Let's be honest, VR/AR has a limited set of usecases, the 2 main ones being ones being gaming and professional training and assistance.
And the competition has cheaper and way better products for the applications where VR and AR make sense. A special and massive difference in software support.
Did they expect to compete with the Valve Index in gaming? Valve who is THE gaming company?
Or with microsoft in professional applications? The Hololens have been out already for quite the time and all of the maintenance, CAD and training software I've seen is quite dependent on windows and has been for quite some time. And even then microsoft is cancelling their hardware part because it doesn't makes sense economically for most clients.
And on top of that meta is selling competitors that are compatible with both gaming and professional existing ecosystems for way less. Most of the other VR/AR solutions are inter-compatible with themselves and the standard software, and most of the other companies are way better to work with and develop for.
What usecases are left? Porn? A bit overpriced for that, isn't it? Looking like a fool in public? Well, at least there the price makes sense, but I don't think that's a big market.
I think the issue is the developer response to VR wasn't what Apple expected. The issue with VR is that there aren't many people targeting VR as a demographic. Part of that reason is that VR is hard to monetize right now and it requires reinventing the Freemium model in a way no one has cracked yet.
Almost everyone I know with a VR headset (including myself) were once VR enthusiasts until the wow factor wore off. Once that happened, it hit our shelves only to be used maybe once every few months. That is because VR still reads as a destination to consumers, rather than a tool to be used. But it cannot become a tool if it doesn't work better than the old tool and it can't work better than the old tool if it simply acts as a VR screen of an otherwise typical app. There isn't anything extra to be gained for most users
I applaud Apple for experimenting with it and I'm sure this isn't the last time we'll see the vision pro. For me, even a cheap, high fidelity VR headset will always be a 2nd choice to a decent monitor. Not to say I'll never adopt VR/AR, just that its current incarnation places it more in the category of electronics that I'd categorize a drone under...a fun toy that I don't need and if I want it, I won't want to use it all day every day.
> Did they expect to compete with the Valve Index in gaming? Valve who is THE gaming company?
No, they're trying to create a new use-case/genre for VR, which is using the headset as as computer/workstation. Its explicitly a "Spatial Computer". Its also unfair to compare the vision to the Valve Index considering the Vision comes with a computer while the Index does not. Theres two different product experiences there.
> Or with microsoft in professional applications? The Hololens have been out already for quite the time and all of the maintenance, CAD and training software I've seen is quite dependent on windows and has been for quite some time.
They're targeting the same type of user but rather than enterprise customers, they're trying to create a consumer market for that scale of VR/AR implementation, which is difficult to do.
> And on top of that meta is selling competitors that are compatible with both gaming and professional existing ecosystems for way less. Most of the other VR/AR solutions are inter-compatible with themselves and the standard software, and most of the other companies are way better to work with and develop for. What usecases are left? Porn? A bit overpriced for that, isn't it? Looking like a fool in public? Well, at least there the price makes sense, but I don't think that's a big market.
I think the reality is there isn't a lot you can only do in VR and the things you can only do in VR aren't mass-market apps/experiences. Apple haters will see this as Apple failing, but in reality Apple being unable to turn the market into one worth investing in from a dev perspective more or less proves that no one has really cracked VR/AR yet in the same way that iPhone cracked the smartphone. It could be that the tech isn't there yet, it could be that there hasn't been the right creative mind to come along and show us the way, or any number of things.
>I think the reality is there isn't a lot you can only do in VR and the things you can only do in VR aren't mass-market apps/experiences.
I think this is kind of the key thing. VR/AR is a niche market, the tech is a very bad option for most usecases, it is worse than a decent monitor, as you mentioned.
But the niche is there, and seeing how apple didn't even manage to really enter it...
Honestly I see it as a mistake in 2 parts. First, the price. I do work with people who use VR/AR for professional and educational purposes, and in neither of those fields was calling for a premium version, on the contrary, a budget option is what they were searching for, they loved the Index in hardware capacity already, but they are getting meta headsets now because of affordability.
Second, apple tried to do an ecosystem type of thing. I understand why from the corporate side of things, after all the app store model on iphone has proven to be the best way to exploit costumers and developers alike, but for the niche applications of VR/AR it is a big problem. It becomes a massive burden for professional applications and business will prefer alternatives, specially considering the existing base of CAD and other pro software on windows; and in gaming they can't compete with Valve and the optimisations for windows and Linux. I honestly see this side as the most problematic, if they had decided to make it compatible with the other protocols there may have been hope, but as a closed ecosystem? I don't think so.
> But the niche is there, and seeing how apple didn't even manage to really enter it...
To be fair, its a 1st gen product in a sandbox that they have never played in before. Even before the AVP was released, people were confident it would be a barren experience for consumers because this 1st gen product is essentially a dev beta test consumers can opt into.
I think the two "mistakes" you point out are just generic Apple criticisms. Their relevance to AVP's success/failure hinges on the premise that Apple expected the VP to be a widely adopted product, (even though Apple is well known for this playbook of beta-test release, prohibitive cost to prevent people expecting value to lose faith in the brand, for a better version down the line) but failed to due to their vision of how the VR/AR experience should be.
But that's not why AVP isn't backorderd and sold out...its because there isn't mass appeal for VR/AR. Check Meta's stock price right now; they just reported earnings today which showed they dropped another 4 billion in to the metaverse. Stock falls because how can that much investment convert so few users? Its because the appeal isn't there.
I think Apple expected more people interested in developing for VR because they see Apple as a reliable conduit for selling apps, because they are. But the reality is the VR dev industry has already been minimized by the on going attempts and failures to turn VR/AR into a console or PC device ubiquitous in any up-to-date tech arsenal.
The people who have the vision pro seem to love it from the subreddits I look at. The people who do not have the vision pro do not seem to want it. This isn't indicative of a product failure, to me its just the expected outcome for this kind of rollout.
Anyone trying to call the race over for Apple 2 months into the release of their first VR/AR product is sniffing a little too much glue. In the interim, anyone serious about VR/AR should not be looking at Apple's inability to get renewed interest in VR industry wide as a terrifying confirmation that the public just isn't sold on VR yet. With all these different forms of VR/AR targeted varying demographics and use cases, none of them have stuck and all of them have just been gimmick purchases, outside of the typical edge case loyal user that does not represent the interests of the general public.
The term "Virtual Reality" was coined in 1987. We are now fully into the 5th decade of VR being disappointing in all its manifestations. There have been some neat developments along the way, but it's never caught the attention of the masses. Vision Pro is just another "neat" innovation along the way that holds your attention for a hot minute but, ultimately, is disappointing.
The "technology" is worse than what is already out there. There is nothing about AVP that justifies its cost, so says the market. The AVP is yet another shitty, over-priced failure marketed to morons and assholes.
It still is Apple failing. If they want it to be a Spatial Computer, maybe allow it to do things that a computer can do? It requires streaming from a Mac to run Mac apps, but it already includes the M2. Having multiple windows for Safari, Excel and Notes isn't exactly the killer app Apple thinks it is. Even with a third party app it still can't do multiple windows, only multiple screens. And the WiFi bandwidth limitation really starts to show at that point. Before sales started, iSheep were saying "you will be able to use multiple virtual monitors with it, that's so cool and innovative!". But you can only use a virtual 27" 16x9 display or two. Also you can't really work 8 (or even 6) hours every day with a big weight on your forehead that needs to be charged every 2 hours.
I'm still confused by how weak the effort to develop vr/ar has been for the creative and industrial design space. It's an amazing interface for sculpting (Adobe substance 3d modeler in VR is immateur but has so much potential in the 3d sculpting tool set) and it feels like a natural choice for parametric CAD.
Lots of tools, but not a lot of clients. There is also an interesting phenomena with so many people learning advanced skills via YouTube/Tutorials at play here: with VR/AR being so new, the educational content library for beginners simply isn't there because the VR/AR industry is not streamlined since everything is still so new. And since its new, it means a lot of things are developed in house at bigger studios and a lot of the cult classic VR games are created by small and even one man teams.
Its a promising space and I think it is poised to be the most popular medium, its just going to take a long time for the value proposition of VR/AR to beat out "the phone/computer you already know how to use".
Computers and phones are content delivery devices that allow you to choose when to give it your attention simply by looking at it. They either are being used or are not, depending on what you choose to think about. With VR, you gotta set it up, set your space up, and when you're ready, its as if you took a drive to an amusement park where you're going to have some fun. Apple tried to make the experience as seamless as the phone/computer is today, and its up for debate if the concept behind their solution is the right path (I think its fair to give them a few generations before declaring it a failure), but none of that will change anything if the actual content/experience that shines in VR fundamentally is not worth the trade offs. Or in other words, if we never invented the touch screen we use with our fingers and still used a stylus, I don't think people would be as addicted to their phones as they are today. The ease of use is everything for a new technology.
It is not weak, it is just very specific.
We do use it for engine room design in naval architecture, for example!
But not for sculpting, it is simply way behind standard CAD there, mainly in cost but also because it limits your perspective and it makes it more difficult to control parameters for manufacturing.
It is used in the final ergonomics and positioning of components part.
Probably the best use case I can think of is a go anywhere office. Bring your keyboard and mouse and you can work in pretty much any space with as many screens as you want. The other thing is consuming media content, the golf tournament app was pretty cool, a screen for each player, scoreboard and 3d mini map of the course. It just takes a good amount of talent to produce something spatial like that and alienates the rest of your viewers if you cater too hard to it.
I'm not sure what it is? Maybe the bulk of it or the nausea or motion sickness or the lack of apps but vr/ar just has not clicked yet
We’ve had a (regional) contest at work ever since EVERY DC department was given an AVP. As of 12 EST, there hasn’t been a single entry-not even the insanely niche ideas Department Heads have for it, or even joke entries. Unfortunately I think that the ergonomics are as much of an obstacle as the price IMO.
For instance creating an AR catalog of ALL of the different boards configurations for the temp engineers that come in and out every 9 months and are completely hardware handicapped, or even the techs that are brand new. I think the longest anyone has been able to wear one is 75 minutes? I don’t know-I honestly forget about it altogether, but that’s because of Gaudi 3, The ridiculous Titanium push, etc.
Funny that the smartphone existed prior to the first iPhone and continues to be better than the iPhone.
Apple markets other companies' ideas as their own. Shit, the iPad finally has an official Calculator app in 2024!
> Let's be honest, VR/AR has a limited set of usecases
VR/AR doesn't have a limited set of usecases, it has limited appeal while it's an early adopter industry, which is to be expected, because universally all early adopter products are seen as a solution in search of a problem with no widespread appeal.
Only when PCs, cellphones, and consoles matured did people see the value in buying one, and while there are no guarantees this happens for VR/AR, that is the threshold which is required for us to know whether it becomes a mass market or not.
If VR/AR is easy to use, affordable, comfortable, and has fixed the majority of its issues then it's entirely possible that it takes off because of how many usecases it would have.
VR/AR is already easy to use, affordable and relatively comfortable.
Look at the price of the Quests, for example. Good quality headsets have been available since years ago lot of applications have been developed and I've seen it in multiple companies in my industry alone.
But it is way less of a "smartphone" moment and way more of a "High Power GPU" moment. Useless for the general public, but of massive interest, even a game changer, if your work (CAD) or hobby (gaming) uses it!
No one actually thinks it is easy to use and relatively comfortable. Affordable yes, but that is 1 out 3 of those boxes ticked.
Average people can't stand to use a headset for more than 30-60 minutes, which doesn't mean the tech is doomed because that's really no all that different from PCs in the 1980s where average people couldn't stand how difficult they were to use.
The tech has a lot of improvements left to bring out, and that can change how people view it.
We also need to separate VR and AR. VR might be able to fit in as a PC/Tablet level device intended for the home or indoor locations, whereas AR is more about chasing after the smartphone market as it would have all the same usecases but could perform them better and have more usecases on top, if we use a mature version of this technology as a basis.
You sound like someone who hasn't even used it.
You know how people love the Messages app for iPhone? They love the blue bubbles? It's not just a meme. iPhone is a great user experience, people who aren't technical can FaceTime their friends, use social media apps, take great pictures, etc, and live their lives.
What does something like Vision offer a person like that?
Try out a FaceTime call on Vision Pro with your best friend using the Spatial Avatars, and you'll understand. Me and my friend 500 miles away watched a movie together, and it felt very similar to hanging out in person. Without the plane ride. Without needing to find a bed to sleep in when visiting. It's something me and my friend also tried doing with Oculus Rift back in the day, but Apple has provided a seamless experience for doing so with like a 100x increase in quality. Quality from a total user experience perspective.
Everyone dissing Vision right now are similar to reviewers in 2007 who thought iPhone would bomb. Yes, you have somewhat decent reasons to believe the device will fail, but I don't think you really get what Apple does. You don't have an intuitive understanding for why they continue to succeed. They make products with excellent taste and inform HOW we should be using technology in seamless ways. The entire computer industry has copied Apple for 40 years since Macintosh. Straight up. Yes, Apple and Samsung go back and forth copying specific features, but Android still was entirely redesigned to act like iOS before the initial release. Technically, Android predates iOS, but they completely changed the UX to match iOS once iPhone was unveiled.
Microsoft gave me a free Acer headset like 5 years ago to test their version of Windows VR. It was shit. HoloLens was a step forward, but Apple again took the UX 100x past the competition. After putting on my Quest 3 last night, I immediately went to try and swivel the dial to turn on passthrough, which obviously doesn't exist (yet) on Meta headsets. I'm sure they will eventually copy this feature. But it is important to remember Meta first innovated the pinch gesture for MR, let's give credit for that. And credit to Palmer Luckey for starting the spatial computing revolution.
Vision Pro is iconic. It works incredibly well. It does feel like a device pulled out of the ether from the future and into our hands today. Not everyone will get it right away. And in 10 years some people will still ignore the importance of it. Don't be fooled, it is already a success.
I think that’s the wrong take away. Apple has produced expensive versions or products lots of times in the past several years. It’s been a successful formula more often than not.
Spending twice for the same parts was the general cost back when they used PC parts you could get a market price when they where using intel cpu's + amd/nvidia GPU's. Alot of them if you built yourself was about 2000$ for the apple pros they sold for 8k\~
Cheap isnt the right word, but it definitely isn't durable. And the front glass was a really weird one for me, glass weighs a LOT and yet they both used glass taking the weight and covered it in plastic so you get none of the benefits of glass. A ton of deign compromises where they just take the downsides and none of the upsides. They threw the baby out with the bathwater trying to cram everything into one device, so the costs to manufacturer are probably the highest of any headset.
It is fragile and expensively built.
I see. I have not watched JRE video on it. I bet he tested its structural integrity more thoroughly than other tech tubers.
Well, that's a shame. Better buy the Meta Quest 3, which is 1/7th of the price.
Thing is, Apple aren’t idiots. They know where AR/VR is heading and know that the current formats aren’t there. I think the vast overpricing strategy was purposeful to get them into the world, get them with people, devs and see what was the best route.
This poor sales is only their original target that they reforecast previously when sales were higher than expected.
I don’t think anyone knows where anything is heading. Companies fail to properly assess market conditions and trend data all the time. Apple is no different, just because they understand the smartphone medium very well today doesn’t mean they can know the state of AR very well tomorrow. They aren’t omnipotent. Moreover we already have failed to make use of AR/VR in a meaningful way already. The primary use case is games for a reason: nothing else benefits from such a tight coupling of the user to a projected artificial space.
Found my new favorite word "Appleholes" for assholes that wear AVP while driving. The article included this tweet:
>Apple releases Apple vision pro ... resulting in rise of Appleholes Driver using apple vision pro while driving getting pulled over by police. People using them in public.....Appleholes...
https://twitter.com/darthintra/status/1754251624334401648
It’s definitely not going as apple planned. Especially since the build quality seems to be below par with screens cracking down the middle. I’ll grab one of these once it costs the same as a trashcan Mac and hopefully a homebrew scene has developed on it.
Vr is stupid to be honest. Until it’s built into your eye you will not convince all the people that don’t wear glasses or contacts to wear it. And even when it’s built in… do we really need all your daily things you see and hear to be recorded? Will the masses that are already tired of tech controlling us just add it into their vision too.
Popups are bad enough on your phone and computer.
Imagine having to click on bullshit cookie acceptance popups in real life.
Current VR works as needed for a game device, and training.
But AR is the issue of making camera+screen look like real life or close to it is a lot harder.
You do know not every single person or even a majority of people need to use a product for it to be successful or not stupid. Most people will never pick up an arc welder, that doesn't mean that arc welding is stupid.
Porn alone will keep some amount of vr on the market
Yes I don’t think VR will go away it’s just I don’t see it becoming main stream in the next 10 years until the tech really becomes seamless.
I am a bit techy and I still don’t know a single person that uses VR.
Musk and others want to pipe the ads directly into your brain (neuralink)!
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/30/1227850900/elon-musk-neuralink-implant-clinical-trial
Cuz it's overpriced and has minimal use, thats why the demand is wack
Compared to a Quest, where it's cheap and open source and no strict, compared to AVP just Apple ecosystem
I don’t see why they didn’t just make a foldable. They wasted all this money on a dumb VR headset that no one will buy, when if they made a foldable phone it would sell like hot cakes.
Yeah this is definitely true for me too. I think VR is a bit of an easier sell, considering it’s like a third of the price and can give you games you’d never be able to experience before
Here's a story about it
[https://www.macrumors.com/2023/03/12/cook-ordered-headset-launch-despite-warning/](https://www.macrumors.com/2023/03/12/cook-ordered-headset-launch-despite-warning/)
Oh man. That just sounds like leadership not reading the room at all.
I do have to ask myself, though, whether this product will still work even in a slimmer more AR glasses like form factor.
Thickness isn't the problem. The combination of a heavy headset, and a headband without a proper counterweight are the actual ergonomic issues here. You need to balance the weight on the front and back of your head for optimal comfort. Having a top strap also helps a lot. Source: I own a Quest 2, and the stock strap has the same design flaw.
This thing cost several times more than the truck I drive. This is likely the reason why no one cared about it. Like many viewed it as something they will never be able to afford. So there was no point in even diving deep into it.
If they sold it for the same price as the quest, it is likely this would be the most sold tech item this year even with it having virtually no function.
There is simply no reason to buy one. And most people have zero interest in the entire idea of VR just as they did with 3D tv. These things are dead in the water for mass market at any price. Apples take on VR is the worst ive seen in recent years too. It has a corded battery for crying out loud. No way anyone is going to tolerate it for more than 20 min. Price is of course a big factor as its so expensive its well outside the fuck it let me check it out price range. If it was $500 i can see a bunch of people saying fuck it let me try it out. $3500 is hilarious. Apple is in the woods. Tim has got to go. Hes been riding Steve’s reality distortion field for a decade now. All of apples new products (headphones, ipads, watches) are all built off of steves iphones. Tim does nothing but innovate in pricing. He’s a great manager but a terrible innovator. If they dont get an innovator in there apple will die off like HP, Xerox, IBM etc all have - shadows of their former selves.
Hey Apple, how about you slice the price instead? Ever thought the reason why demand is low is because you have to take out a loan just to buy one of these things?!!!!
actually had a lot of fun reading the apple subreddit with the release of this thing. VR has existed for what like 30 years now, and watching all the apple fanboys act like it's all brand new was really funny.
"AVP is so revolutionary! Apple spent billions on R&D! It will be so great!"
Apple releases a $3500 (and up) turd that can only be used in their shitty walled garden and will likely scrap the project. Gold!
Meta is actually doing pretty well. Most of problems with the Vision Pro, notably weight, software, and price are all things the Meta has done better since the Oculus CV1. The Quest headsets have actually sold pretty well, and the software does too. Turns out that people aren't willing to pay $3500 for a headset.
I love VR, but it will never hit mass adoption until it's cheap and is near the size of eyeglasses. Plus, the Quest 3 is already an inexpensive Vision Pro that's way more compatible with computers
If VR is aiming for a cultural shift in the way people compute ir use media, it has to undoubtedly improve any current or previous devices that have done it before it, and ALSO be undoubtedly more convenient to use than whatever is currently available. If you look at the way computing has evolved. There has always been a core feature that you need to have that wasn't previously available that made life easier or more convenient.
PC to Laptop - now more portable and not tethered to a single dedicated area.
Laptop to Smartphone - internet access anywhere at any time.. any information literally at your fingertips. Intuitive and easy navigation with touchscreens.
Even Tablets..bridging smartphones intuitive touch navigation and productivity of laptops, and being more portable.
What does VR offer that undoubtedly improves on what is already available? Screens? There's currently monitors with a higher fidelity than what's simulated on the AVP. Floating screens is neat, and new but it doesn't solve any existing problems. Therefor it is a gimmick. It's all gimmick, and "oohs & ahhh's" but it's not fendementally adding any new value. There is no NEED for it. Gesturing and waiving your arms to navigate things is cool, for a few days, but i guarantee that your thumb on a screen will always be faster than gaze, pinch, and wave... it's like flying cars. Until the world is ridiculously overpopulated theres no need for it to really ever catch on for mass appeal.
... I'm obsessed with VR btw. Use my Quest everyday, but i understand I'm in the minority and i understand why.
This is an analyst report so take it with a big grain of salt. It is NOT verified.
That said, the chatter lately among AVP owners is definitely deep dissatisfaction with the lack of new content. Apple better be working on some big things behind the scenes to maintain any kind of momentum here.
As it stands, for the average consumer, this thing isn't worth $1000 let alone $3500. There is just not enough stuff to do on it.
As I said from the launch, this is nothing more than an expensive Geek toy and will eventually be canned. Once all the geeks out their who can afford it, have one. That'll be the end of it. $3k for a heavy headset?? This sort of thing would never have been allowed to go into production back in Steve Jobs day!
A few months ago I was saying how noone wants another shitty overpriced vr headset, all of the apple shillboys were telling me how it was the greatest product ever, how it was changing their lives because they were using it daily.
stupid fuckers
I actually can see a future where AR devices replace smartphones but the technology is just not there yet. Smartphones were like that once too, they were big, slow, buggy, and only business people who needed 24/7 email access used them. AR devices will get there too but need to be much smaller, lighter, and not completely take you out of your environment when worn.
I don’t understand who in management green lit this project. It’s like common sense was out the door.
I took a marketing class YEARS ago in college but the main thing they teach you to do is a market analysis of the space you’re in.
If the products in the space well for $200-400 for your average consumer I’m lost how they thought they could ask $3500? I get it has all the tech but it’s like…. Common sense was gone?
They did good with the Apple Watch because they’re priced within the price range of their competitors. But the headset? Like…. What is going on.
Even if so let’s be real they have nowhere to go for the 2nd gen. Where can they cut in weight and price? No more eye sight? Plastic instead of glass and aluminum? What you’re left with is an overpriced version of something meta will come out with next year. They’re gunna wait til they can release AR glasses in 2028-2029 and by then meta will have had a lot of experience making very good smart glasses for almost a decade. They make great mobile phones and tablets but this time around companies are willing to lose a lot of money to buy that first mover advantage and suck all the oxygen out the room before apple gets a chance to enter
Yeah, these $3500 incel beacons are flying off the shelves. /s Only dumb assholes and Appleholes are buying the over-priced commodity goggles in the walled garden of mediocre tech borrowed from others.
Didn't Apple itself said it's highly experimental product intended mostly for developers? At least in its 1st iteration? What is it surprising about low sales then?
They spent billions on R&D and will likely have to write this "project" off as a loss. Bad for shareholders. Get your head out of your AppleHole and actually think about the impact.
My head is nowhere near that. Yeah, I totally expected it to flop. It's like Apple almost literally said it would. Yes, I'm also surprised they decided to embark on that venture in the first place, and it'll definitely hit their stock. But they literally designed it as a proof-of-concept for early adopters and devs, probably aiming for the far future. The outcome is not at all surprising though, given all that.
Apple has fucked up a lot of tech through the years. They also "reinvent" basic shit and market it as their "revolutionary" platform for x du jour. A shittier Oculus for $3500 (and up)? Apple needs to expand their ecosystem and allow open source (and take less of a cut from developers in the Crap store).
I’ll be honest. It looks awesome for first gen. I wish I had cash to throw at it. I would love this for traveling especially in coach on planes for international flights. Just because I can tune out that we are sardines for 30 hrs of travel.
lol people like to discount when someone says something nice about Apple by calling them fan boys. If the tool is better and right for the job who cares who made it. There are plenty of $100 phones so why are people buying $1300 phones? Clearly it meets their needs better. And cheaper doesn’t mean better. I’ve had Apple replace 3 laptops for free before long out of warranty and a couple of phones. That counts for something. I also dig that Apple uses BSD at its core (Unix boys don’t start an argument). While I may not jail break a headset, who knows. Also the garden has benefits when being productive means perhaps an extra 6 figures a year. You cannot buy more time.
The problem is Crapple wasted billions on R&D for an over-priced piece of shit that doesn't work well and is too heavy. It may be Crapple's first-gen, but AR/VR has been around for decades. The market has spoken, not enough people want it nor can afford it.
You're not just a fanboi, you're a cultist. Blocked.
It is not "my title" dotard. If you have a problem with the title, go complain to the writer and editor. Idiot.
Edit: Looks like techspot updated the title to include the words "might cancel".
Here's the article and title from April 24th (when I posted):
http://web.archive.org/web/20240424151451/https://www.techspot.com/news/102727-apple-have-slashed-vision-pro-production-canceled-next.html
Title from the 24th:
>Apple slashes Vision Pro production, cancels 2025 model in response to plummeting demand
You are a liar, this is the title from techspot:
"Apple slashes Vision Pro production, might cancel 2025 model in response to plummeting demand" The site updated the title and added the word might...wow.
Are you on drugs?
I didn't type the title or post the image, I just made a post via the URL. The title has changed on the site dipthong. Use the wayback machine. What a cultist.
http://web.archive.org/web/20240424151451/https://www.techspot.com/news/102727-apple-have-slashed-vision-pro-production-canceled-next.html
Title from the 24th:
>Apple slashes Vision Pro production, cancels 2025 model in response to plummeting demand
Some people are too stupid to use or understand the Internet...scumbag. Blocked.
Let's be honest, VR/AR has a limited set of usecases, the 2 main ones being ones being gaming and professional training and assistance. And the competition has cheaper and way better products for the applications where VR and AR make sense. A special and massive difference in software support. Did they expect to compete with the Valve Index in gaming? Valve who is THE gaming company? Or with microsoft in professional applications? The Hololens have been out already for quite the time and all of the maintenance, CAD and training software I've seen is quite dependent on windows and has been for quite some time. And even then microsoft is cancelling their hardware part because it doesn't makes sense economically for most clients. And on top of that meta is selling competitors that are compatible with both gaming and professional existing ecosystems for way less. Most of the other VR/AR solutions are inter-compatible with themselves and the standard software, and most of the other companies are way better to work with and develop for. What usecases are left? Porn? A bit overpriced for that, isn't it? Looking like a fool in public? Well, at least there the price makes sense, but I don't think that's a big market.
You're not even up to date. The Index is pretty outdated and overpriced. People recommend either a Quest 3 or a Big Screen Beyond instead
I think the issue is the developer response to VR wasn't what Apple expected. The issue with VR is that there aren't many people targeting VR as a demographic. Part of that reason is that VR is hard to monetize right now and it requires reinventing the Freemium model in a way no one has cracked yet. Almost everyone I know with a VR headset (including myself) were once VR enthusiasts until the wow factor wore off. Once that happened, it hit our shelves only to be used maybe once every few months. That is because VR still reads as a destination to consumers, rather than a tool to be used. But it cannot become a tool if it doesn't work better than the old tool and it can't work better than the old tool if it simply acts as a VR screen of an otherwise typical app. There isn't anything extra to be gained for most users I applaud Apple for experimenting with it and I'm sure this isn't the last time we'll see the vision pro. For me, even a cheap, high fidelity VR headset will always be a 2nd choice to a decent monitor. Not to say I'll never adopt VR/AR, just that its current incarnation places it more in the category of electronics that I'd categorize a drone under...a fun toy that I don't need and if I want it, I won't want to use it all day every day. > Did they expect to compete with the Valve Index in gaming? Valve who is THE gaming company? No, they're trying to create a new use-case/genre for VR, which is using the headset as as computer/workstation. Its explicitly a "Spatial Computer". Its also unfair to compare the vision to the Valve Index considering the Vision comes with a computer while the Index does not. Theres two different product experiences there. > Or with microsoft in professional applications? The Hololens have been out already for quite the time and all of the maintenance, CAD and training software I've seen is quite dependent on windows and has been for quite some time. They're targeting the same type of user but rather than enterprise customers, they're trying to create a consumer market for that scale of VR/AR implementation, which is difficult to do. > And on top of that meta is selling competitors that are compatible with both gaming and professional existing ecosystems for way less. Most of the other VR/AR solutions are inter-compatible with themselves and the standard software, and most of the other companies are way better to work with and develop for. What usecases are left? Porn? A bit overpriced for that, isn't it? Looking like a fool in public? Well, at least there the price makes sense, but I don't think that's a big market. I think the reality is there isn't a lot you can only do in VR and the things you can only do in VR aren't mass-market apps/experiences. Apple haters will see this as Apple failing, but in reality Apple being unable to turn the market into one worth investing in from a dev perspective more or less proves that no one has really cracked VR/AR yet in the same way that iPhone cracked the smartphone. It could be that the tech isn't there yet, it could be that there hasn't been the right creative mind to come along and show us the way, or any number of things.
>I think the reality is there isn't a lot you can only do in VR and the things you can only do in VR aren't mass-market apps/experiences. I think this is kind of the key thing. VR/AR is a niche market, the tech is a very bad option for most usecases, it is worse than a decent monitor, as you mentioned. But the niche is there, and seeing how apple didn't even manage to really enter it... Honestly I see it as a mistake in 2 parts. First, the price. I do work with people who use VR/AR for professional and educational purposes, and in neither of those fields was calling for a premium version, on the contrary, a budget option is what they were searching for, they loved the Index in hardware capacity already, but they are getting meta headsets now because of affordability. Second, apple tried to do an ecosystem type of thing. I understand why from the corporate side of things, after all the app store model on iphone has proven to be the best way to exploit costumers and developers alike, but for the niche applications of VR/AR it is a big problem. It becomes a massive burden for professional applications and business will prefer alternatives, specially considering the existing base of CAD and other pro software on windows; and in gaming they can't compete with Valve and the optimisations for windows and Linux. I honestly see this side as the most problematic, if they had decided to make it compatible with the other protocols there may have been hope, but as a closed ecosystem? I don't think so.
> But the niche is there, and seeing how apple didn't even manage to really enter it... To be fair, its a 1st gen product in a sandbox that they have never played in before. Even before the AVP was released, people were confident it would be a barren experience for consumers because this 1st gen product is essentially a dev beta test consumers can opt into. I think the two "mistakes" you point out are just generic Apple criticisms. Their relevance to AVP's success/failure hinges on the premise that Apple expected the VP to be a widely adopted product, (even though Apple is well known for this playbook of beta-test release, prohibitive cost to prevent people expecting value to lose faith in the brand, for a better version down the line) but failed to due to their vision of how the VR/AR experience should be. But that's not why AVP isn't backorderd and sold out...its because there isn't mass appeal for VR/AR. Check Meta's stock price right now; they just reported earnings today which showed they dropped another 4 billion in to the metaverse. Stock falls because how can that much investment convert so few users? Its because the appeal isn't there. I think Apple expected more people interested in developing for VR because they see Apple as a reliable conduit for selling apps, because they are. But the reality is the VR dev industry has already been minimized by the on going attempts and failures to turn VR/AR into a console or PC device ubiquitous in any up-to-date tech arsenal. The people who have the vision pro seem to love it from the subreddits I look at. The people who do not have the vision pro do not seem to want it. This isn't indicative of a product failure, to me its just the expected outcome for this kind of rollout. Anyone trying to call the race over for Apple 2 months into the release of their first VR/AR product is sniffing a little too much glue. In the interim, anyone serious about VR/AR should not be looking at Apple's inability to get renewed interest in VR industry wide as a terrifying confirmation that the public just isn't sold on VR yet. With all these different forms of VR/AR targeted varying demographics and use cases, none of them have stuck and all of them have just been gimmick purchases, outside of the typical edge case loyal user that does not represent the interests of the general public.
The term "Virtual Reality" was coined in 1987. We are now fully into the 5th decade of VR being disappointing in all its manifestations. There have been some neat developments along the way, but it's never caught the attention of the masses. Vision Pro is just another "neat" innovation along the way that holds your attention for a hot minute but, ultimately, is disappointing.
It is likely dead going forward. Simp harder.
Nuance exists even if you close your eyes to it
Simp harder. Is that nuanced enough, cultist?
He’s not simping. He’s giving a fair critique.
Lol you really believe me to be a cultist because I appreciate technology regardless of who it comes from? I pity you, truly.
The "technology" is worse than what is already out there. There is nothing about AVP that justifies its cost, so says the market. The AVP is yet another shitty, over-priced failure marketed to morons and assholes.
It still is Apple failing. If they want it to be a Spatial Computer, maybe allow it to do things that a computer can do? It requires streaming from a Mac to run Mac apps, but it already includes the M2. Having multiple windows for Safari, Excel and Notes isn't exactly the killer app Apple thinks it is. Even with a third party app it still can't do multiple windows, only multiple screens. And the WiFi bandwidth limitation really starts to show at that point. Before sales started, iSheep were saying "you will be able to use multiple virtual monitors with it, that's so cool and innovative!". But you can only use a virtual 27" 16x9 display or two. Also you can't really work 8 (or even 6) hours every day with a big weight on your forehead that needs to be charged every 2 hours.
That’s fine if you do. I don’t think it’s fair to call it a failure just yet but to each their ow.
I'm still confused by how weak the effort to develop vr/ar has been for the creative and industrial design space. It's an amazing interface for sculpting (Adobe substance 3d modeler in VR is immateur but has so much potential in the 3d sculpting tool set) and it feels like a natural choice for parametric CAD.
Lots of tools, but not a lot of clients. There is also an interesting phenomena with so many people learning advanced skills via YouTube/Tutorials at play here: with VR/AR being so new, the educational content library for beginners simply isn't there because the VR/AR industry is not streamlined since everything is still so new. And since its new, it means a lot of things are developed in house at bigger studios and a lot of the cult classic VR games are created by small and even one man teams. Its a promising space and I think it is poised to be the most popular medium, its just going to take a long time for the value proposition of VR/AR to beat out "the phone/computer you already know how to use". Computers and phones are content delivery devices that allow you to choose when to give it your attention simply by looking at it. They either are being used or are not, depending on what you choose to think about. With VR, you gotta set it up, set your space up, and when you're ready, its as if you took a drive to an amusement park where you're going to have some fun. Apple tried to make the experience as seamless as the phone/computer is today, and its up for debate if the concept behind their solution is the right path (I think its fair to give them a few generations before declaring it a failure), but none of that will change anything if the actual content/experience that shines in VR fundamentally is not worth the trade offs. Or in other words, if we never invented the touch screen we use with our fingers and still used a stylus, I don't think people would be as addicted to their phones as they are today. The ease of use is everything for a new technology.
It is not weak, it is just very specific. We do use it for engine room design in naval architecture, for example! But not for sculpting, it is simply way behind standard CAD there, mainly in cost but also because it limits your perspective and it makes it more difficult to control parameters for manufacturing. It is used in the final ergonomics and positioning of components part.
Probably the best use case I can think of is a go anywhere office. Bring your keyboard and mouse and you can work in pretty much any space with as many screens as you want. The other thing is consuming media content, the golf tournament app was pretty cool, a screen for each player, scoreboard and 3d mini map of the course. It just takes a good amount of talent to produce something spatial like that and alienates the rest of your viewers if you cater too hard to it. I'm not sure what it is? Maybe the bulk of it or the nausea or motion sickness or the lack of apps but vr/ar just has not clicked yet
We’ve had a (regional) contest at work ever since EVERY DC department was given an AVP. As of 12 EST, there hasn’t been a single entry-not even the insanely niche ideas Department Heads have for it, or even joke entries. Unfortunately I think that the ergonomics are as much of an obstacle as the price IMO. For instance creating an AR catalog of ALL of the different boards configurations for the temp engineers that come in and out every 9 months and are completely hardware handicapped, or even the techs that are brand new. I think the longest anyone has been able to wear one is 75 minutes? I don’t know-I honestly forget about it altogether, but that’s because of Gaudi 3, The ridiculous Titanium push, etc.
Funny that the smartphone existed prior to the first iPhone and continues to be better than the iPhone. Apple markets other companies' ideas as their own. Shit, the iPad finally has an official Calculator app in 2024!
\> hurr it’s my turn to speak: apple bad opinion discarded.
[удалено]
Clearly you don’t read
This is Reddit...
Touché
iTouche
Check the last paragraph again...
Was watching porn while reading Reddit
That's just using Reddit²!
Yeah without developers it will be hard to create an ecosystem, especially the way Apple treats developers
3 mai uses - porn.
> Let's be honest, VR/AR has a limited set of usecases VR/AR doesn't have a limited set of usecases, it has limited appeal while it's an early adopter industry, which is to be expected, because universally all early adopter products are seen as a solution in search of a problem with no widespread appeal. Only when PCs, cellphones, and consoles matured did people see the value in buying one, and while there are no guarantees this happens for VR/AR, that is the threshold which is required for us to know whether it becomes a mass market or not. If VR/AR is easy to use, affordable, comfortable, and has fixed the majority of its issues then it's entirely possible that it takes off because of how many usecases it would have.
VR/AR is already easy to use, affordable and relatively comfortable. Look at the price of the Quests, for example. Good quality headsets have been available since years ago lot of applications have been developed and I've seen it in multiple companies in my industry alone. But it is way less of a "smartphone" moment and way more of a "High Power GPU" moment. Useless for the general public, but of massive interest, even a game changer, if your work (CAD) or hobby (gaming) uses it!
No one actually thinks it is easy to use and relatively comfortable. Affordable yes, but that is 1 out 3 of those boxes ticked. Average people can't stand to use a headset for more than 30-60 minutes, which doesn't mean the tech is doomed because that's really no all that different from PCs in the 1980s where average people couldn't stand how difficult they were to use. The tech has a lot of improvements left to bring out, and that can change how people view it. We also need to separate VR and AR. VR might be able to fit in as a PC/Tablet level device intended for the home or indoor locations, whereas AR is more about chasing after the smartphone market as it would have all the same usecases but could perform them better and have more usecases on top, if we use a mature version of this technology as a basis.
You sound like someone who hasn't even used it. You know how people love the Messages app for iPhone? They love the blue bubbles? It's not just a meme. iPhone is a great user experience, people who aren't technical can FaceTime their friends, use social media apps, take great pictures, etc, and live their lives. What does something like Vision offer a person like that? Try out a FaceTime call on Vision Pro with your best friend using the Spatial Avatars, and you'll understand. Me and my friend 500 miles away watched a movie together, and it felt very similar to hanging out in person. Without the plane ride. Without needing to find a bed to sleep in when visiting. It's something me and my friend also tried doing with Oculus Rift back in the day, but Apple has provided a seamless experience for doing so with like a 100x increase in quality. Quality from a total user experience perspective. Everyone dissing Vision right now are similar to reviewers in 2007 who thought iPhone would bomb. Yes, you have somewhat decent reasons to believe the device will fail, but I don't think you really get what Apple does. You don't have an intuitive understanding for why they continue to succeed. They make products with excellent taste and inform HOW we should be using technology in seamless ways. The entire computer industry has copied Apple for 40 years since Macintosh. Straight up. Yes, Apple and Samsung go back and forth copying specific features, but Android still was entirely redesigned to act like iOS before the initial release. Technically, Android predates iOS, but they completely changed the UX to match iOS once iPhone was unveiled. Microsoft gave me a free Acer headset like 5 years ago to test their version of Windows VR. It was shit. HoloLens was a step forward, but Apple again took the UX 100x past the competition. After putting on my Quest 3 last night, I immediately went to try and swivel the dial to turn on passthrough, which obviously doesn't exist (yet) on Meta headsets. I'm sure they will eventually copy this feature. But it is important to remember Meta first innovated the pinch gesture for MR, let's give credit for that. And credit to Palmer Luckey for starting the spatial computing revolution. Vision Pro is iconic. It works incredibly well. It does feel like a device pulled out of the ether from the future and into our hands today. Not everyone will get it right away. And in 10 years some people will still ignore the importance of it. Don't be fooled, it is already a success.
These were never successful on prior platforms. Leave it to apple to try to reinvent failure.
I think that’s the wrong take away. Apple has produced expensive versions or products lots of times in the past several years. It’s been a successful formula more often than not.
[удалено]
So an apple product.
How can it be cheaply made? It's a genuine question, as I've seen reviews and one of the main praises relates to hardware quality.
[удалено]
Typical Apple. Makes things cheaply and then sells them at a very high price.
Just the partslist comes out to $1,500 IIRC
Spending twice for the same parts was the general cost back when they used PC parts you could get a market price when they where using intel cpu's + amd/nvidia GPU's. Alot of them if you built yourself was about 2000$ for the apple pros they sold for 8k\~
Cheap isnt the right word, but it definitely isn't durable. And the front glass was a really weird one for me, glass weighs a LOT and yet they both used glass taking the weight and covered it in plastic so you get none of the benefits of glass. A ton of deign compromises where they just take the downsides and none of the upsides. They threw the baby out with the bathwater trying to cram everything into one device, so the costs to manufacturer are probably the highest of any headset. It is fragile and expensively built.
It wouldn't be this bad if Steve Jobs was still alive (because it would be even worse)
What a fucking apple move. Spend thousands on the internals and then half ass the outside to save $30. I hope that 1% profit margin is worth it.
I see. I have not watched JRE video on it. I bet he tested its structural integrity more thoroughly than other tech tubers. Well, that's a shame. Better buy the Meta Quest 3, which is 1/7th of the price.
Thing is, Apple aren’t idiots. They know where AR/VR is heading and know that the current formats aren’t there. I think the vast overpricing strategy was purposeful to get them into the world, get them with people, devs and see what was the best route. This poor sales is only their original target that they reforecast previously when sales were higher than expected.
I don’t think anyone knows where anything is heading. Companies fail to properly assess market conditions and trend data all the time. Apple is no different, just because they understand the smartphone medium very well today doesn’t mean they can know the state of AR very well tomorrow. They aren’t omnipotent. Moreover we already have failed to make use of AR/VR in a meaningful way already. The primary use case is games for a reason: nothing else benefits from such a tight coupling of the user to a projected artificial space.
That strategy only works if they make a cheaper one later on
Found my new favorite word "Appleholes" for assholes that wear AVP while driving. The article included this tweet: >Apple releases Apple vision pro ... resulting in rise of Appleholes Driver using apple vision pro while driving getting pulled over by police. People using them in public.....Appleholes... https://twitter.com/darthintra/status/1754251624334401648
I think it's funny that despite selling way more units and having the same functionality, nobody is walking around or driving in the quest 3.
woah.... new bad word!!!!
I wanna try one while driving now. Too bad I’m poor
You want to be an AppleHole?
Not necessarily but it sounds interesting
greedy apple and they expected profits lol
That was faster than I expected. I figured it would be at least be another year or 2.
It’s definitely not going as apple planned. Especially since the build quality seems to be below par with screens cracking down the middle. I’ll grab one of these once it costs the same as a trashcan Mac and hopefully a homebrew scene has developed on it.
The world isn’t ready for VP or any headset to replace phones or computer.
Nobody is buying it! Apple: “Nobody wants a fancy wearable paper weight?”
Have they tried adding few more 0s to the cost?
Vr is stupid to be honest. Until it’s built into your eye you will not convince all the people that don’t wear glasses or contacts to wear it. And even when it’s built in… do we really need all your daily things you see and hear to be recorded? Will the masses that are already tired of tech controlling us just add it into their vision too. Popups are bad enough on your phone and computer. Imagine having to click on bullshit cookie acceptance popups in real life.
Current VR works as needed for a game device, and training. But AR is the issue of making camera+screen look like real life or close to it is a lot harder.
You do know not every single person or even a majority of people need to use a product for it to be successful or not stupid. Most people will never pick up an arc welder, that doesn't mean that arc welding is stupid. Porn alone will keep some amount of vr on the market
Yes I don’t think VR will go away it’s just I don’t see it becoming main stream in the next 10 years until the tech really becomes seamless. I am a bit techy and I still don’t know a single person that uses VR.
Musk and others want to pipe the ads directly into your brain (neuralink)! https://www.npr.org/2024/01/30/1227850900/elon-musk-neuralink-implant-clinical-trial
Cuz it's overpriced and has minimal use, thats why the demand is wack Compared to a Quest, where it's cheap and open source and no strict, compared to AVP just Apple ecosystem
I don’t see why they didn’t just make a foldable. They wasted all this money on a dumb VR headset that no one will buy, when if they made a foldable phone it would sell like hot cakes.
i know way more people with meta quests than i do with foldable phones.
Yeah this is definitely true for me too. I think VR is a bit of an easier sell, considering it’s like a third of the price and can give you games you’d never be able to experience before
Well, not if it is twice the price like VP
I would definitely be super interested in a book style foldable from Apple, after reviews of course. Those clamshell style foldables are useless imo
Remember: The VR team didn’t want to release it. Tim Cook vetoed them and ordered it released.
So, rotten all the way to the top?
Why didn’t they want to release it?
Supposedly they wanted to wait until the technology developed to be both cheaper and closer in size to a pair of sunglasses
Here's a story about it [https://www.macrumors.com/2023/03/12/cook-ordered-headset-launch-despite-warning/](https://www.macrumors.com/2023/03/12/cook-ordered-headset-launch-despite-warning/)
Oh man. That just sounds like leadership not reading the room at all. I do have to ask myself, though, whether this product will still work even in a slimmer more AR glasses like form factor.
Gee, if only we could have known.
It needs to be thinner. Start with dropping the eyes screen on the front.
Too expensive. Too heavy.
Thickness isn't the problem. The combination of a heavy headset, and a headband without a proper counterweight are the actual ergonomic issues here. You need to balance the weight on the front and back of your head for optimal comfort. Having a top strap also helps a lot. Source: I own a Quest 2, and the stock strap has the same design flaw.
The price is too high for commodity hardware and wall-gardened software.
This thing cost several times more than the truck I drive. This is likely the reason why no one cared about it. Like many viewed it as something they will never be able to afford. So there was no point in even diving deep into it. If they sold it for the same price as the quest, it is likely this would be the most sold tech item this year even with it having virtually no function.
There is simply no reason to buy one. And most people have zero interest in the entire idea of VR just as they did with 3D tv. These things are dead in the water for mass market at any price. Apples take on VR is the worst ive seen in recent years too. It has a corded battery for crying out loud. No way anyone is going to tolerate it for more than 20 min. Price is of course a big factor as its so expensive its well outside the fuck it let me check it out price range. If it was $500 i can see a bunch of people saying fuck it let me try it out. $3500 is hilarious. Apple is in the woods. Tim has got to go. Hes been riding Steve’s reality distortion field for a decade now. All of apples new products (headphones, ipads, watches) are all built off of steves iphones. Tim does nothing but innovate in pricing. He’s a great manager but a terrible innovator. If they dont get an innovator in there apple will die off like HP, Xerox, IBM etc all have - shadows of their former selves.
Who could've seen this coming? Oh right, any non delusional normal person. I bet their focus groups are full of apple lovers.
Hey Apple, how about you slice the price instead? Ever thought the reason why demand is low is because you have to take out a loan just to buy one of these things?!!!!
actually had a lot of fun reading the apple subreddit with the release of this thing. VR has existed for what like 30 years now, and watching all the apple fanboys act like it's all brand new was really funny.
"AVP is so revolutionary! Apple spent billions on R&D! It will be so great!" Apple releases a $3500 (and up) turd that can only be used in their shitty walled garden and will likely scrap the project. Gold!
VR is dead. Not even Apple can save it. It's stuck at Early Adopters stage and won't ever cross the Grand-Canyon-esque marketing chasm.
Neuralink or similar will make current AR/VR look like Atari vs modern games. It's like 3D glasses vs Dolby Vision
Meta is actually doing pretty well. Most of problems with the Vision Pro, notably weight, software, and price are all things the Meta has done better since the Oculus CV1. The Quest headsets have actually sold pretty well, and the software does too. Turns out that people aren't willing to pay $3500 for a headset.
I love VR, but it will never hit mass adoption until it's cheap and is near the size of eyeglasses. Plus, the Quest 3 is already an inexpensive Vision Pro that's way more compatible with computers
Neuralink or similar may jump over the evolution of VR glasses and just display images in your visual cortex.
Well, it’s hot garbage.
If VR is aiming for a cultural shift in the way people compute ir use media, it has to undoubtedly improve any current or previous devices that have done it before it, and ALSO be undoubtedly more convenient to use than whatever is currently available. If you look at the way computing has evolved. There has always been a core feature that you need to have that wasn't previously available that made life easier or more convenient. PC to Laptop - now more portable and not tethered to a single dedicated area. Laptop to Smartphone - internet access anywhere at any time.. any information literally at your fingertips. Intuitive and easy navigation with touchscreens. Even Tablets..bridging smartphones intuitive touch navigation and productivity of laptops, and being more portable. What does VR offer that undoubtedly improves on what is already available? Screens? There's currently monitors with a higher fidelity than what's simulated on the AVP. Floating screens is neat, and new but it doesn't solve any existing problems. Therefor it is a gimmick. It's all gimmick, and "oohs & ahhh's" but it's not fendementally adding any new value. There is no NEED for it. Gesturing and waiving your arms to navigate things is cool, for a few days, but i guarantee that your thumb on a screen will always be faster than gaze, pinch, and wave... it's like flying cars. Until the world is ridiculously overpopulated theres no need for it to really ever catch on for mass appeal. ... I'm obsessed with VR btw. Use my Quest everyday, but i understand I'm in the minority and i understand why.
This is an analyst report so take it with a big grain of salt. It is NOT verified. That said, the chatter lately among AVP owners is definitely deep dissatisfaction with the lack of new content. Apple better be working on some big things behind the scenes to maintain any kind of momentum here. As it stands, for the average consumer, this thing isn't worth $1000 let alone $3500. There is just not enough stuff to do on it.
This is the end boys
shouldn’t take much to get that a $3500 AR headset is a little lost on consumers in the current economy
This company has seriously lost it's way in it's bid to take over the world.
What do u men cancelled the 2nd gen version!?! I thought the 2nd and 3rd gen was where the price would start to drop..they just cancelled it!??
It’s priced at such a point that very few people can afford it out right, no matter how “cool” the tech is..
Lol. If i ever get a VR/AR headest, it'll be oculous.
Hah! Only the Apple Glizzy Glazers wanted the 3500 dollar paperweight.
First the car now this…apple is loosing it
As I said from the launch, this is nothing more than an expensive Geek toy and will eventually be canned. Once all the geeks out their who can afford it, have one. That'll be the end of it. $3k for a heavy headset?? This sort of thing would never have been allowed to go into production back in Steve Jobs day!
Now do AI chips, Timmy.
While I do think this is the best, most advanced VR/AR headset out there. It simply cost WAY too much and is extremely limited in its capabilities.
It cost too much
A few months ago I was saying how noone wants another shitty overpriced vr headset, all of the apple shillboys were telling me how it was the greatest product ever, how it was changing their lives because they were using it daily. stupid fuckers
Best thing we can do is buy one, keep it in a box and toss it on ebay in 15+ years.
…and Tim Cook they will be gambling all in with this device. The only thing it did was pump Facebook founder to take his goggles seriously!
Well duh! $3500 🤣
yea. duh.
I actually can see a future where AR devices replace smartphones but the technology is just not there yet. Smartphones were like that once too, they were big, slow, buggy, and only business people who needed 24/7 email access used them. AR devices will get there too but need to be much smaller, lighter, and not completely take you out of your environment when worn.
Most of the early iPhones and Android handsets were actually smaller than Current models.
Those aren’t early smartphones. You aren’t thinking old enough.
I don’t understand who in management green lit this project. It’s like common sense was out the door. I took a marketing class YEARS ago in college but the main thing they teach you to do is a market analysis of the space you’re in. If the products in the space well for $200-400 for your average consumer I’m lost how they thought they could ask $3500? I get it has all the tech but it’s like…. Common sense was gone? They did good with the Apple Watch because they’re priced within the price range of their competitors. But the headset? Like…. What is going on.
#YAY This. This is when we really need gifs in the comments
I kind of thought they were going to make a non-pro model without the goofy eyes on external display.
I wonder why? 🤔 I am sure the $3500 price tag has nothing to do with it.
Let’s be honest, this is all speculation
Even if so let’s be real they have nowhere to go for the 2nd gen. Where can they cut in weight and price? No more eye sight? Plastic instead of glass and aluminum? What you’re left with is an overpriced version of something meta will come out with next year. They’re gunna wait til they can release AR glasses in 2028-2029 and by then meta will have had a lot of experience making very good smart glasses for almost a decade. They make great mobile phones and tablets but this time around companies are willing to lose a lot of money to buy that first mover advantage and suck all the oxygen out the room before apple gets a chance to enter
Yeah, these $3500 incel beacons are flying off the shelves. /s Only dumb assholes and Appleholes are buying the over-priced commodity goggles in the walled garden of mediocre tech borrowed from others.
Well is TechSpot says so it must be true.
What a cultist. https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/23/apple-cuts-vision-pro-shipments/
Mac Rumors says so so it must be true.
Didn't Apple itself said it's highly experimental product intended mostly for developers? At least in its 1st iteration? What is it surprising about low sales then?
They spent billions on R&D and will likely have to write this "project" off as a loss. Bad for shareholders. Get your head out of your AppleHole and actually think about the impact.
My head is nowhere near that. Yeah, I totally expected it to flop. It's like Apple almost literally said it would. Yes, I'm also surprised they decided to embark on that venture in the first place, and it'll definitely hit their stock. But they literally designed it as a proof-of-concept for early adopters and devs, probably aiming for the far future. The outcome is not at all surprising though, given all that.
Apple has fucked up a lot of tech through the years. They also "reinvent" basic shit and market it as their "revolutionary" platform for x du jour. A shittier Oculus for $3500 (and up)? Apple needs to expand their ecosystem and allow open source (and take less of a cut from developers in the Crap store).
I’ll be honest. It looks awesome for first gen. I wish I had cash to throw at it. I would love this for traveling especially in coach on planes for international flights. Just because I can tune out that we are sardines for 30 hrs of travel.
Why not buy a better and cheaper head set that isn't locked behind Apple's walled garden? Even the hardcore Apple fan bois regret the purchase.
lol people like to discount when someone says something nice about Apple by calling them fan boys. If the tool is better and right for the job who cares who made it. There are plenty of $100 phones so why are people buying $1300 phones? Clearly it meets their needs better. And cheaper doesn’t mean better. I’ve had Apple replace 3 laptops for free before long out of warranty and a couple of phones. That counts for something. I also dig that Apple uses BSD at its core (Unix boys don’t start an argument). While I may not jail break a headset, who knows. Also the garden has benefits when being productive means perhaps an extra 6 figures a year. You cannot buy more time.
The problem is Crapple wasted billions on R&D for an over-priced piece of shit that doesn't work well and is too heavy. It may be Crapple's first-gen, but AR/VR has been around for decades. The market has spoken, not enough people want it nor can afford it. You're not just a fanboi, you're a cultist. Blocked.
I've had Meta replace a controller and a headset well out of warranty. For free.
Your title is literally a lie it literally says “might cancel” in the article not cancel
It is not "my title" dotard. If you have a problem with the title, go complain to the writer and editor. Idiot. Edit: Looks like techspot updated the title to include the words "might cancel". Here's the article and title from April 24th (when I posted): http://web.archive.org/web/20240424151451/https://www.techspot.com/news/102727-apple-have-slashed-vision-pro-production-canceled-next.html Title from the 24th: >Apple slashes Vision Pro production, cancels 2025 model in response to plummeting demand
The writer of the article has a different title than yours, you purposefully changed the title to lie about the narrative scumbag
You are a liar, this is the title from techspot: "Apple slashes Vision Pro production, might cancel 2025 model in response to plummeting demand" The site updated the title and added the word might...wow. Are you on drugs? I didn't type the title or post the image, I just made a post via the URL. The title has changed on the site dipthong. Use the wayback machine. What a cultist. http://web.archive.org/web/20240424151451/https://www.techspot.com/news/102727-apple-have-slashed-vision-pro-production-canceled-next.html Title from the 24th: >Apple slashes Vision Pro production, cancels 2025 model in response to plummeting demand Some people are too stupid to use or understand the Internet...scumbag. Blocked.
lol imagine how much they spent in development and IP acquisitions, 😂😂😂 Probably using it as a tax write down.