301–310 of 442 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$3500 for a headset isn't crazy. $3500 for a headset that isn't allowed to do the overwhelming majority of VR things is. Even if it could, it's not even remotely a competitive price. 90s hardware cost what it cost because that's what was available. Today, there is plenty of competition for VR, and Apple is explicitly ignoring it.
What isn't it allowed to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it have less space than the Quest and no wireless and therefore will be lame? (Deep cut)
Do you think the iPod would have been the same sales success if it cost 700% more than a Nomad instead of being basically the same price? $399 for 5GB iPod, $500 for 6GB Nomad?
Even the high end iPads are about 10x as expensive as a Fire Tablet.
The original iPhone was unsubsidized at $700 compared to “free” phones and was laughed at by Balmer for that very reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not fair to compare the Quest devices, given what we know about the Vision Pro so far. The AR functionality on current-gen gaming headsets is terrible, and the screen door effect is glaringly obvious. What Apple is advertising blows the Oculus devices away. Whether the difference is worth the extra $3000 is a question that has yet to be answered, but it’s a category error to compare them directly.
Every functionality that i see in these videos already exists in Q3, but presumably in lower resolution. Is hardware going to be the differentiator that makes it so much more useful? It's also theoretical atm
Also the software is much more restrictive. Barely any “flat” apps and doesn’t support the hybrid 2d apps with depth. Also can’t pin apps around a physical space. Some of that is coming but it’s clearly way behind in terms of software features. Which I’ll add lower latency streaming from other devices to as well
The main issue I have with the Vision Pro is that Apple learned with the iPad what to do and what not to do when it comes to their customers, chiefly to have an app store that you could not install software outside of. Had the Mac been invented today, it surely would follow the same model, and the Vision Pro is very likely to be following such a model. If I can't use it to have my own applications, whatever they migh…
I have a lot of sensory sensitivities and this is what real life already feels like to me. I look forward to VR glasses I can walk around with something that actively filters this shit out. No more billboards, blaring building lights, blinding headlights, and logos everywhere. Real life ublock origin with annoyance filters on.
I wonder how easy / hard and fast it will be to port over quest applications to the Vision Pro. Also wonder how hackable it will be. I'm guessing if it's anything like the iPhone / iPad it won't really be.
>Also wonder how hackable it will be. I'm guessing if it's anything like the iPhone / iPad it won't really be. Fortunately visonOS is a macOS fork, not iOS. The idea for Vision Pro is to be a fully fledged computer replacement, not a secondary mobile device like iPad/iPhone. Should be about as hackable as your Macbook.
Is it? Source? This doesn't align with everything else I've heard about the dev environment (and my thoughts).
I think people have incorrectly wishfully been thinking of it as a general purpose computer, rather than just an iPad with a fancy display.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. They are stereo 3D videos with depth data. You can only change perspective very little.
I think we're saying the same thing, that it's not the same as 3D video. Totally fine to say their version of it is bad because you can only change perspective very little. But saying it's "only" 3D would I think confuse people more, since it'd be wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I kind of agree with you, but to play devil's advocate, AirPods basically reset the baseline perspective around bluetooth headsets. Before AirPods, bluetooth headsets were definitely not cool, and mostly just utilitarian. I mostly associated them with either business-y people in suits, or people exercising like running. I think if there is a company that could really kick of mainstream VR/AR headset adoption, Apple p…
Nah, those business-y people just trades their Jabra for the AirPods.
Has anyone seen a negative review from someone that has had a chance to try it a few times? All of the reviews I have seen have been pretty phenomenal. That is one of the reasons that I am looking to give it a try. If the UI and screen quality is so fantastic, it will be a great virtual screen for productivity and entertainment.
The press has had two chances to try it, at most. Both being guided demos by Apple. No one has been free to just “try it out“. There may be reviewers who are doing that right now, but the articles are certainly behind a embargo. That said I don’t remember anyone saying anything other than that they came away extremely impressed. Which is why I’m really curious too.
Earlier 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.
The Mac Pro & Mac Studio made up 10% of Mac sales, which are in turn only 10% of the business. What percentage of those users bought the Pro Display? And what percentage of those bought the pro stand? It's an overpriced peripheral for an already incredibly niche $5,000 monitor. It's already established that smartphones are a huge market, and people are willing to pay a lot for what for most people is their main compu…
Your reply doesn’t disagree with what I wrote. At all.
At the end of the day, the $3,500 price tag is also a signal as to Apple’s thesis about how well the product might do on the marketplace. Their thesis can mean a bunch of things:
1. they think the device will appeal to a niche set of professional customers that have bought or have the ability to buy products in this price range e.g. customers of the high-priced $5,000 Pro XDR Display I mentioned. Their plan might be to grow the applications that Vision Pros can be used for, which will lead to increased demand among pro users which will in turn grow the revenue from this niche segment.
2. they don’t think there’s mass market appeal to justify selling Vision Pro units at a lower price (or at a loss like other companies have done by deploying penetration pricing e.g. Meta) as you observed. Again, their plan might be to grow the applications that Vision Pro can be used for leading to increased demand. The shiny new spatial computing tech that makes the Vision Pro exciting could slowly make it’s way into other products in their line up (or they could introduce a less capable edition at a lower price tag).
E.g. Spatial computing could eventually make it’s way into the next-generation Pro XDR Display monitors used in the office. Apple could also expand their presence in the home with a fresh take on home projectors in-fused with spatial computing, to complement their Apple TV product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$3500 for a headset isn't crazy. $3500 for a headset that isn't allowed to do the overwhelming majority of VR things is. Even if it could, it's not even remotely a competitive price. 90s hardware cost what it cost because that's what was available. Today, there is plenty of competition for VR, and Apple is explicitly ignoring it.
Go look for other headsets with similar features and especially optical quality. You won’t find anything much cheaper. The quest (even considering the pro) and pico devices are toys in comparison
Instead, it's a toy. It's not allowed to be anything more.