense that it's both, but they didn't have a VR demo for some reason. Regardless, you can spin the dial to turn off the real world, so I'd call it both even though the presentation was heavily AR focused.

If it doesn't have the ability to run a VR game, that's a huge miss. I suspect there was no good content to show off. I would have thought No Man's Sky since it was released for the Mac just last week and already has a VR version on the PC. But that never happened.

Apple seems to want to get into gaming. I can't imagine they would ignore that whole market with their new headset.

 

[Roller]

Not every Apple product can be a hit at introduction. The iPod wasn’t. Heck, neither was the Mac, which was often derided as a toy. I think it will be the same with the Vision Pro. Some pundits are criticizing the value of AR for work, but the vertical market possibilities are exciting. For example, consider a surgeon operating with the ability to call up CTs and other test results without having to look away at a monitor.

I can’t justify the expense, but I’d sure love one.

 

[Cmaier]

Heh...

Here’s what Mark Zuckerberg thinks about Apple’s Vision Pro

One takeaway: “it costs seven times more.”

www.theverge.com

Zuckerberg should watch the Blackberry movie.

 

[mr_roboto]

Zuckerberg should watch the Blackberry movie.

I haven't watched the movie, but some of the things I've heard about the BB CEO duo's response to iPhone are astonishing. At first they refused to believe that what was demoed at WWDC was even technically possible. Later they fooled themselves into believing it wasn't a serious problem for them because they had real keyboards and 'secure' corporate email and those were killer features that iPhone (and Android) didn't have.

(I scarequoted secure because iirc later it turned out that BB's security design wasn't all that great.)

 

[Cmaier]

I haven't watched the movie, but some of the things I've heard about the BB CEO duo's response to iPhone are astonishing. At first they refused to believe that what was demoed at WWDC was even technically possible. Later they fooled themselves into believing it wasn't a serious problem for them because they had real keyboards and 'secure' corporate email and those were killer features that iPhone (and Android) didn't have.

(I scarequoted secure because iirc later it turned out that BB's security design wasn't all that great.)

The movie is pretty fun. The book is better.

 

[dada_dave]

I don’t want one myself (yet) but I totally agree that it looks very good if they can deliver on the promised experience in generation one. If they then build on it (of course software devs too) and create multiple product tiers with multiple price points, they could have a hit on their hands as the space evolves.

 

[dada_dave]

The movie is pretty fun. The book is better.

Not read it or seen it, but the trailer looked good. I remember having dinner in Palo Alto with a friend and another group of people who I didn’t know one of whom had interned at BB and was very condescending of Apple and in particular noted that when the iPhone was launched the engineers at BB all laughed at it. He said this long after the launch and BB was already in trouble. I didn’t say anything at the time, but I remember thinking after “that really says a lot more about your compatriots at BB than it does about the iPhone and partially explains what happened to them”.

 

[theorist9]

Seems like the device has enormous potential for content consumption, but while Apple said it was "perfect for office work", I'm skeptical of how well it will replace current specialized content creation setups (monitors + keyboard + mouse). Thus, when the thing comes out, I'd *really* like to see that put to the test.

For instance, the Meta Quest Pro is supposed to provide three virtual displays, and I assume the Apple device will at least do the same. So suppose you're working with three large datasets, currently displayed as Excel files across three (real) 27" 5k displays; and say your're viewing them at default settings, which would be 100% Zoom, 12 point => about 40 columns and 70 rows. And you're doing the usual Excel stuff of copying/pasting, sorting/merging/filtering etc. Or suppose you're using the three monitors for coding or video editing. How well would those tasks work with these goggles? I think it would be an interesting exercise. My suspicion is that it wouldn't replace a specialized setup like that. Further, that's a setup that most can work at comfortably all day. I doubt that would be the case for these goggles.

I also wonder how comfortable the weight would be with extended wear. I've read they're about a pound. That could weigh down on your nose and cheeks after a while. I suspect it might benefit from an over-the-head strap, which I find makes my hiking headlamp much more comfortable--it enables me to keep the circular strap loose without the lamp falling down my face....otherwise I'd need to keep it tight enough that it gives me a headache. I.e., something like this (the Meta Quest 2/3 actually have this, while the Meta Quest Pro, which has an exended upper lip that rests much of the weight on the front of your skull, does not):

Hopefully it does better than the Metaquest Pro in these respects. Here's a very thorough review by Adi Robertson of The Verge:

"But since that first demo, using the Quest Pro has become uniquely tortuous. Its ring puts practically all its substantial weight on my upper forehead, sometimes leaving a numb and tingling strip along my hairline. It feels a little better if I keep the fit loose, but that makes the headset less stable during games and other high-intensity activities. It’s a worse experience than the Quest 2 with its optional Elite Strap, which includes an over-the-head strap for balance ...

Workrooms’ personal office component....lets you install remote desktop software on your Mac or PC and then project your real computer inside the headset on up to three virtual big screens. But the Quest Pro hardware isn’t ready for full-time office work. It’s too heavy to be comfortable, and its screen makes website and app text maddeningly fuzzy. I swore I would use the headset as a full-time computing device during this review, but I managed about a day before scaling back to short sessions — it was just too painful for my head and eyes."

Meta Quest Pro review: get me out of here

You’re better off buying three Quest 2s.

www.theverge.com

I'll probably hold off until this becomes availalbe as a direct neural implant.

 

[B01L]

...an over-the-head strap...

Like this...?

 

[Edd]

Why add “pro” to the name if there’s only one model I wonder?

 

[Joelist]

Pro was added to leave a slot for a later non Pro model.

 

[B01L]

Why add “pro” to the name if there’s only one model I wonder?

Because there will most likely be future models...?

Vision
Vision mini (a monocle)
Vision Pro
Vision Ultra

 

[Cmaier]

Because there will most likely be future models...?

Vision
Vision mini (a monocle)
Vision Pro
Vision Ultra

Also:

Visionade
Vision Scampi
Vision Extreme
Marvel’s Vision