11–20 of 106 posts
The fact that it’s not being demoed like that tells me they still can’t do “everywhere” AR (IR sensors and Sun aren’t friendly) and don’t want to open that can of worms.
I'm not going to buy gen 1 or even gen 2 of this headset due to cost. But by gen 3 I could see it being a strong device for working from home. I picture having multiple windows of safari open around me full of documentation as I code in VScode via the connection to my mac.
The price is going to be too much for most people right now. Apple knows that. Comparing this to a quest is like comparing an iPhone to an Android. But in this case the specs far exceed the other headsets out there. There's a freaking wrap-around display on the outside of the device!
The vision pro version 1 is big, heavy, and kinda clunky. But imagining what Vision Pro 5 will be gets me really excited.
I’ve been in tech and business media for over 15 years. These articles appear, identical and similarly framed, every time Apple launches a product in a new category. They’ve always been rubbish, written mostly by people who haven’t tried the product. This piece pertains exactly to that sub-genre of punditry. Wasted bytes is all.
I think this could be considered the first major post-Jobs product launch. We are coming up on 13 years since Jobs' death, and what truly major things have Apple released in that time? Mostly we have seen new phones, tablets, computers, and some smaller things like Airpods. The Apple Watch is maybe the best example of an all-new product, but in a category (watches and wearables) that was already kind of a "thing".
As of right now, I'm on the side of VR/AR glasses being more like 3D TVs than smart watches. I think it doesn't solve enough problems (and creates new ones in terms of an uncomfortable wearable thing people aren't generally used to).
Time will certainly tell, but this thing is going to need a TON of ecosystem support to break through into a major product line for Apple IMO.
Not that Vice can’t be right here, they might be. But the writing of the article isn’t very substantive of any real argument, let alone from anyone who’s tried the product.
I’ve been in tech and business media for over 15 years. These articles appear, identical and similarly framed, every time Apple launches a product in a new category. They’ve always been rubbish, written mostly by people who haven’t tried the product. This piece pertains exactly to that sub-genre of punditry. Wasted bytes is all.
Commentary feels a bit lazy. Seems to operate on the assumption that it's not different than previous AR/VR offerings in any way. If they can find a million people to watch movies on flights and/or use it as a monitor replacement, and if it works well for those use cases, then Apple will net $3.5B of revenue and have a solid foundation to build on. I don't think the first generation needs to do a whole lot more than…
I had to ban the publisher from one of my news readers because every single day was a new Vice article with a low quality article on AI being the end of the world. I'm fine with that opinion but not a daily new article with no substance.
1. Meta makes VR headsets and failed.
2. Vision has a lot of fancy tech, but I don't understand how that helps Apple.
3. People who are excited about Vision also liked Google Glass, a failed product.
4. Big televisions are cheaper.
5. Apple didn't mention motion sickness, so maybe that's a problem.
Commentary feels a bit lazy. Seems to operate on the assumption that it's not different than previous AR/VR offerings in any way. If they can find a million people to watch movies on flights and/or use it as a monitor replacement, and if it works well for those use cases, then Apple will net $3.5B of revenue and have a solid foundation to build on. I don't think the first generation needs to do a whole lot more than…
It's expensive.
This is a bullshit device nobody will use because nobody wants VR/AR.
It's technically extremely impressive.
It's expensive.
Nobody will use this except super rich bored people and tech bros.
It's expensive.
Apple has the integration and hardware expertise to have a good shot at this. But only time can tell if people want it if it is good enough, or whether it turns out to be silly. Which depends not only on technological factors, but also social (eg. will it get the same 'glasshole' perception that killed the Google Glasses), do people actually want to sit with goggles at home/work, etc.
If it does succeed, it also has large implications. Like, can open alternatives get a good chunk out of the market this time, or will we have another duopoly like smartphones.