this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
216 points (95.4% liked)

Technology

60474 readers
5155 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
enu
technopagan
216
Nearly a year since launch, Apple’s Vision Pro still searching for a killer app (www.computerworld.com)
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/technology
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Apple: You don't need a pen for the iPad.

Artists: We need a pen.

Apple: You don't need a pen for the iPad.

Artists: We need a pen.

Apple: OK here's a pen.

Apple: You don't need a controller for VR.

Gamers: We need a controller.

<---- We are here.

Apple: You don't need a controller for VR.

Gamers: We need a controller.

Apple: OK here's a controller.

[–] dustyData 21 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's the same story as with all of VR. People don't like to strap shit to their faces, or anywhere else in their bodies. We barely tolerate watches. Every single person who wears glasses would drop them in a second if any other viable and sustainable alternative shows up. People who use and love VR put up with the fact they have to strap stuff to their faces. 3D cinema failed financially because people didn't want to have to use simple basic glasses. Not everyone can tolerate a third of a kilo on their heads for too long.

[–] FireWire400 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Every single person who wears glasses would drop them in a second if any other viable and sustainable alternative shows up.

Not really, glasses have long since become a fashion statement and many people wear some without needing them.

I need glasses to correct my heterotropia and even if there was some magic cure for that I'm not sure if I'd stop wearing my glasses to be honest; I kinda like them and how they make me look.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

I could get laser surgery, but I choose glasses. I prefer how I look with them than without them, and sometimes they double as eye protection.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

I know some people who don't like their glasses, but dislike how contacts feel more. As for me - I don't wear contacts that much because they're a recurring expense.

[–] Dasus 9 points 2 days ago

3D cinema failed financially because people didn't want to have to use simple basic glasses.

I have not heard anyone complain about the glasses, but tons of ppl complaining about the movies and tech quality.

Also btw currently there's currently a 127g VR glasses available for PC, and Pimax is coming out with a set that's some 180 I think (Dream Air) but also has eyetracking and whatnot.

But yeah mostly I do agree. I had the original vive and the annoyance of what were basically ski goggles that weighed a ton without any proper straps even was a bit much. It was cool though, especially once Ingot got the pro strap which had the more helmet config with the wheel at the back.

I'm thinking of perhaps seeing if I'll get a set later this year to see how far it's come in 8 years.

[–] Agent641 7 points 2 days ago

USMC kamikaze drone team pilot app, but apple be sleeping on that.

[–] Macaroni_ninja 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It failed, no need to dance around the subject. It was a very expensive demo product, and nobody wants it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I don’t see how this is a failure, because I don’t see this as a legitimate push for adoption.

This was a device that cost as much as a used car, with no real pre release applications, and virtually no preemptive dev kits. The only thing I can see that as is an attempt to mass test a new device type with early adopters.

[–] Macaroni_ninja 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Every single review I saw said the same thing. Its amazing tech, with a big price tag and nobody knew who is it for. The magic wore off pretty quickly and nobody wanted to use it long term.

Would a mass test have this kind of marketing though?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago

It’s Apple dude… who the fuck knows, lol.

Also, I didn’t really see much marketing. But that may just be my pervasive Adblocking.

[–] dustyData 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

There are ways of testing for these things that doesn't involve millions of dollars in marketing events (they did flew a bunch of tech influencers to Cupertino) and millions more in manufacturing (factories are expensive as hell). Apple admitted themselves that the number of sales was even lower than their already limited expectations.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] essteeyou 65 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Hey everyone, check out my app, you just need to spend like $3500 on this bespoke hardware first!

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

What's doublely stupid is that a developer would have to spend the exact same amount of money to be able to develop an app for the headset. They're not going to do that unless they reasonably sure they're going to make their money back.

[–] ByteJunk 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Probably the dev would have to spend more, usually Dev kits come with a bunch of handy features for debugging/testing, but including SDK and licensing yeah, more money.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AdrianTheFrog 2 points 2 days ago

this does raise a good question, if apple intended this as specifically being for developers, why aren't they marketing it as such and encouraging devs that they will release a cheaper headset later?

[–] Evotech 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Porn would be it, but apple scared

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Wait... Does the Vision actively block porn sites or does it not have a web browser?

[–] Evotech 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

No, but the app store doesn't allow it so you kinda just have to use a normal website afaik

Which is less than optimal

[–] AdrianTheFrog 3 points 2 days ago

theoretically with webxr and webgpu you should be able to do just about anything on the web that you can do in an app, although I guess its more effort since you basically have to make the game engine yourself

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

It's unlikely to find one in this incarnation. It has too many limitations in its current form. Apple knew this when it was releasing it but they had sunk so much resource into it they had to get it out there, at least just to see what people might do. And imagine that, devs didn't want to make apps for it because it's yet another device with a new interface that would need specific attention to make a good app for and with a very small user-base, the return is not there. Chicken or the egg problem which has been very common in the VR/AR realm.

I'm sure Apple will take another crack at the form factor, but it might be another few years down the road. I might've even been interested in this model if it had any momentum at all, but it was mostly dead a month after launch.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 3 days ago (2 children)

If apple would have just supported games from the start and offered optional controls this would be the top vr headset.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh god you can even use it with SteamVR. I would love to try it out now and compare it to the Valve Index.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Are you sure? I don't think you can.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago

No it wouldn't. Meta just stopped selling the very expensive Quest Pro because the very affordable Quest 3 moved massively more units. Almost no one wants a VR headset that costs more than a thousand dollars because the 300 buck devices already do almost the exact same things

[–] TheGrandNagus 23 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In terms of engineering, the Vision Pro is kinda remarkable.

But it's also a extremely dumb product that I'm shocked they thought they could sell, especially with the arbitrary "no gaming!" rod that they made for their own back. Just shows Apple's arrogance, I guess.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I bought it. Only because I have the disposable income and could make it a business expense. That said, I use it as a gaming headset 95% of the time. It has an ALVR app so you can do Steam VR. I play mainly just flight simulator.

It’s good for working and watching entertainment on a plane also tho.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JoeKis 16 points 3 days ago

Porn, Porn was the answer... 🤦

[–] SquiffSquiff 13 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Fundamentally the only unique attribute for these goggles is 3D and that comes at a significant expense in terms of user experience. It's the same story as it has been over the last two centuries.

Stereographic photos in the 19th century worked perfectly well but required a special headset and only one person could look at them at a time. Didn't take off. People prefer to be able to look at two-dimensional photos perhaps casually and to be able to point the things to other people looking at the same photo or to compare it with other things at the same time.

3d movies in the 1950s required special red, blue or red green glasses. Didn't take off beyond a gimmick. 3d movies could not be watched without the goggles.

3d movies in the theatre in the early 2000s. Didn't really get beyond the gimmick level. Lots of people complain about headaches.

3d TVs in the early 2000s required special glasses and the 3D could not be used if other people were trying to watch without the glasses.

The conclusion I draw from this is that people don't like having to wear special glasses or a device strapped to their face, even if it is relatively cheap to produce. Although 3D is nice, it simply doesn't seem to be sufficient incentive to put up with the isolation from other people and the surrounding environment that the viewing equipment invariably requires.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Fundamentally the only unique attribute for these goggles is 3D

VR is way more than just "being 3D." The way you interact with things is a bigger influence on what makes it than the visuals. You're not just having things pop out at you off a 2D plane; you're in the thing with them, and you can "touch" them or do pretty much anything you can do with your actual body.

You're right people don't necessarily want to wear a heavy thing on their face for this, though. Especially when there isn't a lot in the way of experiences that actually offer everything the space is capable of and your hardware is almost four-fucking-thousand dollars.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

Op is right though. It's still a cost/benefit situation, and the benefit is not enough to justify the cost.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Buffalox 4 points 3 days ago

Although 3D is nice, it simply doesn’t seem to be sufficient incentive to put up with the isolation from other people and the surrounding environment that the viewing equipment invariably requires.

This is spot on IMO, the technologies are now good enough at producing realistic 3D experiences even interactive, that if there were no inconveniences I'd bet it would be about as popular as color was when that became reality.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago (6 children)

I feel like that’s saying that my computer monitor needs a “killer app”.

It seemed like a straight forward AR/VR device to me. There’s plenty it can already do… virtual displays and apps in 3d space, privately and on the go is just a start… it’s just WAY too expensive for people to want to do so.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

Your computer as set up has enough killer apps to justify its cost. The Apple Vision Pro doesn't have a killer app that justifies its cost over alternatives.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SkunkWorkz 6 points 3 days ago

That F1 prototype app and the PGA app look pretty neat but are definitely a niche.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

They should've made it support VRChat

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It should have supported VR gaming in general since despite what Apple say it is a VR headset. Pass-Through doesn't make it AR. You need actual glass lenses for that

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Isn't a surgeon's "HUD" a killer app?

It's probably a good product, but in niche applications, not for the masses.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Medical industry on the whole try not to use "killer apps". It's sort of defeats the purpose

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›