https://archive.is/7uy6M
TLS gives no cypher overlap error.
Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans
21–30 of 446 posts
Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans
#221) Apple taking a stab at it, because it’s the kind of thing where UX really matters and Apple does UX well.
2) Apple not being trapped in the “if we can’t sell a billion of them then why even bother?” mindset that so many other companies get trapped in, often because they’re not bursting at the seams with cash, talent, and runway.
Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans
#23From the beginning, this product was a very classically Apple strategy of 'let's just take the Next Gen technology, integrate it well, and beat everyone else to market.' Similar to the iPhone 'winning' capacitive touch (or the iPod winning with Toshiba's mini HDD's), Apple plans to 'win' on SOTA hand tracking, camera-based full-color passthrough, face tracking, etc. These are all things that Meta (and the rest) have…
If that were true, they’d long have an iPhone with a foldable screen, and would have shipped AR/VR glasses years ago.
I don’t think that ever was their strategy. IMO, they figure out what a good product needs and build it as soon as technology allows.
That always requires integrating technology well, and often also requires using new tech, but that’s just a consequence of wanting to build the best possible.
Beating everyone else to market certainly isn’t (high) on their list (“less space then a nomad”, “my Nokia could do that years before iPhone”, etc)
Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they will have problems selling a few 100,000 units at $3500. The first testers report that the displays are indeed extraordinary and using them as desktop monitor replacements is feasible. That alone is a great use case.
again, the issue is development dollars. Its great that its high resolution displays, the question is if your company wants to dump hundreds of thousands of development dollars making something for the vision pro when its not clear there's a consumer market for them, or who the target market is. Sure apple could sell 100,000 anything. The question is are you going to be able to make any money developing for apple's $…
That’s IMO why VR has largely failed, out of the box there hasn’t been a compelling reason to get one and there isn’t enough software to keep people interested.
Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they will have problems selling a few 100,000 units at $3500. The first testers report that the displays are indeed extraordinary and using them as desktop monitor replacements is feasible. That alone is a great use case.
again, the issue is development dollars. Its great that its high resolution displays, the question is if your company wants to dump hundreds of thousands of development dollars making something for the vision pro when its not clear there's a consumer market for them, or who the target market is. Sure apple could sell 100,000 anything. The question is are you going to be able to make any money developing for apple's $…
Ideally yes apps should update themselves, tailor the experience. But the main focus so far has been pretty conventional app like experiences, which happen to be hovering in space. Where-as most headsets have tried to create entirely new ecosystems from nothing, and that would have been a huge mountain to climb.
Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans
#26From the beginning, this product was a very classically Apple strategy of 'let's just take the Next Gen technology, integrate it well, and beat everyone else to market.' Similar to the iPhone 'winning' capacitive touch (or the iPod winning with Toshiba's mini HDD's), Apple plans to 'win' on SOTA hand tracking, camera-based full-color passthrough, face tracking, etc. These are all things that Meta (and the rest) have…
Unlike the iPhone, this is clearly an indoor device, not an AR system to navigate around town.
It seems a much more immersive desktop experience, but are you really going to be more productive using AR than a 4k monitor or two? Maybe so, but I wouldn't take that for granted until people start actually using these for work.
It does seem like it has a lot to offer for gaming. That isn't Apple's traditional market, but it could be the direction they're going in.
Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans
#27From the beginning, this product was a very classically Apple strategy of 'let's just take the Next Gen technology, integrate it well, and beat everyone else to market.' Similar to the iPhone 'winning' capacitive touch (or the iPod winning with Toshiba's mini HDD's), Apple plans to 'win' on SOTA hand tracking, camera-based full-color passthrough, face tracking, etc. These are all things that Meta (and the rest) have…
Think for example of their work on virtual avatars [0]. That research is FOUR years old but looks about 1000 times better than Apple's "Personas" from visionOS. But Apple will actually ship.
[0]: https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-oculus-codec-avatars-vr...
Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they will have problems selling a few 100,000 units at $3500. The first testers report that the displays are indeed extraordinary and using them as desktop monitor replacements is feasible. That alone is a great use case.
again, the issue is development dollars. Its great that its high resolution displays, the question is if your company wants to dump hundreds of thousands of development dollars making something for the vision pro when its not clear there's a consumer market for them, or who the target market is. Sure apple could sell 100,000 anything. The question is are you going to be able to make any money developing for apple's $…
Apple has customers who will buy multiple $15,000 configuration Mac Pros without batting an eye. That’s the price of the tool and for what they’re working on (perhaps a $250,000,000 movie) it’s justified.
The Vision Pro, as announced, clearly isn’t much of a consumer product. The price is too high. But that’s not surprising, it does have ‘Pro’ in the name.
When the Vision or Vision Air. come out in a few years for $1000-$1500, that will be the (higher end) consumer move. And by then software will exist.
For now it seems more for executives. Maybe travelers. On The Talk Show Gruber and Panzarino were talking about how useful it would be for working on secret designs or private financial information or HIPAA information in public. You could be in an airline seat or at Starbucks or whatever and work on the information without anyone else being able to see it, unlike a laptop screen.
And it’s not hard to imagine how it might be very useful to architects or certain other businesses that might be willing to spend the money for an expensive tool to buy expensive software if it really helped them out.
I don’t think Apple will have problems selling them, even at $3500. Is it the next iPod? No.
But right now, they have got to be 109% constrained on those insane displays. Nothing else in the headset seems anywhere near as hard to manufacture.