Came looking for new comments on this post, and couldn't find it.
Any reason this dropped from front page with 232 points and 271 comments in 2 hours to page 3?
Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2
281–290 of 442 posts
Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be interested in long term use replacing a laptop - headaches - eyestrain etc ....
I’m going to say with the electromagnetic radiation blasting you in the forehead There’s going to be other problems.
This device uses a puck. It’s going to be down on your belt right about where your cell phone with the same radios already is. This feels silly. Put on your tinfoil hat I guess? Even if you don’t own a cell phone, how often are you surrounded within several feet by up to dozens over people with one? If you live out in the woods then why do you care anyways?
In other words it’s a drop in the bucket.
Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This won't be successful, the $3500 price tag alone assures it. It will hopefully lead to something that's actually meant for end users, though. How can you be so sure about a company that makes a monitor stand that sells for $1000? Don’t forget Steve Ballmer famously mocked Apple because he thought iPhones were too expensive at $500 a pop. Today, Apple sells $1000+ iPhones.
Ballmer didn't understand that phones would become a very strong consumption device. If we were just talking about productive work and phone calls he'd be right. What niche do VR headsets fill in user demand that is currently unfilled? There may well be one - I'm not posting for the sake of making Ballmer's exact mistake - but I don't know what it is.
My point was if the Vision Pro does in fact fail, it wouldn’t be because of its price tag.
Apple already knows how to sell “overpriced” consumer hardware since they have a $5,000 Pro XDR monitor and $1,000 stand to go with that “overpriced” monitor in their line up.
The monitor is not a hit so there’s no reason to assume that $3,500 Vision Pro will be an (instant) hit, since it was intentionally priced to be out of reach of many people.
I guess people assume because it’s Apple, or perhaps because of the amount of buzz they generated with the reveal for the Vision Pro, every product they make has to be a hit
Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
What type of 'electromagnetic radiation' is now specially new to this device? And what health risks are you aware of, i'm not? You do know, that light is the same thing right? And you do know that even without a headset you do have radio waves and wifi around you constantly?
Light is not the same thing as anthropomorphically generated electromagnetic radiation. We evolved with sunlight we did not live with these anthropomorphic created electromagnetic polarized frequencies until very recently. And yes, I’m aware of the radio waves around me constantly and that’s a problem as well. So I was adding any more of it going to do anything to help us? http://pe.org.pl/articles/2020/9/35.pdf
> anthropomorphically generated electromagnetic radiation
what?
you realize all living beings have been exposed to huge amounts of EM radiation since the inception of life in the universe, right? The fact that it's now human made doesn't give it magical properties that cause it to be more damaging. your body itself, right now, emits EM radiation. The piece of fruit next to you emits it. there is zero science showing that the energy received or sent by your every day electronic devices has any amount of harm to living beings. go stand outside for 5 minutes, you'll get getting a dose of EM radiation significantly higher than your phone pressed against your head for a year.
Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
Space is limited, screens are expensive and hard to transport, and people are more mobile than ever. Having your multi-monitor setup at a coffeeshop just as it is at home is a huge gain. I’m not expecting this to replace monitors for most people now. But next monitor upgrade, if you already work on a Macbook, it might be a better option than an external display for some people.
It would be easier and simpler to use a portable LCD monitor. They do exist and are simpler, smaller, and cheaper than a VR headset. Tablets could have been used for the same use case. But...they aren't. People don't want it. What they want is a computer so light that it's always available. Most people seem to carry phones for consumption and sometimes lightweight laptops for work.
I've seen a few people bust out portable secondary displays or use a tablet in screen mirroring mode. Personally, I find the experience still pretty clumsy. The monitors are still not at an ideal height, they're usually smaller than I'd like, they take up a lot of table space. I'm not sure VR headsets are going to take off from this use case, but if the VR headset is good enough, I'd imagine the experience of the floating screens would be far better than having a portable monitor.
Busting out a portable wireless keyboard and putting on an HMD would be pretty neat IMO, if the HMD was good enough.
Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you see with it? I see a better in some ways (display, cameras, maybe finger tracking) VR headset than an alternative like the Quest 3 but also with some serious downsides, no controllers, insanely high price and potential weight issues because of all the metal/glass.
I see no indication that it's even usable as a PCVR device, like the Quest series. I'm picking up a Pimax Crystal for that purpose. I'll probably get an AVP, but don't expect to be able to use it for gaming. That's not its purpose. It's a MacBook Pro built into a headset.
But it can't do all the same stuff as a MacBook Pro. It has all the same limitations as an iOS device.
Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2
#287Came looking for new comments on this post, and couldn't find it. Any reason this dropped from front page with 232 points and 271 comments in 2 hours to page 3?
The Illuminati
Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lot more strip mall opticians than there are expert craftspeople of lenses. Apple's lenses will be fine... probably much better than fine.
You make it sound like opticians hand-hew lenses from blocks of glass with various levels of craftsmanship. AFAICT, they take measurements and send the prescriptions off to be made by specialist manufacturer. Glasses are regulated medical devices with real oversight, not some rinky-dink industry that Apple can waltz in and be the best manufacturer by default.
Recently my optician kept getting me the wrong (Zeiss) lenses, i.e. I could see much worse with the new lenses than I could with my 3-year-old lenses.
I got excuses like: "oh, these are better for computer work but worse for distance". Great... why are my old lenses more clear for both computer work and distance?
I went home with the new lenses and tried them for a night and a day. Unusable.
I went back and the optician's second attempt failed too. Now for computer work they were better and for distance they were still worse.
Attempt #3 was a match for my old lenses. Neither better nor worse. Mission accomplished? $500 well spent.
I'm sure in all 3 cases Zeiss made impeccable lenses. But it comes down to the optician's interpretation of the prescription I brought in (from a laser eye center's 8-machine exam I got the previous week) and their clinical examination of my eyes.
I expect that whatever Apple's Standard Operating Procedure will be for supplying the right lenses to people, it'll be mostly superior to your average optician.
Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among other issues, that paper is about VR headsets that use 60GHz antennas, which are much higher energy than normal radios. The Vision Pro doesn't have one and the technology has been more or less phased out.
Yes, See my problem? I can’t seem to find any testing on Apple VR headset regarding to SAR or any other type of radiation. That’s emitted from it. All I can find is, you’ll have an extremely strong Wi-Fi signal right next to your head probably for long period and you would use a cell phone that close to your head. I’ve had to find an SAR rating for it anywhere. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/apple-vision-pro-has-alre…
Pretty sure the radios are down in the puck. Not by your head
Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m curious to see the type of adoption here. I think this is more of an enthusiast device than anything. I suspect true success of the Vision Pro will be the introduction of a smaller, cheaper headset aimed at the masses, rather than wide-spread adoption of a $3k+ device
Why can’t Meta Quest 3 be that device?
Because I distance myself from Meta as much as possible.
I'd buy the latest Quest in a heartbeat if it wasn't associated with Meta.