21–30 of 213 posts
> "1. It’s uncomfortable" for AR to be useful, it has to be something seamless, comfortable and easy to integrate into your daily life. if it's giving you neck pains or eye strains, then as others said, actual reality will always be the better choice.
Five grand is insane.
What I'm still trying to understand is: what is the use case that Apple thought people would pay that much for? Are people walking around Apple HQ in these things because they are indispensable for some purpose the rest of us have yet to figure out?
Even if this product were lightweight and had a 10-hour battery life and didn’t cause eye strain, I still don’t think it would be an improvement over the real world.
First generation Apple products are always pathfinding devices and they always suck in many ways. The first gen Apple Watch was borderline unusable. I understand people will be pessimistic about this but Apple does have a track record of greatly improving upon the initial experience, so we'll see what happens.
"It’s a V1 Apple product. It’s a new category, for them, and by far the most ambitious headset on the consumer market." Well, all other V1 Apple products weren't half-assed, or at least when they were, they offered something more than the competitors. Meta Quest 3 is better on everything, despite eye tracking(for a reason, it sucks for many things, I'm sure Meta can have just as good, if they wanted to, but they like…
Zuckerberg said yesterday on Instagram that eye tracking is coming back in a future headset.
I was expecting Apple would reinvent that with a concept nobody had imagined before. They didn't. Zero innovation.
Doesn't look like an Apple product to me.
Earpods from Apple was more innovative and had a better factor form than likely this Apple Vision Pro will have in 10 years!
One of the challenges is that a lot of his complaints are things that you can EASILY see being addressed -- most other VR headsets benefit from 3rd party straps that make a hugely significant difference in comfort, the app ecosystem hasn't even begun since folks. haven't had a device available, so hopefully there'll be many more use cases, Apple internally already has mirroring of multiple screens, etc. Yet my fear i…
I buy and judge a product for what it does RIGHT NOW, not for what I'm hoping the manufacturer could fix down the line, long past the return window. So asking consumers to gamble with 3500+ on what might be, is a tall order.
Maybe Apple should have kept it longer in the oven and not rush to half-bake it, selling what's obviously designed to be a dev-kit, as an end user product using users who paid $3500 as beta testers.
Steve Jobs would be spinning in his urn. He always understood you never release half baked products to consumers.
>2.It’s not there yet >3.It’s not useful >4.It’s very expensive Are any of these surprising? I'm a AR/VR skeptic so maybe I have a more negative view than most but these things seem self evident to me.
> When we price out things in the USA we pretend sales tax doesn’t exist, but it does, hoo boy it does, and most of us pay it. The price breakdown in this article was probably the most useful part. There was a slim chance I would have considered a product like this for $3700, but $5000 is simply too much for my budget.
The fact that Apple is still using a difference of 256GB storage to jump the price $200 is really funny to me. This is already a wildly premium device, but they just can't resist trying to scrape a little bit more.
He talks a few times about looking forward to future generations, but if too many people pass on this generation, will there be future generations? I guess Apple has deep enough pockets that they could fund future generations even if they never make their money back.
Given the cost challenges, if this is ever a proper mass-market consumer product, you're probably looking at at least a few years down the road.