They were mostly concerned with preventing you from escaping their walled garden so they crippled it. Great job Apple
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
233 points (92.7% liked)
Technology
60281 readers
3723 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I tried one in the store. It's an amazing experience, the augmented reality is done very well.
The problem is I don't think there's any content for it. If it could play 3D movies or games or something, that might be a reason to buy it. But for right now as far as I can tell the main reason to have one is to view 3D photos from an iPhone in actual 3D. And I'm sorry but that's just not worth $3,500.
The other issue is the competition. Quest 3 is very close in terms of technology, not quite as good but close, and it's 7x cheaper with a hell of a lot more content available.
Make it $1500 and release enough content that there's a reason to buy it, and it'll sell.
Apple treats developers like hot garbage, why would anyone bother to develop content for them just to be immediately kicked to the curb?
They wouldn't obviously. Especially since VR content is significantly more expensive to develop. But that is an Apple problem to solve. If you want people to buy your $3,500 toy, you have to give them a reason to buy it. Personally if I was going to attract developers I would give them a real sweetheart deal, like for the first two years of the platform the developers keep 95% of the revenue. Yeah that means for 2 years I make no money on software but it also means at the end of two years there will be software to make money on. And make the whole thing bring dead easy to develop on. Have a whole bunch of tools to import existing 3D content or write games or whatever.
I went and did the Apple demo. I was there for something else at the time, and they had an opening, so I jumped on it. I highly recommend doing the demo, it’s honestly really freaking impressive. I’m not positive what the killer app is for it yet, or if this is just a step in long term AR/MR, but what they’ve done is really impressive. Yes, it’s expensive as hell, and my suspicion is that long term the displays will be replaced with a waveguide (Stanford’s looks pretty good at this point), so it won’t need the external-facing display, but they’ve got the head and hand-tracking in a good spot, as well as the gestures needed for it.
Maybe, the killer app will be the overlay itself, where it uses a camera/location/audio to see what’s going on and present more context. Looking at a menu? Okay, I’ve had this and this and liked it, but their X I’m not a fan of. I need Y from the grocery store, where is it on the shelves… more than anything, I think that they saw what Google glass could become capable of, and thought that the phone as it is now (screen, etc) was going to become obsolete at some point, and they were terrified of losing that race.
I'm sure it is extremely impressive. That means nothing when you're paying $3500 for a device that has no practical use. It doesn't even support any VR games, which is the only realistic usecase. Maybe they could rent them out for a few weeks because after that time you get bored of it immediately.
I think it's pretty clear their intended use was "spatial computing" which is apple marketing speak for a computer with floating displays. But they were fools to think that anyone wanted to walk around with this thing strapped to their face, much less that they would pay such a wild amount of money for it. Or that they would use that floating keyboard on a daily basis.
For the specs of what it is and what else is out there, it's actually a really good price.
People like to compare it to the cheapest headsets out there, but it has specs that beat the highest end headsets out there and it's cheaper than those.
When the Apple Vision pro came out, the closest device sporting similar specs would be the Varjo XR-3 which was only available to Enterprise users. It cost $7k plus a $1500 yearly subscription, plus you needed a powerful computer to run it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REo1ugX5GSI
Basically, hardware wise, it's good, but for it's actual uses it's not worth the $3500.
It's got good hardware, but there's nothing being done with that hardware. The pricepoint kept there from being any broad dev support, so its basically a gimmicky paperweight that costs $3500. At least Microsoft will directly work with industry partners for Hololens development, but there's nothing like that with Apple to help pave over the notoriously rough super-early adoption era.
Yeah, I’ve seen where doctors are using it for surgery and I see all sorts of parallels to the portable computing movement of the 90s, which were about having tablets instead of a ton of manuals, and some of the AR/MR where it shows them where everything goes while looking at the part in question.
I’ve seen where doctors are using it for surgery
The article I've seen is one instance in Brazil (article in Brazilian Portuguese) for laparoscopic surgery, which makes a lot of sense. I don't know how it compare to other displays, however, or if using a VR set rather than a monitor offers advantages, or if the Vision Pro did anything new or better. The same article mentions that doctors had done the same thing with a HoloLens VR headset some years before.
load more comments
(1 replies)
What is the point in developing something so expensive that nobody buys it?
Like sure it's got some really cool tech in it but since literally no one has made any apps for it what's the point.
Some reasons.
- Apple needs new products - even something like this gives headlines, reminds people about the cool product, so maybe they choose a different one. Even if it doesn’t make money it keeps Apple as “new and innovative” and helps recruitment.
- Gets it out there for developers to try out, come up with use cases and killer apps.
- People (prosumers) come up with uses that Apple and Devs may not have thought of.
- Allows people from #4 to bring them to work - after all, that’s how Apple got big in the first place… People bringing their Apple ][ & visicalc, since their IT wasn’t responsive enough or people hated working on mainframes. It wouldn’t surprise me if one of the doctors brought it in himself thinking it might be useful.
- Allows Apple to come up with justification for the R&D money for the GUI, UX, hand gestures, etc that they’re going to need later. Gotta keep shareholders happy.
- Patent pool
The AR market is not just entertainment, Microsoft has been failing to build a viable AR helmet for soldiers for years now, after the latest-and-greatest fight jets got them.
Professional use too - think of how much simpler and safer ‘realistic’ training could be for deep sea commercial divers or oil rig workers. Live schematic overlays for aircraft technicians at work/in training.
Those are a few of the applications where an absurdly high unit cost/license fee would be gladly swallowed instead by governments or business.
What's a waveguide?
Here’s a good article about this specific waveguide: https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/9/24153092/stanford-ai-holographic-ar-glasses-3d-imaging-research
TLDR - they need special materials to allow small/thin glasses for XR goggles. This looks like it could be huge.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
It’s super neat tech, but if I had $3,500 burning a hole in my pocket I’d be more concerned with things like rent and food.
Usually if money is burning a hole in your pocket then it means it's extra money and bills are paid. At least, that is how I've always used it and heard it used.
That's probably because this is indeed the correct way to use that phrase.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Meh. TechDirt is great for privacy stuff, but market analysis isn’t their wheelhouse.
I think Vision Pro pretty much accomplished what Apple wanted from it.
Tech press kept comparing it to “the iPhone moment”, but that’s ridiculous. It’s a dev kit.
A dev kit with the best hardware, at a lower price than the second-best, and a more mature OS than anything else out there.
We’ll have to see how it evolves from here, but it’s a perfectly fine first step. Not everything is for you.
nah, this is just copium. Apple don't release dev-kits to the general public. It was a real product, and it was a dud
It's an ugly dud just like every VR headset because the technology for displays, processing, and batteries make them look like gigantic, heavy ski goggles.
Plus there's no applications. Games are cool, socializing is cool (I guess), and porn is porn, but what can I do with it? It's like releasing the first Macintosh without MacWrite or MacPaint.
wheres the first party stuff at LEAST? like garage band couldve been amazing.. or logic or reason, or maps.. wheres the tilt brush and 3d modelers? rollercoaster tycoon would shred in this.
Yeah it feels like even Apple is half-heartedly invested in it. Lots of the first-party Apple apps are basically just iPad apps, a year after launch. And there's no real video content, just a bunch of short 7-minute teasers.
Apple should be subsidizing the shit out of developers to get some killer apps on there to prove what it can do. They seem to have assumed if they built it, they would come. But nobody showed up to the party. Developers who DID build apps, that even got featured by Apple, say their sales basically paid for the developer adapter, not even the headset itself.
It's fine if you don't want one, but my VR headset get used daily and was a great investment. Once you get used to good VR games, the rest of the video games in 2D just begin to pale in comparison. One example is Assetto Corsa (racing sim) which I could not win any races in in 2D standard mode, but when I played in VR my 3D sense of distance allowed me to actually race competitively enough to win for a change. Also it's just pretty rad to drive racecars in full 3D view, getting the full experience of moving at high speed.
And it's absolutely not true that there's "no applications" for VR. You just don't know about them because you're against it. In my household the primary applications are gaming and exercise. There are a number of VR games that require the player to physically move a lot, enough to break a sweat on every session.
IMO the only thing wrong with Apple's Vision Pro is the high price. I spent $1000 on my VR system and that was a lot. So when you get into the triple-thousand dollar ballpark, your market is just too tiny to grow into anything soon.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Honestly, the killer application is really simple, but this headset wasn't quite designed for it (nor is MacOS in general), and that is simply as external monitors.
You know what's annoying? Trying to use your computer outside, trying to use it on an airplane, or while travelling. Or being in an open plan office with a million visual distractions.
If you're working in a professional setting where your company is already buying you a giant ultra wide display or multiple professional 27" screens then you're approaching the territory of a thousand or two dollars spent on each employee, and suddenly a VR headset is starting to look more reasonable as a monitor replacement.
If this was closer to the size of the size of the Big Screen Beyond and just worked as an external display that could let you place as many windows / monitors around you as you wanted, they might actually have a compelling product.
Or if it was cheaper it could be used for gaming.
Or if it had transparent AR displays it could be used for industrial applications like Hololens.
But yeah, as is, it feels like it had a neat idea or two, some really fancy tech, and fell right in the middle of not being that useful for anyone.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The tech companies seem more interested in what will bouy up their share prices than actually producing products that people want.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I mean I want one but the only reason I don’t have one is because I’m not paying $3500 for one. And even if I could get one used for under $1000, I’m still not because a majority of customers feel the same way, so this was DOA for that reason alone. No developer is developing anything fun for this en masse with no customer base.
I think a majority of people are in this boat. People flock to anything with the apple logo on it, but this was just too damn expensive.
That headset is more expensive than most MacBooks, just for reference.
And because of that lack of dev support, it can do less than a MacBook
Would have been fine if it didn't cost a kidney and they'd invested in app development more.
Too closed off. Too expensive.
They said this about iPads and Apple Watches too. Eventually this will be a big deal. It’s still pretty early though.
"No wifi. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." - Slashdot reacting to the first iPod
Blackberry went hard against the iPhones’ lack of physical keyboard when it was announced too.
Until Apple makes a device that's as capable as the Vision but as unobtrusive as a pair of glasses, it's going to remain a niche item. The Apple Watch, as you mentioned, has the benefit of being the same general form factor as a watch. iPads are just fancy notebooks.
As much as he wishes it was true, Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs or Jony Ive.
(For reference, both devices you mentioned, as well as all of Apple's successful devices since the first iPod, were products of their marketing genius.)
No support for VR or controllers. What a complete failure of design.
Seems psvr2 controller compatibility is in the works https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/8/24316130/apple-vision-pro-sony-psvr2-controller-support-gaming
Soon
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's a tech demo at this point, not a product. Tim Cook wanted something to cement his legacy so they released it even though the technology was not at all ready yet. The potential is impressive but we're years away.
Say what you want about Steve Jobs. But his timing during his second stint at Apple was unrivaled. He knew what to bet on and when. And he wasn't afraid to go all in and bet the company on it.
view more: next ›