The display tech looks really cool. The eye pass through thing on the front of the device looks goofy as hell, it looks okay but viewed from an angle it looked weird because it didn't match up exactly with the face beneath.
Overall though, I think if it's anywhere near as good as those CG demos showed it to be, it could be the start of something new. But it reminds me of when Microsoft showed off HoloLens, the demonstrations of that made it look amazing, but supposedly the real device wasn't as impressive. The fact that Vision Pro is actually a full VR headset with cameras for pass through should make the whole AR experience 1000x better. I'm interested in what the battery life will be like too. It needs at least 4-6 hours to be usable for work or leisure. Anything less than that and there's no point.
Price wise, it's actually way cheaper than I thought. I fully expected this to be an Apple enthusiast device targeting at least $4999. But $3499 is cheap enough that someone could reasonably save to afford it and those with good disposable income could buy them. It's still expensive, don't get me wrong. But that's the price of a high end TV or a high end desktop.
Those googles will be too awkward and uncomfortable to wear for more than two hours at a time anyway. This is a tool to focus on very specific tasks for a limited period, and then put it away. Developers will come up with some creative uses for data visualization, 3D product design, architecture, etc.
This is cool and all but the like "Disney+ support will be available from the start and Apple arcade" made me less excited. Like oooo more locked in crap that will only have the same massive companies serving me things. I mean, I don't expect much different from a large company but still this could be such a cool tech but I'm so tired of just seeing the same names everywhere.
It feels similar to ChatGPT plugins. Access to them and developing them was limited except it was released with Expedia and other large companies that just wanted a way to rope you into paying for their services.
Also can't help but gag a little at that price tag. Woo $3500 to watch Disney+ in the woods
It's not lock-in; it's just a lack of standardization because there's literally nobody else who will sell you something with any device APIs that have anything to do with the ones this device supports.
One big tech company going first in a space, and getting the big third-party media companies to pay attention, is exactly how you get other big tech companies interested in developing devices that support similar APIs (in order to steal market-share from that first company.) Which leads to those media companies growing out tools and standards that export to these systems, so that they don't have to do everything twice; which in turn leads to these systems then being targetable by smaller teams.
(They already mentioned that you can run Unity apps on the thing. Presumably there'll be more of that.)
Also, mentioning that this thing can play "games from Apple Arcade" and nothing else, is pretty much just down to pre-launch secrecy. Apple Arcade games are simply the games Apple already have access to; so Apple can make those games work on their new devices, without telling the games' creators they're doing that. They couldn't really tip their hand and show this thing to outside game studios — it'd have leaked all over the place. Real game development for the platform begins ~now; in a year, there'll probably be tons more third-party games on the "Apple Vision App Store" [bleugh] than there ever were on the macOS App Store.
Sure but something like Disney+ feels like the wrong direction. "Ah good more 2d content to watch in a fake theater while I'm sitting in front of my TV" I guess just isn't my jam when it comes to VR/AR. I want experiences and interesting uses not just another way to watch TV.
> Apple CEO Bob Iger came out to demonstrate a number of customized Vision Pro experiences, from Disney+ support to ESPN sports broadcasts with a wide array of stats filling your room to a virtual Mickey Mouse that walks around your space.
I know that these articles are written quickly, but for an article about Apple's announcement it's kind of embarassing for this error to slip through.
This is part of the problem with human text generation. Humans frequently hallucinate things because they're mostly just trying to parrot things they see without really understanding.
This seems very promising by being based on already existing experiences (support for iPhone and iPad Apps). Considering all the other features the price of 3499$ doesn't seem to crazy, especially because it can replace all of your monitors, TV and more while also enabling entirely new experiences for basically the same price.
You're forgetting that any number of people can watch one TV. My coworker can also walk in and look at my monitors. For this to replace either, everyone is going to need one. For a family of 4, that will be $14,000 - far more than almost anyone is spending on displays for their home. For work, the situation gets even worse.
Seems slightly more refined and seamless compared to other headsets.
Not sure exactly what I think to be honest... It's pricey, but looks good in theory.
I'll be interested if text really is as sharp as they claim it to be and if the latency is noticeably better than the Quest.
Also how they adjust for different IPD is extremely important, but I'm not sure they mentioned that at all? The Quest 2 has 3 three fixed IPD positions you can select from, but none of them are quite perfect for me and that makes the depth experience tiring and a little blurry.
For anyone who's used Quest 2 the idea that you would use it has a productivity device is absurd because although you can create virtual work spaces the resolution isn't even close to a high-res monitor and the whole experience gets tiring to the eye after a while. If Apple has solved this then it's 100% worth the price imo, but I think this is something I'd need to try before I buy because I'd personally not be spending this amount of money without knowing it's a significant step up from what Meta is offering for a much much cheaper price point with the Quest 3.
There's nothing that revolutionary here in my opinion. It just looks like a more refined Quest 3. Which isn't to say it's bad. I mean there's a reason I'm writing this on a Macbook.
> There's nothing that revolutionary here in my opinion. It just looks like a more refined Quest 3
Pretty much the same story as the iphone and apple watch, both of which have been massive hits. If they can actually execute on a standalone headset good enough to replace physical displays without significant compromise, I think people will be lining up to pay $3500 for it. My only reservation would be the lack of a "real" operating system.
I wanted both when they were announced. This looks looks like a thousand dollar aluminum monitor stand to me…basically something for Apple elitists with more money than good sense to buy to show off.
Watching the announcement video, Apple is claiming that the rendering is sharp enough to display text sharply, implying that Vision Pro will be useful for productivity applications (using Excel or chat in VR without any monitors).
Here's to hoping that they'll allow us to replace our monitors with unlimited arbitrarily sized VR displays.
EDIT: Whoa, at a price of $3500, I guess they've got the price room to embed all kinds of crazy optics; that's a pretty eye-watering price.
IMO what makes Apple different and more likely to succeed than Meta is that they are pursuing more concrete scenarios like viewing content in a more immersive environment or spinning up a large viewing surface where you may have none .
Meta's problem is this focus around social interactions which just isn't taking hold apart from a niche audience of enthusiasts. Having tried the Quest Pro, if Meta pursued the remote office collaboration scenario more vigorously which is really quite promising and multiple desktop monitor replacement they would do a lot better
The obvious drawback with the Apple device is price and it's going to have challenges with traction. The enterprise would be a good place to start but that doesn't seem to be Apple's forte
64 pixels in the size of an iPhone screen pixel is pretty crazy, and feels like they might have made the leap in technology to make the screen "disappear". I have a PSVR2, and the screen is very much not disappearing in my mind on that thing.
It's slightly misleading because the panels are only 1 square inch per eye but will be blown up by the optics to whatever the FOV is for that headset. Since the resolution is 4000 PPI, it's comparable to a 4K monitor filling the width of your FOV.
"For weight purposes, an external battery will sit in your pocket and connect to the Vision Pro through a cable."
Interesting choice... can't say I am a fan
"The headset's visionOS operating system can be controlled in a "fully 3D interface" without a handheld controller. It solely uses your eyes, hands, and voice as an interface, and the unit lets you "control the system simply by looking."
An interesting decision. Hand and finger tracking has been getting really good, but for lots of applications having controllers is still helpful.
Overall, seems they are targeting AR way harder than VR, which is probably smart.
If you watched the video they said that existing peripherals will work too, including game controllers, keyboards, touchpads, etc.
It’s a battery with magnetic attachment for power. I wonder how hard they’ll push having multiple batteries to change them out. Looks like a sleek large bar of soap type battery (ie. all one unit), to slip into a pocket. It looks like a nice way to implement external batteries.
AR is the ultimate end game, IMHO. While these intermediate devices are products, they are steps in building competency in solving the challenges of display, power, control, and heat so that a true, glasses-based AR solution can be delivered at some point in the future.
In the past, Facebook demoed wrist-based control that required only 1mm or so of hand/finger movement to control an application. Others that I've heard of have thought about putting batteries on the headset, but externalizing some processing. There's a lot going on in the space, and mixed-reality is just the stepping stone.
Call me crazy, but I still think VR is just going to be a small niche. It's not a question of who is making it, how much cheaper they can build it, or what PR machine is pushing it. It's just a bad form factor. They are going to keep on trying because strapping ads and trackers directly to people's heads is the big tech wet dream, but I don't think we are looking at the next smartphone by any means.
This definitely is a huge leap in hardware resolution wise. Maybe even image quality wise since a lot of that depends on the lens optics.
There's things like field of view, edge to edge clarity, god-rays etc that can have a big impact on the experience and are based on the lenses themselves.
The VR space really depends on the content made for the space. Right now you've got two major "marketplaces". One being the Oculus store by Meta and the other being Steam. Other lesser known headsets have their own marketplaces too but the content is filled with crappy demos and just mobile phone quality games.
A big factor in the content quality is the ability for headsets to run standalone or not. Meta seems to be really pushing the standalone aspect where many of their marketplace games need to run on the standalone headset. Being a mobile chip, the performance isn't at all AAA quality. Not only that but a lot of content still is just crappy mobile phone-esque games and VR demos.
Steam on the other hand has many VR games and they're all running on your computer and the video signal is being sent to the headset so it acts as just a display. This gives developers more "power" to work with when creating games and many games on steam VR are really good because of that.
Now the question for this new Apple headset is, can it hook up wired or wireless to my computer (PC please due to game library) and just act as a dumb but beautiful display? If not, can it do that on a mac? If not, what content CAN I consume? Can games be played?
That's interesting, we're sure that's the case? Their marketing pictures make it seem like a semi-transparent front screen with cameras around the periphery.
> Floating 2D apps can be placed to float around your "real world" space, which remains visible through the semi-transparent display.
Which would make it distinct from most of the VR headsets currently on the market, and rather in the category of AR headsets.
Yeah, theres an additional lenticular screen on the outside thats designed to make it look semitransparent.
I'm very curious what the hardware is. driving full VR displays, plus additional screens on the outside.
The closest competing AR headset is probably Metas Quest Pro? which also had external cameras and could attempt to show the real world. but I suspect apple's will have way better cameras. I haven't seen too many hardware specs yet but i'm very curious
It definitely is. The capabilities of the headset, control via hands, and form factor are all big advances. The need for a battery in your pocket is a step backwards as standalone headsets don't require that, but it's the price to pay for all of the computing power.
I mean, I don't think most of us commenting here are Apple ads. I think we're all hoping that if Apple is jumping into VR, then finally it'll be good enough for us all to adopt massively, the same way we all have smartphones. That's an exciting prospect, even if we don't necessarily "like" Apple.
But at $3500 for one, I think they've blown it. I'll wait for the reviews, and if it really does deliver on all the promises, then that'll be nice. Somehow, I doubt that it'll happen though.
I was talking about the posts/linked articles rather than the comments. I counted six in the first 20 posts, and the titles are mostly quite ad-like.
While I was initially interested by the announcement, the size, lack of internal battery and price makes this a hard no for me. Idk what they were thinking - doesn't anyone remember Google Glass? That was half the price and size and nobody wanted it.
Overall though, I think if it's anywhere near as good as those CG demos showed it to be, it could be the start of something new. But it reminds me of when Microsoft showed off HoloLens, the demonstrations of that made it look amazing, but supposedly the real device wasn't as impressive. The fact that Vision Pro is actually a full VR headset with cameras for pass through should make the whole AR experience 1000x better. I'm interested in what the battery life will be like too. It needs at least 4-6 hours to be usable for work or leisure. Anything less than that and there's no point.
Price wise, it's actually way cheaper than I thought. I fully expected this to be an Apple enthusiast device targeting at least $4999. But $3499 is cheap enough that someone could reasonably save to afford it and those with good disposable income could buy them. It's still expensive, don't get me wrong. But that's the price of a high end TV or a high end desktop.