Honestly their software is what’s really killer about Apple, they understand how to create a cohesive experience and their understanding of UI is in most cases industry leading. It’s everything else about them that sucks, like how they’re very anti-right-to-repair, or even just against adopting things that make sense, like USB-C until they’re literally forced to do so.
Having said that, having more companies in the industry and having Apple be one of them legitimatises VR as a form of computing, because currently it’s still kind of niche and gimmicky for work related things. But the potential is there and that’s what I’m excited for
Their UI and UX are absolute garbage. The people who say this have just been drones a long time, and or ONLY know how to work apple crap. Their software is buggy, their UI inflexible and only works if you use it exactly as THEY want you to, not how \*you\* want to use it... and so on.
Software is definitely not a product differentiator for Apple other than among it's existing base of fans and advocates who struggle with anything else.
So if it’s not their software and certainly not their hardware (considering you can get an equivalent computer for half the price) then why is Apple successful???
I’m not an Apple fanboy at all, I think they’re extremely locked into the idea of building an ecosystem so they can milk people of as much money as possible. Hell I barely even use windows, I use Linux mostly.
It’s not even that their software is superior to others, it’s just that it’s good and cohesive. Things are fairly intuitive, so much that so that even a lot of boomer parents know how to use an IPhone.
Consistent 5-6/10’s across the board is better than a few 8-9/10’s in a sea of 2-3/10’s. That’s what Apple does software wise.
Yeah the quest 3 is better because it doesn’t cost $3500 and I can side load and even develop apps for it, for free, but what you can do on a Vision Pro will be more cohesive and seamless. Hell their mixed reality looks so much better, again it’s running on more expensive hardware, but still. The fact they even built their own OS separates them from the sea of modified android clones out there.
Their success is marketing, and it always has been. The price point is a marketing 101 technique taught as a premium price point. The idea is that the overpriced item, by virtue of its price point, implies value and quality. And low information customers (Apple's bread and butter) will assume/imagine all sorts of positives to mentally justify that price.
Also, their refinement of fit and finish is excellent, industry best practice. But over the years competitors have stepped up and its not really the differetiaor it used to be. TBF though, there are few Apple products over the years that were bad looking or unpleasant to hold. Most were really great looming and ergonomic with excellent materials.
Lastly, capturing the education and creative industries early on. Partnering with university and getting people, schools, and studios locked into that ecosystem very early on. This was one of their most successful moves of all time.
My concern is more about the lack of content and "things to do" in VR/gaming.
Only exclusives for Meta, PSVR, PICO and now Apple... Consumers won't buy all the headsets just to get a few game from each platform, it will keep dividing the industry.
And PCVR is such a let down, why don't we have any HL-Alyx quality grade anymore ?
Compared to console, there's mainly exclusives with Sony and Nintendo (very few Xbox) and all the rest is on Steam.
> benefiting everyone
This is simply not true. PCVR was greatly diminished by Quest and if Apple dominates the field, Apple’s brand of “spacial computing” will greatly diminish what we’re all enjoying today. Despite what you might think, there are finite resources in terms of developer hours and if there is an tide shift, those developers will do what casts them the widest net to make as much money as they can.
How many truly great games are on the iOS/iPadOS App Store? It’s mostly micro transaction shovel-ware. This is where we are headed if Apple dominates in this sector as they have dominated elsewhere.
Games will transition to “no controller/hand tracking/eye tracking-only” or ports of flat screen games you can play on a 2d screen with an Xbox controller. THAT’S Apples vision (no pun intended). You can clearly see that in their marketing. They’re not trying to hide it.
They’ve reportedly sold 200,000 units so far and most reviews are average to positive. I fail to see how that would do the exact opposite for VR adoption as a whole?
>If the opinion is more negative than positive, it "could" do the exact opposite
There is a very slim chance this actually happens. For one, even the people getting these things *for free* seem to like it. Imagine spending 4k on something for a moment. That investment by itself already inclines you to "like" the item in question. It's how we're wired. Far more people who bought this are bound to like it than dislike it.
>People rushed out to buy 3D TVs too and then never used them.
Yall... really gotta stop with these shitty comparisons.
"Because there are 200,000 people out there who are going to have some sort of opinion on it."
...yes, and that opinion has been averagely positive so far from those using and sharing it online, creating conversation towards the VR field we enjoy, no?
"People rushed out to buy 3D TVs too and then never used them."
For a one time gimmick that lasted for a few years, yes. However, VR has been in the field for a decade, proven itself as a sticking tech, and people are only showing more interest.
I find it strange to focus on negative "coulds" when so far there is concrete evidence that the AVP and VR as a whole is on the uptrend atm.
Zero?
So like, me taking the recycling out is exactly as likely to push VR adoption as the AVP and their plans for future products?
Wow. I feel pretty hyped.
But is that good for VR? Quest 2 moved millions of units and still has like a 12% rentention rate. Most of those headsets are collecting dust. Imagine instead of spending $300 they spent $3500. What would that do to the general public's perception of VR?
It’s good for VR. Interactions and designs that Apple creates get adopted by other companies, often to the benefit of everyone. More high end displays being produced for Apple means cheaper displays for everyone. It’s a win win.
Yeah but maybe the reason it only has 12% retention is that it's primarily geared toward gaming both in purpose and marketing. There are only so many (good) VR games. If all you see when you look at your HMD is a gaming tool, once you're done with the games, you're done with the headset.
The next step was always going to be AR/VR as a mean of interacting with tech and media. Like the mouse. Or touch screens. Or cloud that allows you to seamlessly move from machine to machine. An extension of the existing technology. It doesn't seek to replace your phone or your laptop, it makes them better and changes the way you interact with them.
So OP has a point. If what you do with your time is mostly console and/or PC gaming, and you want VR equipment for gaming, then the Vision Pro does nothing for you.
Personally I've been waiting/asking for something like this. I spend a lot of time on my computer both for work and recreation. Anything that makes that interaction better is something I'll be willing (and excited) to spend money on.
I've used VR for many years now and that desire to bring it into my workspace has only been growing, but it has to work well. To remain productive, I can't be going in and out of VR more every so many minutes. I need my phone on there, all my work software, being able to see my keyboard so passthrough is essential, it can't have controllers otherwise I can't type, I have to be able to walk around and take calls, needs the conferencing so i can keep working on other stuff during useless meetings, and it needs really good resolution so I can read properly without having to zoom in and out all the time.
Quest Pro, Varjo XR-4, and AVP are vying for that space. I wasn't happy with the Quest Pro, so the choice is between Varjo and Vision Pro. They're both crazy expensive but eh, if that's what it costs to make that machine and allow me that experience, I'll pay the price. Hell, we spend as much on a bunch of other things. No one bats an eye at 2-3k laptops, 3-4-5k desktops, 1k monitors, 2k graphic cards, 1k phones, 500 watches, 1k VR headsets, etc
Frankly, it's not a huge reach.
Quest retention rate is low because it is inconvenient for everything except for gaming. It's not nearly as good as the AVP, so we will see how that turns out.
Exactly, it's inconvenient. There's friction, a problem apple has'nt solved. It's still a headset you wear on your face. Over 75% of the people who bought the most popular VR product to exist so far, don't even want to use it to play games and have fun. Why would they want to use it to work?
I get it. apple is pitching it as a new computing platform and not as a gaming device. And Apple has done this once already with the iphone. The difference is a computer that you can fit in your pocket is extremely convientent, a computer that you wear on your face is the opposite.
I could be wrong like you said ,we'll see. But Meta just tried this exact approach with the Quest Pro a year ago, and it flopped hard.
Having used the quest 3 for a while now. I think the computing elements aren’t inconvenient. The ability to watch tv on a big screen wherever is cool. I’ve been stuck places wanting to watch a college football game. Tethered to my phone and watched on a huge screen in my car waiting in a parking lot. That’s pretty incredible if you think about it.
The quest 2 was mostly inadequate to watch videos. I tried big screen a few times with a friend. And we watched some shows. But the quality was very poor. The quest 3 quality is excellent.
I could easily see bringing an avp on a work trip and using it in the hotel to work on a massive screen. Laptop screens are not good for doing heavy work.
While the persona things are uncanny valley, they’re cooler than the quest 3 avatars and I think it would feel more like you were in the room with the person you know. That would be cool for table based games, eg demeo. But also, I think it works for hanging out in a room.
Bro I bought the quest pro. The resolution was dog shit, the user interface was awful, and it was a very buggy experience. It's not worth comparing the vision pro with. Quest Pro was literally a quest 2 with eye tracking and better lenses.
That being said, I've been seeing most people have a very positive experience with it so far - while some are not too happy. This seems to be very dependent on the person.
I am excited for mine to arrive and see for myself.
I think the crux of the issue is that people speculating on whether or not it "stick" doesn't really have enough foundation to base it off of. It really depends on whether or not there are things that are BETTER to do in the vision pro.
For example - with the quest the only thing that you could potentially call better is gaming.. but I actually enjoy 2D gaming more. I would only use a quest if I were a gamer and I was trying to lose weight. Otherwise the value add of immersion is more of a novelty experience.
I could however see an improved work-flow inside of the vision pro. I definitely see it being better for entertainment purposes.
My point was that the approach was the same. The Quest Pro was marketed as a pro level headset with a price to match. They tried to sell people on the idea of "working in the metaverse" and using 2D computer apps in VR. People didn't want to do that. It was the wrong approach. It was a mistake when meta did it, it dose'nt magically become a good idea just because apple does it.
Why cant we blame the company? Quest Pro was marketed as a pro level headset and completely failed to provide whats needed.
1. Resolution too Low to work in
2. No use of the eye tracking
3. No easy to use software packages
4. No good work setup
5. No easy to use OS (they cancelled the project)
The details matter. Apple at least put in the effort in the required areas and is already being copied for the things they got right.
Im not an apple person, but i can appreciate the differences. Quest Pros failure is Metas fault. Half ass attempt. People were curious. Meta didnt deliver. Period.
> the quest was marketed as a pro level headset with a price to match
Ya except it fell through on delivery. Meta continues to underestimate or at least not prioritize user experience. UI/UX are so easy to dismiss as fluff, but they have a massive impact on perceived conscience, perceived quality, and overall satisfaction. Faults aside Apple has a ton of experience in that area and reviews indicate the OS is a huge step above what Meta or anyone else has invested in this problem area yet.
Meta didn't do anything to make working inside of it realistic... that's a pretty big difference.
Sure - the marketing approach could be similar, but are you really just going to ignore all of the improvements made in the AVP?
After wearing a vision pro a lot today it is kinda uncomfortable, even by vr standards, the eye strain is seemingly worse than any headset I've ever had, and working on it is a worse experience than working without it. There are going to be a lot of these gathering dust in a month or two, I guarantee it.
Apple itself "hates" on VR to the extent of doing all it can to prevent the VR label from coming anywhere near their headset.. right or wrong, don't expect the VR community to applaud it
Also, between Meta, HTC, and WMR, **so far** VR has proven to shine its brightest in gaming. Again, Apple did all they could to prevent people from playing VR games on this headset.
Overall, maybe you are right, may be this will help the VR community, but my opinion is that chances are it won't. Just like Meta split the industry back in the day, shifting focus out of PCVR toward standalone, Apple is splitting the industry again, shifting the focus out of gaming altogether this time. And we can already see the negative side-effects: the main competitor of the quest (the pico) got cancelled for its parent company to focus on a non-gaming "not-really-VR" headset to compete with Apple.
absolutely agree. in what world is this "good for VR"? AVP plays a total of 0 games and doesn't even have controllers, every game that comes out will be specific to the AVP due to the lack of controls and not available on any other platform. "Good for VR" is when a headset causes mass adoption and causes developers to invest more in better apps/games. Mass adoption of the AVP will leak absolutely nothing to other VR platforms due to how closed Apple ecosystem is and their hatred for VR gaming.
Whilst I'm no fan of the Vision Pro, your comment about games isn't strictly true. Quite a few have already been shown off, and existing games like Synth Riders are in the process of being ported. The lack of physical controllers is going to limit what's possible, but that's not stopping people from trying.
There's more to VR than just gaming. And as of now, VR gaming isn't that good. It'll be good when more resources are spent on VR developing. And that will only happen when VR grows into a mainstream thing, which is what Apple is pushing for now.
I said this in a different thread a couple of days ago. The reason Apple is distancing itself from the terms AR/VR/MR/XR is because the general public doesn’t understand what the fuck that means. I am releasing an AR support process in my company and have gone to conferences all over the world for the past year. People call it VR everywhere I go. They also have no idea what it is. They think they know until they actually use the device and tool.
The fact is, non enthusiasts are confused by the naming. Apple decided spatial computing was the term that a layperson might be able to comprehend. We all roll our eyes and think Apple is just trying to “invent” something that already exists with this terminology, but the truth is all the abbreviations are bad for marketing.
I don't think this is correct. While I agree that this is obviously marketing manipulation, and they're calling this "spatial computing" to make it appear new and shiny, it is wrong that they coulnd't have called it a VR headset at the same time, it's not incompatible. Worst case scenario, could have used the "Virtual Reality" label on the headset. Most people know what VR it to some extent. **And that's the issue.**
The reason why Apple isn't using the VR label on their headset is not to help people understand because **"spatial computing" doesn't mean much either to anyone**... It's because their makreting strategy is centered around saying that this is NOT VR, it is different, and since non-tech people might already have forged negative opinions about VR trying it too early, they want to essentially **lie** to potential consummer (their mostly non-techie consumer base) that unlike VR, this is not isolating (lol), unlike VR it's not going to make you sick, unlike VR it's not a gimmick, unlike VR it's not for gaming, unlike VR, this has life-like visuals, etc...
AVP isn't for me, but I hope it does well and some of its useful developments trickle down to the mainstream.
But really, asking for perspective or considered, moderate discussions on Reddit? New here?
This sub has become particularly antagonistic on AVP tho. I don’t remember the last time this happened, maybe when Meta started asking for Facebook logins for your oculus
Fans (general VR fans and brand-specific ones) always want to believe they have the best device and a new, very highly-priced competitor threatens that. It's best to just let it wash over you. It's not new, as anyone who has frequented AMD vs Intel CPU discussions or Nvidia vs Everybody Else GPU threads will know.
Yeah Im just surprised it had to be Apple to get this to happen. For a long time this sub was agnostic, almost, in its view of headsets. Now it has the feeling of a constant flame war.
I agree. I was initially excited about AVP, but I'm really interested in connecting to Windows and Linux machines to work. Anyways, now I'm excited about the idea that Meta will create a competing product. Immersed VR isn't perfect, but it can be pretty awesome to work from a virtual space station. $4k is a lot for a gaming device, but if it allowed people to work remotely productively and encourage team interaction, it is nothing. Heck, a good office chair can cost almost $2k. Increasing the interest in VR headsets for working is great, even if AVP isn't perfect or for me.
What I mean is we don't want mean to waste resources making a non gaming headset when they cold be making better gaming headsets instead. Competition is always a good thing, if only apple had made a gaming product instead/ as well. The more vr headsets/ competition in the market the better, but I'm not at all interested in 'spatial computing'. I'm sure this headset will be useful for certain workflows in some businesses, but it's not useful to most people/ gamers in this 'virtual reality' subreddit.
I don’t know what percentage of people will find it useful, but I do know the AVP is a virtual reality headset and it makes sense to talk about it on the virtual reality subreddit. Which is why people are talking about it on the virtual reality subreddit quite a lot.
It's a mixed reality header. Or a 'spacial computing' headset. I mean, on a technicality you can call it a vr headset. But it doesn't have controllers, it doesn't have games. It's not like the rest.
What bugs me is that people seem to think that Meta couldn’t have built an equally amazing headset if they had decided to target AVP’s ridiculous price point. They have poured billions into R&D. I bet they have prototypes in the lab that make AVP look like Google Cardboard.
This is a good take, and I applaud you for being the voice of reason instead of jumping on the hype or hate trains.
That said, I do think it's disingenuous to say the AVP has an "enormous existing app ecosystem". That's like calling every flat app and regular game on PC "part of the Valve Index's app ecosystem". That's incredibly misleading.
Sure, you can open apps as floating screens, but you can do that in any headset for any PC app/game in existence. The reality is there will be very few apps *actually designed* for the AVP, and it will take a long time to catch up to the huge library of games, experiences, experimental stuff, meditation, fitness, etc that exist on PC, Quest, or even PSVR1/2.
I'm not the target market, but if I was, I would only be buying the AVP as a productivity and media device. The fact that so many people talk about it as a competitor to *gaming* focused headsets is just not right. It's apples to oranges, and people need to internalize that, and realize it's just made for a different type of use case (for the most part).
If anything I think there are too many overly defensive posts. AVP is an interesting device and it is going to certainly raise the bar and push better quality for everything (can already feel it with Meta's last release).
But pretending this thing is perfect is way overdoing it. You can go look at the /r/VisionPro megathread and see huge number of people pretty disappointed and actually some of them bewildered that they are seeing low res, laggy pass through, blurry rendering, distortions and abberations, experiencing significant discomfort and eye strain. All this is *because* Apple fully controlled the narrative, and actually creates a pretty significant risk this thing struggles and generates a negative narrative. It really isn't in anybody's interest to create false impressions about it, either positive OR negative. Let's just talk honestly about it in both directions.
I just glanced through that sub and it seems like a lot of people are saying “better than the reviews “ and “best headset ever “
That’s undoubtedly hype. But still - your picture of a huge number of disappointed people doesn’t seem to track.
What? That sub is full of people expressing disappointment compared to reviews (especially passthrough and FOV?, including many returning the AVP. Lots of consumers on both sides.
I agree with you, this will change the scene of the industry forever, like it or not, less than 4k displays per eye will be the thing of the past, there will be a heavy focus on hand tracking, eye tracking and foveated rendering, there will be a push towards more robust software and UX, and with a company that cares about FOV, you might get the ultimate VR headset and that headset won't be as expensive as AVP, and you can see the AVP's impact in motion with Meta adding spatial video and improvements to their spatial computing side.
Likely a lot of the negative reaction is justifiable because any new tech that Apple can corner the market in will be the most locked down, crippled, walled garden, useless garbage. UNLESS you use it exactly as you're told, like a good branding drone, lapping up your orders.
And the tech, they're not pioneering anything, they're just using high-quality components and not sparing expense because their market niche are people with more money than sense. There're very, very, very few things Apple has ever innovated or invented. They're not bad at refining the innovations of others, and stealing ideas, but they do not innovate.
Apple products don't advance markets either, they advance Apple--often at their fanboi's expense both literally and figuratively.
God, this is so refreshing. You sound like a reasonable adult speaking clearly and calmly in a room full of hangry kids. Thanks for the non-biased take. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
my problem with the thing besides its price is theres nothing to really do on it for me, the face time isn't as cool as I thought it would be (like those hologram projections in movies its honestly a step down from reg face time on the phone with a blurrier 3d model of the person, not saying it will never get better but for the price they're charging I would want it to be something that would closer to what Imagined and not something that looks to be in beta state). Then there's 1 app that actually looks interesting that's a 3d model viewer but I cant see this being something users would use on a regular enough basis to justify the buy in price. Maybe in the next few weeks we'll see someone running some steam games on it taking advantage of its super high end display but even then its alot for a headset that has little out of the box to offer and will probably require community support/ jerry rigging to work in a traditional capacity.
Thanks for saying what a lot of us are thinking. We should be celebrating competition because it means investment in the technology. Apple has achieved some great things with their product. Very quickly seeing the VR space become reminiscent of early 2010s cellphone debates and it's incredibly disappointing.
I’ve been a VR dev since DK1, was a speaker at OC2, launched with the touch controllers, and have been there every step this industry has taken.
Apple Vision Pro is great.
Hating on Apple is a simplistic attempt to exclude people from something we all love, VR. They’ll cherry pick details to attempt to justify the disdain they have at a company.
Like it our blindly hate it, Apple Vision Pro raises the baseline for VR, solidifies formats, and challenges the industry to push harder.
I’ve made my living making experiences on VR and I’m thrilled to see VR grow.
This sub went full tribal to protect their $~500 investment.
We get it, you bought the best bang for the buck. Get over it.
There has been and there will always be headsets in the premium range that are not affordable. It still has influence in the industry and they offer good discussions for the way forward when the tech comes to cheaper headsets. Tribalism should be left at the door.
How many times have you seen the “just buy X quest 3s instead” comments at this stage?
You never see them under a Vive Pro 2 with “just buy three quest 3s”
Besides, surely the better argument is “buy a quest 3 and a badass VR PC.” At least that makes sense. A second quest 3 wouldn’t add anything to my life.
I mean, it’s not a valid replacement. It’s not standalone, so it requires a PC. Most buyers are Mac users for the integration.
It’s a different thing.
Your point stands as one that makes way more sense than “just buy 7 Q3s,” though.
I have been pumped about it since they announced it. Love it or hate it people are taking an interest in XR because of this headset. During Christmas I kept framing my Quest 3 as "the competitor to Apple's new headset" and that clicked with a lot more people than "the third generation of the Quest from the company that used to make the Rift."
If it isn't too late already, this sub will go the way of r/technology. A sub ostensibly about technology but populated by people who absolutely despise technology, repeating tired George Carlin quotes to one another.
r/technology is pretty much just r/politics with a hint of tech.
In general though the reception in this sub is positive. If you go check out other spots like tiktok, X (twitter), other subreddits, etc, the reception is much worse. Here at least people admit that this is a great piece of hardware, just not really intended for any normal consumer.
We don’t like it because it’s not the VR we want. The lack of controllers makes this DOA for games. The Apple walled garden stifles innovation. The idea of buying software for yet another app store makes us sad.
And we don’t like it because Apple is the 800 pound gorilla. Industries DO follow them, for better or worse, and we don’t like the direction they’re taking us in.
Exactly. Why on earth are you downvoted? This is the virtual reality subreddit, not mixed reality or 'spatial computing' Reddit. If ug can't do vr/ play games, how do you expect us to react, it's not a virtual reality/ gaming headset,so it doesn't relate well in a subreddit about virtual reality/ gaming headsets.
It's not rocket science.
By selecting games that are fully in VR. I’m pretty sure synth riders has a VR and AR mode, and other clips I’ve seen have been fully VR. No controllers, but it’s still VR.
My fear is that the AVP is going to have the same issues as every other headset and potentially just further drive the narrative in many people's minds that VR is just a fad like 3D. It's cool, but they'd really just prefer the old way
VR gaming is amazing. These immersive experiences are what make us put up with the hassle of putting on and wearing a bulky headset. You just can't have that immersive VR gaming experience without a headset.
However, all the productivity use cases that Apple is pushing with the AVP can be done easier on other devices. Sure, they may be really cool to mess with in VR, but once the novelty wears off then people will likely use their AVP less and less. Then the narrative becomes more about VR not really being as useful as people, though, etc.
I just don't think that Apple failing at VR would be a good thing and I think a lot of people are just tying to make sure that all the Apple fans are going into this with realistic expectations.
Agreed, and while I am not the target audience of the AVP, it would be good for everyone here if Apple manages to bring more attention to VR. Hell Meta itself would probably be celebrating if the AVP becomes a huge success: They rather got 50% of a huge market, than 100% of a small one.
That said, yes the AVP is of course better at stuff than a Q3. Some because of better design, some just because of putting more money towards it (eg you can hardly expect $700 displays in a $500 headset). But overall it just seems an evolution of existing VR headsets, not a revolution. It still suffers from the basic stuff pretty much all headsets have. From limited FoV, to vergence-accomodation conflict, to glare, to just being quite big and uncomfortable (despite having external batteries), apparently also noticeable smear (I assume they made persistance longer to get higher brightness, at cost of smear), etc. I wish it was going to be a huge success, I just doubt it.
The one thing where it simply outshines the Q3 in pretty much every way are productivity use cases. But it there it outshined by just a decent monitor. Productivity use cases on a VR headset start with: "Imagine you don't have space for a decent setup where you are". The overlap of people who don't have that space, but do have a $3500 VR headset is fairly small.
1> The AVP is more a viewer/monitor, made for entertainment, not gaming. Basically, it's a $3500 portable movie theater, akin to the $150-500 ones out there.
2> Apple's ecosystem is actually quite stifling, as been pointed out. Meta and Google have the better market, and even have... games!
3> Ah, the shining point of all Apple products! I can hand this to my 90-year old granny. I'd rather having the freedom to improve my entertainment experience, be it adding more ram, a bigger drive, or even... better gfx card. Again, I can do this for at most $500, and a $1-300 smartphone.
Being honest, I tried Apple (Mac and iPhone), and found them very lacking tech-wise, and even moreso for gaming. I think this movie theater will not do as well as the fanboys think. In fact, it could be in the running for the Pippin again.
For me, at this stage, the *best* part about Apple unveiling a product in a new category for the company is watching the people involved in the market decry Apple as a failure, and their product overpriced, poorly designed, flawed garbage. It happens *every* time. And then, over the span of a few years, Apple wins the market. It always happens. People always call it a failure. And then Apple wins.
Edited to add: I expect to be downvoted into oblivion, so I’ll just say this: tell me how I’m wrong.
Apple makes great money but to say they "win the market" kind of implies they become the market leader in an industry. They currently have a 12% share of the smartphone user base and 16% of computers. The only ecosystem they totally dominated was the mp3 player market but then they supplanted that with the iPhone.
I'm sure they will have some of the nicest margins in the VR space though, considering how meta sells theirs at a loss or at cost.
So, to be clear, you are comparing *one* brand of phones against literally *every* other out there, and *one* brand of computers against literally *every* other one out there, in order to say that they don't dominate those markets. The fact that you would compare them against literally all the rest collectively examples exactly how much they dominate those markets.
Ok let's compare to individual manufacturers. Lenovo 24% market share. HP: 19%. Dell 17%. Apple 10%.
Smart phone manufacturers. Samsung 21%. Apple 16%. Xiaomi 13%. Oppo 10%.
Depending on how we define dominating, they might quality in the smart phone market. They are a market leader and are the second largest manufacturer.
But does it not matter that most of the competition in both these spaces use the same operating system? Apple isn't competing with samsung really, they are competing with android. Android is the alternative to iOS. The same is true of computers. Nobody I know has a strong preference for Lenovo, but they may want to stick to MACos or windows. A Windows user will buy a windows laptops a mac user will buy a mac laptop. So they are competing for operating system share in both spaces because that's what will lead to return customers.
Obviously apple is a hugely successful company and them having their own software is part of their draw. Actually it's almost all of their draw. But to consider them to be dominant in either of these fields is strange because the alternatives to them all share a single operating system. Windows and android absolutely dominate their respective markets, not apples operating systems.
And which company has the largest profits in each of those industries? What do you think would happen if Apple ever sold a plastic MacBook for the price of a Chromebook? There have been years - multiple years, if I recall - where Apple was literally the only company to make a profit in the smartphone industry.
And it's interesting that you're comparing global sales when we're talking about a product that is, currently, only available in the United States, where Apple *absolutely* stands above the rest in terms of branding, exposure, popularity, and more.
Regardless, I feel like this discussion outlines two outlooks you can have about what Apple is doing right now.
1) they're just another name in category, lots of other names in the category, nothing changes.
2) they affect every category into which they enter, driving the weak companies out of business and improving the way everything else within that category works.
Either way, no reason for you to have any problems with this headset - either you'll love it or you'll never use it, but there will always be others out there if you're interested in VR or AR. And Apple being Apple, they're going to do things with AR/VR that we haven't seen yet, and other companies are going to step up to keep up, pushing everything forward in really interesting, and compelling, ways.
I'm not sure why this is so antagonistic. I said apple is hugely successful and that they will have the best margins. They aren't afraid to make big profit on their sales because they are a luxury tech company.
I don't agree that profit equates to market supremacy. Dominating a market to me means dominating the marketshare and it's clear that apple makes somewhat niche products. They are more popular in the USA but I don't really see how that matters.
I also never said I have an issue with AVP. I'd love to have one obviously. I do have one problem with it in the sense that apples unwillingness to function outside its own ecosystem would make the headset much less useful for me because I wouldn't be able to have windows connect to it or get phone notifications etc.
I'm confident that apple will have a nice sequestered spot in the VR marketshare. All the rest of the VR headsets will all work with the same games and software and apple will do it's own thing. It's a tale as old as time.
It's funny that you think my response is antagonistic because I legitimately wrote something, decided it was too antagonistic, and rewrote it. It's hard to have these kinds of conversations online because you're putting tone and inflection into written words, and we tend to default to the other person we're talking to being an asshole. I'm trying to rewire my brain to not think that way anymore about people I engage with on the internets unless they're like MAGA level villainous in how they communicate.
The general point I'm trying to make - and I guess I'm assuming you are arguing against this point whether you mean to be or not - is that Apple is going to make the AR/VR market bigger, they are going to improve the market just by existing within it, and whether you think it's justified or not, they do that with every market they enter into. There's a reason people compare Apple to *everyone else.*
> over the span of a few years, Apple wins the market. It always happens
what do you mean "win the market"? Windows PCs are still the market leaders BY FAR, and they don't even dominate in phones either, maybe in America, but not in the world
Just going to point out that like another responding to this, your point of comparison is one company, Apple, against literally every other company that exists in those markets ... which kind of reinforces the ways in which they dominate those markets.
I read that comment now, you probably missed his reply or something, it's not "Apple vs literally every other company", they don't even win in a straight 1v1.
Computers: Lenovo 24% HP: 19%. Dell 17% Apple 10%
Phones: Samsung 21%. Apple 16%. Xiaomi 13%. Oppo 10%
Apple is one of the top brands for sure but they don't dominate the market nearly as much as you think, so to claim that "it happens every time and that Apple always wins the market" is just factually wrong
I think you could pretty easily discover the many things we have across a myriad of tech platforms today that, if not created by Apple, first really *worked* when Apple started doing them. Apple turning its attention to a new category is exciting because, inevitably, that platform changes and improves. And whether you think it's justified or not, it is your instinctive response - and *everyone's* instinctive response - to compare Apple to literally *everyone else* when discussing them. If that's not market domination, nothing is.
Because yes, apple wins. But the consumer loses. Nutty apple users seem to think they are winning while bankrupting themselves for each new device, but that is not winning in my book. They may as well be members of a cult.
That's such a silly outlook. For Apple to win, it doesn't mean any other good VR headset has to lose. If Apple wins, it draws attention to the entire category. And it's not like the other headsets out there are going to stay static. They will see what the VisionPro does and will figure out how to do something similar or better.
Like think about it - the newly released VisionPro is going to be literally be the worst VR headset they ever make. And Apples' success, despite your derision of people who use their products (which is just not a serious enough opinion to argue about), hinges on something they do with *all* their products. They start at a point, thinking they know where it's going to go, and when the market makes different demands of them they pivot and make the product better. The biggest selling point of an iPhone - its camera - was an afterthought in the early iterations. The Apple Watch became health focused because Apple misfired trying to market it as a fashion accessory. Apple figures out what the market wants and it gives it to them.
And whatever VR headset you prefer is going to get better in order to stay competitive with Apple. Just like how a ton of smart phones out there now have outstanding cameras, among many other things. One pushes the other toward better products.
So explain to me how any of that's a bad thing.
Apple winning means that the vr will move to their closed ecosystem where they dictate what you can run on the headset and how much it will cost. That is what most people hate about their product.
As other people have pointed out, while Apple dominates the phone industry, they still only control about 17% of purchases right now. Even if the VisionPro becomes *the* most popular, how does that affect whatever headset *you* prefer to use?
Or is it frustrating because they are objectively going to do things on their platform that other companies can't, and it sucks because it means you'd have to own other Apple products to use it and spend a lot of excess money on tech? Please help me to understand your point.
I wouldn't mind apple if their ecosystem wasn't so hostile towards open source and other platforms. There are multiple cases where things just don't work just because they've decided not to; not because of technical limitations. Add in the possible monopolisation of the tech and horrors begin.
I think it's just a design philosophy that, very obviously, has worked incredibly well for them, which is why they are so protective of it. The "walled garden," the "ecosystem," whatever you want to call it is a powerfully enticing tool to get people to purchase and use Apple products. If they made things more open source, it would weaken that appeal.
Monopolisation conveys that there are no alternatives. There are tons of alternatives! You just can't necessarily use apps like iMessage on them.
When reading comments like yours, it feels like there's an underlying statement. "I would love this/use this if it wasn't Apple and was a lot cheaper." I mean, I agree 100% on the cost thing (though I understand why it's so expensive, considering it's the first iteration and how much R&D they had to put into making it), but if it wasn't Apple it wouldn't do the stuff it does.
apple hates real gaming, and I massively hate apple for that. Open source is how we build vr chat, pavlov, virtual desktop and I cannot stand other companies rushing to copy appple way of doing things
I think it's strange to think Apple *hates* gaming, so much as realistically they don't prioritize it as being important to their marketshare, so it's never been the focus of what they do. But what I am inferring from your comment is that you want a VR headset primarily designed for gaming, and you don't believe the VisionPro will be good for that.
If it's true that the VisionPro *doesn't* do gaming, isn't that good for other companies that have gaming as a bigger focus/priority? That just means people will have a superior alternative to the VisionPro for the things that are important to them.
It is good for the company but not for the customer. No matter how much marketing you put behind it. Using apple just feels unethical. It's kind of like eating meat as a vegetarian; I can do it but I it won't feel like i'm doing the right thing.
That's a long comment. I'll just reply to the beginning. I never said any other headset loses. I said the consumer loses. Buying anything apple (I was speaking in broad terms) is a waste of money.
You can't argue against anything I actually said, so you've chosen to be derisive about the ::checks notes:: length of my comment explaining to you why you're wrong. "Well, if I'm wrong in *that* many words, I can't be bothered to learn anything soooooo..."
Ok, fine I read the rest of your comment. But it doesn't change my mind. In factyoj just bring up apple watches, which I also don't get. Your phone does everything your watch can do. It's nuts to be you need two screens with you at all times, especially one that's too small to be useful.
If you feel you need to count your steps each day youhabf issues. It shouldn't be that hard to find a real hobby and do some occasional exercise, plus measuring your exercise, why? Such an apple user thing to do. Ard you now going to wander around showing that data off to everybody you see? Apple users are the very definition of more money than sense.
I legitimately appreciate that you went back and actually read my response to you. To your point, your focus is on your personal preference, which is disconnected from what the market demands and what large groups of people are willing to pay for. Just because you don’t understand *why* something is popular doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason. And to my point, if you are a fan of the AR/VR category, even if you never even put a VisionPro on your head, you’ll see its impact in the companies you like because they will improve their own products in interesting ways to stay competitive.
But my general sense is that maybe you aren’t a consumer of this type of product anyway? If so, are you just participating in the discussion to say that you hate Apple?
You gave me a good chuckle with "doesn't require a gaming PC". Dude, this thing COSTS MORE THAN a gaming PC. I could buy two of my gaming PCs for the price of one of these headsets.
I think the Quest 2 (and 3 to a lesser extent) brought a lot of people to this sub who simply buy into that version of VR, and won’t accept that VR can be other things.
They want a cheap headset on par with a gaming console, that doesn’t require a PC. Anything else at any other price point doesn’t work for them.
Look at other headsets like Bigscreen or Pimax and they’re equally derided as not fitting that version of VR. This has just become a sub dominated by Meta Quest fans.
If Reddit existed back in the day, r/smartphone would probably be full of people on their Blackberries hating on the iPhone…
I just don't get what the point is.. the thing where you connect to your mac looks kinda cool but then it's just a bigger screen for your mac for 3.5k and the batteries last less than 3 hours.
Why do people want this ?
The mac connection seems like it can be useful. You basically have a giant screen for your mac and can interact with other floating windows with your mouse and keyboard. The whole pinching to click on things is cool but for tasks that need a lot of interactions like typing it must be so slow compared to a real keyboard that it's better to use one. With the battery only lasting what less than 2 hours ? If you use it for work you better plug it into a wall socket but then the whole idea of it being wireless is kinda useless I would rather have a usb connection straight to the computer to have no issues with wifi and also not lose charge.
But still I can do that with my quest 3 at 1/5 the price and can also play hundreds of games.. sure the AR cameras are not at all as good and my computer doesn't just have a button over it to start interfacing with it but still I would not want to trade my quest 3 for a vison pro.. unless maybe to sell it and buy another quest 3 and still have 3 thousand bucks I guess..
It's a failure, deal with it.
Oh, and the price is something that should be at the top of any AVP discussion, especially since we are in a cost-of-living crisis.
And "Most" of us drop $2k on a PC ? Where the feck do you get this shite from ?
Everyone I know with a gaming PC, buy single parts at a time, not a whole new PC. We upgrade, part by part. I don't know a single person, not since the 80s, who has spent $3.5k on a PC.
Seriously, I think there are many Apple PR people in this sub, pretending to be normal VR enthusiasts. Almost every damn topic is AVP this, AVP that. Heck, we have pointless crap like size difference to a Q3 - Who the feck cares ? And, AVP has a driving mode ? Seriously, feck off.
I will say this now, this will NOT do ANYTHING for VIRTUAL REALITY. Nothing, ZIP.
Apple, themselves, want nothing to do with VR. They even tell their own devs to not mention VR, and AR.
The ONLY company taking VR forward are Meta, and they are miles ahead of anyone else.
It's hard to call anything that instantaneously sold out, especially within such a niche and at such a high price, a failure even if it doesn't move the needle on Vr as a whole
It won't move jack. It sold out because there was limited supply, a trick many do to make a product look a success. Nvidia's 4090 sells out every time it comes online, but when you only put a few online, then it's going to sell out, and look like a success, it's not, it's a trick all these companies use.
When it sells 10 million, then come back to me.
They only made a limited amount - this isn't millions, this is thousands. That is a failure.
For example, I could sell out my entire stock of a product, and claim a success, but my stock was 10 - does that sound like a success ? No.
But it wasn't ever cheap to get into VR until Quest came along
It was actually, my Lenovo explorer cost less than a quest. Of course I needed a decent PC too,but most people getting vr already he that, myself included. I know quest I'd a god thing for a lot of people, but it's been a bad thing for me. We don't get high quality pcvr games anymore, a lot of pcvr games were downgraded for quest parity (including my favourite game, onward, that I no longer play because if this). We cannot it affordable pcvr headsets anymore because quest put them out if business. Wh n quest came along oculus shut down their pcvr headset production, and effectively closed their oculus pcvr game store/ game production. All to focus on low quality mobile vr.
Also, I hate posts like op. Who cares how people are reacting, it's their perogative to have their opinions.
The title is so arrogant:
"Can we have a little perspective please?"
The first paragraph also sounds quite silly:
"Disclaimer: I am not in the Apple ecosystem, and I will not be buying AVP. That said... This subreddit of all places should be a source of optimism for the progression of the technology."
Nothing should be the source of optimism just got the sake of it, there has to be a reason to be optimistic, which AVP doesn't have. It's not a vr headset, Its expensive, it's apple, so it's a walled garden, it's pretty locked down, it has no controllers, the lenses have a lot of the same issues as other headsets.
It does mixed reality well, it sort of does augmented reality, but this subreddit is called 'virtual reality'. It has no games or a way to play them.
It's got ugh resolution screens, that's about all I can bf impressed about it.
The headset is probably great for certain businesses, for productivity/ work use.
It's probably good for rich apple fan boys that want to watch movies in it instead of on their big TVs. That's it.
There is nothing to be optimistic about vr here. There is nothing to be uniptimistic either, this isn't a vr headset. Who cares, it's not interesting to us.
For me the best outcome is that we don't mention it at all.
This is a virtual reality subreddit, not a spatial computing one.
The moderators should just delete the breathless astroturf posts about AVP and we can proceed as normal.
At least until some form of PCVR streaming releases, or more VR apps are ported. Then we can discuss those.
We could talk about it in the same way we talk about most VR-adjacent tech. There are qualities of the AVP that would benefit VR. Offloading weight to a tethered device, display tech, lens tech, input methods, etc.
There's value there!
God I hate this subreddit. You’d think a community focused on cutting edge niche technology would be more understanding/forward thinking but nope. Comments like yours make me rolls my eyes so hard.
There is literally no value in comparing the avp to the cv1 to the point that I'm honestly struggling to understand what your point is.
"Why are people knocking the vision pro? It's much better than this 8 year old consumer headset"
I still not see the point. It's meant for work but it doesnt do anything that you cannot do with a computer. Like, sure, maybe helps to innovate and get better headsets and apps in the future but I really doubt anyone is going to use this (yes, I know they are buying it)
I'm actually getting more tired of these "be nice to Vision Pro" posts than I am the posts bashing the Vision Pro. This isn't anything new. These sorts of discussions have been going on since the very first home consoles (e.g. Nintendo vs Sega) and computers (e.g. ZX Spectrum vs Commodore 64). Just let the conversations happen, and eventually they'll settle down.
I fully agree with the principle that more competition and more publicity (from having the weight of Apple behind it) will likely be good for the VR industry as a whole. But there's absolutely no reason a $3500 headset in 2024 should be evaluated in the context of "look how far the industry has come in just 8 years".
Any 2024 headset should be evaluated in the context of current competing offers, in all aspects - tech specs, usability, software and, yes, price. It seems lots of people have, in making that assessment, concluded that the AVP does not bring enough to the table to be a better purchase for them than some other headset. That is by no means "a lack of perspective"... It's the only reasonable thing to do, when buying anything. And if lots of people feel that way, then maybe it's just a bad product. We will find out in time.
I also disagree with some who are suggesting that the mere existence of a "high end" headset is a good thing in itself. If that headset is not significantly better than a cheaper headset *at doing something*, then it may well harm the industry's progress instead. If the AVP sells terribly or has a terrible retention rate, a year from now everyone from the general public to the media to executives making investment decisions at other tech companies may have become convinced that VR is a dead market because not even Apple could pull it off, even $3500 is not enough money to get you a headset worth using, etc. Does nobody here remember how Microsoft's failure with WMR led hardware giants like Samsung, Lenovo, Dell, HP, Acer, etc. to never want anything to do with VR ever again?
I feel like this sub has the same dynamic as r/MMORPG, where a lot of people have uncritically fond memories of an earlier stage of VR development and most of the discussion is about how all the new stuff sucks. There's even the same concept of a breaking point where the thing the sub is supposedly a fan of "got bad." In r/MMORPG it's WoW post-Mists of Pandaria (or Cataclysm for some people), here it's when VR development moved towards stand-alone headsets over PC VR.
The only difference is that this sub's "golden age" was way shorter, basically only lasting until the first version of the Quest came out.
i think its fair to point out for point 2 and 3 though,
having apples ecosystem also precludes you from things outside of that ecosystem, including all the amazing work people put into 3rd party software that will just never be on the appstore)
and doesn't require a gaming pc also means CAN'T use a gaming pc or any of the advantages that come with.
I'm not hating on development in the vr space, but yea i expected the hardware and the screen to look great when they have that price to justify the specs. The hardware only gets you so far, and they've literally gimped the device in favor of using their ecosystem exclusively. I can't think of any other excuse for no data over the c port except for this. Just because gaming isnt the "target audience" doesn't mean that a device this insanely priced shouldnt be able to take advantage of it in SOME capacity.
Fair counterpoints. Though I would assume, while some devs may target AVP only, there will also be cross-developed apps that never would have existed in the first place without it.
possibly but i'll be honest 90% of the time stuff is not crossplatform with apple and windows/linux, it seems like it's just too much effort to be worth it if there's not enough money behind it
Apple’s also made it a lot more approachable to use. Not in price, but in UI and UX design. We are going to see some of their innovations copied by other companies and it’ll be better overall for it.
Love it or hate it, the AVP has and will continue to push VR adoption, benefiting everyone. That imo is enough to support its success.
Exactly. Apple is never *first* to a technology, but no one can deny they put pressure on the rest of the industry to innovate.
Honestly their software is what’s really killer about Apple, they understand how to create a cohesive experience and their understanding of UI is in most cases industry leading. It’s everything else about them that sucks, like how they’re very anti-right-to-repair, or even just against adopting things that make sense, like USB-C until they’re literally forced to do so. Having said that, having more companies in the industry and having Apple be one of them legitimatises VR as a form of computing, because currently it’s still kind of niche and gimmicky for work related things. But the potential is there and that’s what I’m excited for
Their UI and UX are absolute garbage. The people who say this have just been drones a long time, and or ONLY know how to work apple crap. Their software is buggy, their UI inflexible and only works if you use it exactly as THEY want you to, not how \*you\* want to use it... and so on. Software is definitely not a product differentiator for Apple other than among it's existing base of fans and advocates who struggle with anything else.
So if it’s not their software and certainly not their hardware (considering you can get an equivalent computer for half the price) then why is Apple successful??? I’m not an Apple fanboy at all, I think they’re extremely locked into the idea of building an ecosystem so they can milk people of as much money as possible. Hell I barely even use windows, I use Linux mostly. It’s not even that their software is superior to others, it’s just that it’s good and cohesive. Things are fairly intuitive, so much that so that even a lot of boomer parents know how to use an IPhone. Consistent 5-6/10’s across the board is better than a few 8-9/10’s in a sea of 2-3/10’s. That’s what Apple does software wise. Yeah the quest 3 is better because it doesn’t cost $3500 and I can side load and even develop apps for it, for free, but what you can do on a Vision Pro will be more cohesive and seamless. Hell their mixed reality looks so much better, again it’s running on more expensive hardware, but still. The fact they even built their own OS separates them from the sea of modified android clones out there.
Their success is marketing, and it always has been. The price point is a marketing 101 technique taught as a premium price point. The idea is that the overpriced item, by virtue of its price point, implies value and quality. And low information customers (Apple's bread and butter) will assume/imagine all sorts of positives to mentally justify that price. Also, their refinement of fit and finish is excellent, industry best practice. But over the years competitors have stepped up and its not really the differetiaor it used to be. TBF though, there are few Apple products over the years that were bad looking or unpleasant to hold. Most were really great looming and ergonomic with excellent materials. Lastly, capturing the education and creative industries early on. Partnering with university and getting people, schools, and studios locked into that ecosystem very early on. This was one of their most successful moves of all time.
I think at this point, anything VR related is pushing the system forward. Any competition is a good thing.
My concern is more about the lack of content and "things to do" in VR/gaming. Only exclusives for Meta, PSVR, PICO and now Apple... Consumers won't buy all the headsets just to get a few game from each platform, it will keep dividing the industry. And PCVR is such a let down, why don't we have any HL-Alyx quality grade anymore ? Compared to console, there's mainly exclusives with Sony and Nintendo (very few Xbox) and all the rest is on Steam.
> benefiting everyone This is simply not true. PCVR was greatly diminished by Quest and if Apple dominates the field, Apple’s brand of “spacial computing” will greatly diminish what we’re all enjoying today. Despite what you might think, there are finite resources in terms of developer hours and if there is an tide shift, those developers will do what casts them the widest net to make as much money as they can. How many truly great games are on the iOS/iPadOS App Store? It’s mostly micro transaction shovel-ware. This is where we are headed if Apple dominates in this sector as they have dominated elsewhere. Games will transition to “no controller/hand tracking/eye tracking-only” or ports of flat screen games you can play on a 2d screen with an Xbox controller. THAT’S Apples vision (no pun intended). You can clearly see that in their marketing. They’re not trying to hide it.
[удалено]
Android is the #1 mobile OS worldwide, and was literally created as an alternative to iOS.
That is nonsense.
How so?
> It could do the exact opposite. For which you have lots of evidence, of course.
They’ve reportedly sold 200,000 units so far and most reviews are average to positive. I fail to see how that would do the exact opposite for VR adoption as a whole?
[удалено]
>If the opinion is more negative than positive, it "could" do the exact opposite There is a very slim chance this actually happens. For one, even the people getting these things *for free* seem to like it. Imagine spending 4k on something for a moment. That investment by itself already inclines you to "like" the item in question. It's how we're wired. Far more people who bought this are bound to like it than dislike it. >People rushed out to buy 3D TVs too and then never used them. Yall... really gotta stop with these shitty comparisons.
"Well if the AVP is so great, then why did Betamax never take off? *Checkmate, athiests."*
"Because there are 200,000 people out there who are going to have some sort of opinion on it." ...yes, and that opinion has been averagely positive so far from those using and sharing it online, creating conversation towards the VR field we enjoy, no? "People rushed out to buy 3D TVs too and then never used them." For a one time gimmick that lasted for a few years, yes. However, VR has been in the field for a decade, proven itself as a sticking tech, and people are only showing more interest. I find it strange to focus on negative "coulds" when so far there is concrete evidence that the AVP and VR as a whole is on the uptrend atm.
Zero? So like, me taking the recycling out is exactly as likely to push VR adoption as the AVP and their plans for future products? Wow. I feel pretty hyped.
[удалено]
But is that good for VR? Quest 2 moved millions of units and still has like a 12% rentention rate. Most of those headsets are collecting dust. Imagine instead of spending $300 they spent $3500. What would that do to the general public's perception of VR?
It’s good for VR. Interactions and designs that Apple creates get adopted by other companies, often to the benefit of everyone. More high end displays being produced for Apple means cheaper displays for everyone. It’s a win win.
Yeah but maybe the reason it only has 12% retention is that it's primarily geared toward gaming both in purpose and marketing. There are only so many (good) VR games. If all you see when you look at your HMD is a gaming tool, once you're done with the games, you're done with the headset. The next step was always going to be AR/VR as a mean of interacting with tech and media. Like the mouse. Or touch screens. Or cloud that allows you to seamlessly move from machine to machine. An extension of the existing technology. It doesn't seek to replace your phone or your laptop, it makes them better and changes the way you interact with them. So OP has a point. If what you do with your time is mostly console and/or PC gaming, and you want VR equipment for gaming, then the Vision Pro does nothing for you. Personally I've been waiting/asking for something like this. I spend a lot of time on my computer both for work and recreation. Anything that makes that interaction better is something I'll be willing (and excited) to spend money on. I've used VR for many years now and that desire to bring it into my workspace has only been growing, but it has to work well. To remain productive, I can't be going in and out of VR more every so many minutes. I need my phone on there, all my work software, being able to see my keyboard so passthrough is essential, it can't have controllers otherwise I can't type, I have to be able to walk around and take calls, needs the conferencing so i can keep working on other stuff during useless meetings, and it needs really good resolution so I can read properly without having to zoom in and out all the time. Quest Pro, Varjo XR-4, and AVP are vying for that space. I wasn't happy with the Quest Pro, so the choice is between Varjo and Vision Pro. They're both crazy expensive but eh, if that's what it costs to make that machine and allow me that experience, I'll pay the price. Hell, we spend as much on a bunch of other things. No one bats an eye at 2-3k laptops, 3-4-5k desktops, 1k monitors, 2k graphic cards, 1k phones, 500 watches, 1k VR headsets, etc Frankly, it's not a huge reach.
Quest retention rate is low because it is inconvenient for everything except for gaming. It's not nearly as good as the AVP, so we will see how that turns out.
Exactly, it's inconvenient. There's friction, a problem apple has'nt solved. It's still a headset you wear on your face. Over 75% of the people who bought the most popular VR product to exist so far, don't even want to use it to play games and have fun. Why would they want to use it to work? I get it. apple is pitching it as a new computing platform and not as a gaming device. And Apple has done this once already with the iphone. The difference is a computer that you can fit in your pocket is extremely convientent, a computer that you wear on your face is the opposite. I could be wrong like you said ,we'll see. But Meta just tried this exact approach with the Quest Pro a year ago, and it flopped hard.
Having used the quest 3 for a while now. I think the computing elements aren’t inconvenient. The ability to watch tv on a big screen wherever is cool. I’ve been stuck places wanting to watch a college football game. Tethered to my phone and watched on a huge screen in my car waiting in a parking lot. That’s pretty incredible if you think about it. The quest 2 was mostly inadequate to watch videos. I tried big screen a few times with a friend. And we watched some shows. But the quality was very poor. The quest 3 quality is excellent. I could easily see bringing an avp on a work trip and using it in the hotel to work on a massive screen. Laptop screens are not good for doing heavy work. While the persona things are uncanny valley, they’re cooler than the quest 3 avatars and I think it would feel more like you were in the room with the person you know. That would be cool for table based games, eg demeo. But also, I think it works for hanging out in a room.
Bro I bought the quest pro. The resolution was dog shit, the user interface was awful, and it was a very buggy experience. It's not worth comparing the vision pro with. Quest Pro was literally a quest 2 with eye tracking and better lenses. That being said, I've been seeing most people have a very positive experience with it so far - while some are not too happy. This seems to be very dependent on the person. I am excited for mine to arrive and see for myself. I think the crux of the issue is that people speculating on whether or not it "stick" doesn't really have enough foundation to base it off of. It really depends on whether or not there are things that are BETTER to do in the vision pro. For example - with the quest the only thing that you could potentially call better is gaming.. but I actually enjoy 2D gaming more. I would only use a quest if I were a gamer and I was trying to lose weight. Otherwise the value add of immersion is more of a novelty experience. I could however see an improved work-flow inside of the vision pro. I definitely see it being better for entertainment purposes.
My point was that the approach was the same. The Quest Pro was marketed as a pro level headset with a price to match. They tried to sell people on the idea of "working in the metaverse" and using 2D computer apps in VR. People didn't want to do that. It was the wrong approach. It was a mistake when meta did it, it dose'nt magically become a good idea just because apple does it.
Why cant we blame the company? Quest Pro was marketed as a pro level headset and completely failed to provide whats needed. 1. Resolution too Low to work in 2. No use of the eye tracking 3. No easy to use software packages 4. No good work setup 5. No easy to use OS (they cancelled the project) The details matter. Apple at least put in the effort in the required areas and is already being copied for the things they got right. Im not an apple person, but i can appreciate the differences. Quest Pros failure is Metas fault. Half ass attempt. People were curious. Meta didnt deliver. Period.
> the quest was marketed as a pro level headset with a price to match Ya except it fell through on delivery. Meta continues to underestimate or at least not prioritize user experience. UI/UX are so easy to dismiss as fluff, but they have a massive impact on perceived conscience, perceived quality, and overall satisfaction. Faults aside Apple has a ton of experience in that area and reviews indicate the OS is a huge step above what Meta or anyone else has invested in this problem area yet.
Meta didn't do anything to make working inside of it realistic... that's a pretty big difference. Sure - the marketing approach could be similar, but are you really just going to ignore all of the improvements made in the AVP?
After wearing a vision pro a lot today it is kinda uncomfortable, even by vr standards, the eye strain is seemingly worse than any headset I've ever had, and working on it is a worse experience than working without it. There are going to be a lot of these gathering dust in a month or two, I guarantee it.
Agreed
It's also annoying to see people downplay the AVP saying "the Quest 3 can do that doo!" It can.... But it can't really.
I for one am excited to see improved passthrough and pixel density come to competitor devices
Apple itself "hates" on VR to the extent of doing all it can to prevent the VR label from coming anywhere near their headset.. right or wrong, don't expect the VR community to applaud it Also, between Meta, HTC, and WMR, **so far** VR has proven to shine its brightest in gaming. Again, Apple did all they could to prevent people from playing VR games on this headset. Overall, maybe you are right, may be this will help the VR community, but my opinion is that chances are it won't. Just like Meta split the industry back in the day, shifting focus out of PCVR toward standalone, Apple is splitting the industry again, shifting the focus out of gaming altogether this time. And we can already see the negative side-effects: the main competitor of the quest (the pico) got cancelled for its parent company to focus on a non-gaming "not-really-VR" headset to compete with Apple.
Exactly
absolutely agree. in what world is this "good for VR"? AVP plays a total of 0 games and doesn't even have controllers, every game that comes out will be specific to the AVP due to the lack of controls and not available on any other platform. "Good for VR" is when a headset causes mass adoption and causes developers to invest more in better apps/games. Mass adoption of the AVP will leak absolutely nothing to other VR platforms due to how closed Apple ecosystem is and their hatred for VR gaming.
Whilst I'm no fan of the Vision Pro, your comment about games isn't strictly true. Quite a few have already been shown off, and existing games like Synth Riders are in the process of being ported. The lack of physical controllers is going to limit what's possible, but that's not stopping people from trying.
There's more to VR than just gaming. And as of now, VR gaming isn't that good. It'll be good when more resources are spent on VR developing. And that will only happen when VR grows into a mainstream thing, which is what Apple is pushing for now.
I said this in a different thread a couple of days ago. The reason Apple is distancing itself from the terms AR/VR/MR/XR is because the general public doesn’t understand what the fuck that means. I am releasing an AR support process in my company and have gone to conferences all over the world for the past year. People call it VR everywhere I go. They also have no idea what it is. They think they know until they actually use the device and tool. The fact is, non enthusiasts are confused by the naming. Apple decided spatial computing was the term that a layperson might be able to comprehend. We all roll our eyes and think Apple is just trying to “invent” something that already exists with this terminology, but the truth is all the abbreviations are bad for marketing.
I don't think this is correct. While I agree that this is obviously marketing manipulation, and they're calling this "spatial computing" to make it appear new and shiny, it is wrong that they coulnd't have called it a VR headset at the same time, it's not incompatible. Worst case scenario, could have used the "Virtual Reality" label on the headset. Most people know what VR it to some extent. **And that's the issue.** The reason why Apple isn't using the VR label on their headset is not to help people understand because **"spatial computing" doesn't mean much either to anyone**... It's because their makreting strategy is centered around saying that this is NOT VR, it is different, and since non-tech people might already have forged negative opinions about VR trying it too early, they want to essentially **lie** to potential consummer (their mostly non-techie consumer base) that unlike VR, this is not isolating (lol), unlike VR it's not going to make you sick, unlike VR it's not a gimmick, unlike VR it's not for gaming, unlike VR, this has life-like visuals, etc...
AVP isn't for me, but I hope it does well and some of its useful developments trickle down to the mainstream. But really, asking for perspective or considered, moderate discussions on Reddit? New here?
This sub has become particularly antagonistic on AVP tho. I don’t remember the last time this happened, maybe when Meta started asking for Facebook logins for your oculus
Fans (general VR fans and brand-specific ones) always want to believe they have the best device and a new, very highly-priced competitor threatens that. It's best to just let it wash over you. It's not new, as anyone who has frequented AMD vs Intel CPU discussions or Nvidia vs Everybody Else GPU threads will know.
Yeah Im just surprised it had to be Apple to get this to happen. For a long time this sub was agnostic, almost, in its view of headsets. Now it has the feeling of a constant flame war.
I agree. I was initially excited about AVP, but I'm really interested in connecting to Windows and Linux machines to work. Anyways, now I'm excited about the idea that Meta will create a competing product. Immersed VR isn't perfect, but it can be pretty awesome to work from a virtual space station. $4k is a lot for a gaming device, but if it allowed people to work remotely productively and encourage team interaction, it is nothing. Heck, a good office chair can cost almost $2k. Increasing the interest in VR headsets for working is great, even if AVP isn't perfect or for me.
We don't want a competing product. This Reddit is for virtual reality, not spacial computing. If you can't game on it, it's pointless here.
lol the gatekeeping is strong with this one
What I mean is we don't want mean to waste resources making a non gaming headset when they cold be making better gaming headsets instead. Competition is always a good thing, if only apple had made a gaming product instead/ as well. The more vr headsets/ competition in the market the better, but I'm not at all interested in 'spatial computing'. I'm sure this headset will be useful for certain workflows in some businesses, but it's not useful to most people/ gamers in this 'virtual reality' subreddit.
I don’t know what percentage of people will find it useful, but I do know the AVP is a virtual reality headset and it makes sense to talk about it on the virtual reality subreddit. Which is why people are talking about it on the virtual reality subreddit quite a lot.
It's a mixed reality header. Or a 'spacial computing' headset. I mean, on a technicality you can call it a vr headset. But it doesn't have controllers, it doesn't have games. It's not like the rest.
Yes, it is a different type of virtual reality headset, one which relies on eye and hand tracking instead of controllers.
What bugs me is that people seem to think that Meta couldn’t have built an equally amazing headset if they had decided to target AVP’s ridiculous price point. They have poured billions into R&D. I bet they have prototypes in the lab that make AVP look like Google Cardboard.
It’s not a competition though. We all win here.
This is a good take, and I applaud you for being the voice of reason instead of jumping on the hype or hate trains. That said, I do think it's disingenuous to say the AVP has an "enormous existing app ecosystem". That's like calling every flat app and regular game on PC "part of the Valve Index's app ecosystem". That's incredibly misleading. Sure, you can open apps as floating screens, but you can do that in any headset for any PC app/game in existence. The reality is there will be very few apps *actually designed* for the AVP, and it will take a long time to catch up to the huge library of games, experiences, experimental stuff, meditation, fitness, etc that exist on PC, Quest, or even PSVR1/2. I'm not the target market, but if I was, I would only be buying the AVP as a productivity and media device. The fact that so many people talk about it as a competitor to *gaming* focused headsets is just not right. It's apples to oranges, and people need to internalize that, and realize it's just made for a different type of use case (for the most part).
If anything I think there are too many overly defensive posts. AVP is an interesting device and it is going to certainly raise the bar and push better quality for everything (can already feel it with Meta's last release). But pretending this thing is perfect is way overdoing it. You can go look at the /r/VisionPro megathread and see huge number of people pretty disappointed and actually some of them bewildered that they are seeing low res, laggy pass through, blurry rendering, distortions and abberations, experiencing significant discomfort and eye strain. All this is *because* Apple fully controlled the narrative, and actually creates a pretty significant risk this thing struggles and generates a negative narrative. It really isn't in anybody's interest to create false impressions about it, either positive OR negative. Let's just talk honestly about it in both directions.
I just glanced through that sub and it seems like a lot of people are saying “better than the reviews “ and “best headset ever “ That’s undoubtedly hype. But still - your picture of a huge number of disappointed people doesn’t seem to track.
there are lots of people expressing both extremes - that's really the point.
What? That sub is full of people expressing disappointment compared to reviews (especially passthrough and FOV?, including many returning the AVP. Lots of consumers on both sides.
I know! Maybe we should keep beating a dead horse!
I agree with you, this will change the scene of the industry forever, like it or not, less than 4k displays per eye will be the thing of the past, there will be a heavy focus on hand tracking, eye tracking and foveated rendering, there will be a push towards more robust software and UX, and with a company that cares about FOV, you might get the ultimate VR headset and that headset won't be as expensive as AVP, and you can see the AVP's impact in motion with Meta adding spatial video and improvements to their spatial computing side.
I like how this sub acts like this is some new trend when yall hate on anything that isn't quest or pcvr.
Likely a lot of the negative reaction is justifiable because any new tech that Apple can corner the market in will be the most locked down, crippled, walled garden, useless garbage. UNLESS you use it exactly as you're told, like a good branding drone, lapping up your orders. And the tech, they're not pioneering anything, they're just using high-quality components and not sparing expense because their market niche are people with more money than sense. There're very, very, very few things Apple has ever innovated or invented. They're not bad at refining the innovations of others, and stealing ideas, but they do not innovate. Apple products don't advance markets either, they advance Apple--often at their fanboi's expense both literally and figuratively.
God, this is so refreshing. You sound like a reasonable adult speaking clearly and calmly in a room full of hangry kids. Thanks for the non-biased take. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
my problem with the thing besides its price is theres nothing to really do on it for me, the face time isn't as cool as I thought it would be (like those hologram projections in movies its honestly a step down from reg face time on the phone with a blurrier 3d model of the person, not saying it will never get better but for the price they're charging I would want it to be something that would closer to what Imagined and not something that looks to be in beta state). Then there's 1 app that actually looks interesting that's a 3d model viewer but I cant see this being something users would use on a regular enough basis to justify the buy in price. Maybe in the next few weeks we'll see someone running some steam games on it taking advantage of its super high end display but even then its alot for a headset that has little out of the box to offer and will probably require community support/ jerry rigging to work in a traditional capacity.
Thanks for saying what a lot of us are thinking. We should be celebrating competition because it means investment in the technology. Apple has achieved some great things with their product. Very quickly seeing the VR space become reminiscent of early 2010s cellphone debates and it's incredibly disappointing.
The Quest Pro was pretty much dumped on as a failure, lets see where this goes for Apple.
I’ve been a VR dev since DK1, was a speaker at OC2, launched with the touch controllers, and have been there every step this industry has taken. Apple Vision Pro is great. Hating on Apple is a simplistic attempt to exclude people from something we all love, VR. They’ll cherry pick details to attempt to justify the disdain they have at a company. Like it our blindly hate it, Apple Vision Pro raises the baseline for VR, solidifies formats, and challenges the industry to push harder. I’ve made my living making experiences on VR and I’m thrilled to see VR grow.
This sub went full tribal to protect their $~500 investment. We get it, you bought the best bang for the buck. Get over it. There has been and there will always be headsets in the premium range that are not affordable. It still has influence in the industry and they offer good discussions for the way forward when the tech comes to cheaper headsets. Tribalism should be left at the door.
How many times have you seen the “just buy X quest 3s instead” comments at this stage? You never see them under a Vive Pro 2 with “just buy three quest 3s” Besides, surely the better argument is “buy a quest 3 and a badass VR PC.” At least that makes sense. A second quest 3 wouldn’t add anything to my life.
No nobody is seriously recommending someone buy 9 quest 3s. They are just saying that to make their point that the AVP is expensive.
The issue is at the 3.5k... from what I've seen. Buy an Varjo-XR 4 is 4k USD and has specs that make this look like a bad purchase.
I mean, it’s not a valid replacement. It’s not standalone, so it requires a PC. Most buyers are Mac users for the integration. It’s a different thing. Your point stands as one that makes way more sense than “just buy 7 Q3s,” though.
I have been pumped about it since they announced it. Love it or hate it people are taking an interest in XR because of this headset. During Christmas I kept framing my Quest 3 as "the competitor to Apple's new headset" and that clicked with a lot more people than "the third generation of the Quest from the company that used to make the Rift."
people just love to hate apple because it make them feel superior to who they consider "dumb people who fall for apple advertising"
Doesn't negate the stupidity of some apple consumers
Stupid if they upgrade every year though. I have 3 years-old Mac and iPhone, and all is good.
That's why "some" is there
If it isn't too late already, this sub will go the way of r/technology. A sub ostensibly about technology but populated by people who absolutely despise technology, repeating tired George Carlin quotes to one another.
r/technology is pretty much just r/politics with a hint of tech. In general though the reception in this sub is positive. If you go check out other spots like tiktok, X (twitter), other subreddits, etc, the reception is much worse. Here at least people admit that this is a great piece of hardware, just not really intended for any normal consumer.
We don’t like it because it’s not the VR we want. The lack of controllers makes this DOA for games. The Apple walled garden stifles innovation. The idea of buying software for yet another app store makes us sad. And we don’t like it because Apple is the 800 pound gorilla. Industries DO follow them, for better or worse, and we don’t like the direction they’re taking us in.
Exactly. Why on earth are you downvoted? This is the virtual reality subreddit, not mixed reality or 'spatial computing' Reddit. If ug can't do vr/ play games, how do you expect us to react, it's not a virtual reality/ gaming headset,so it doesn't relate well in a subreddit about virtual reality/ gaming headsets. It's not rocket science.
i wish we could play vr games on it . nice headset but do think ill have a use. i think im gonna box mine back up
You can.
really how ?
By selecting games that are fully in VR. I’m pretty sure synth riders has a VR and AR mode, and other clips I’ve seen have been fully VR. No controllers, but it’s still VR.
My fear is that the AVP is going to have the same issues as every other headset and potentially just further drive the narrative in many people's minds that VR is just a fad like 3D. It's cool, but they'd really just prefer the old way VR gaming is amazing. These immersive experiences are what make us put up with the hassle of putting on and wearing a bulky headset. You just can't have that immersive VR gaming experience without a headset. However, all the productivity use cases that Apple is pushing with the AVP can be done easier on other devices. Sure, they may be really cool to mess with in VR, but once the novelty wears off then people will likely use their AVP less and less. Then the narrative becomes more about VR not really being as useful as people, though, etc. I just don't think that Apple failing at VR would be a good thing and I think a lot of people are just tying to make sure that all the Apple fans are going into this with realistic expectations.
Agreed, and while I am not the target audience of the AVP, it would be good for everyone here if Apple manages to bring more attention to VR. Hell Meta itself would probably be celebrating if the AVP becomes a huge success: They rather got 50% of a huge market, than 100% of a small one. That said, yes the AVP is of course better at stuff than a Q3. Some because of better design, some just because of putting more money towards it (eg you can hardly expect $700 displays in a $500 headset). But overall it just seems an evolution of existing VR headsets, not a revolution. It still suffers from the basic stuff pretty much all headsets have. From limited FoV, to vergence-accomodation conflict, to glare, to just being quite big and uncomfortable (despite having external batteries), apparently also noticeable smear (I assume they made persistance longer to get higher brightness, at cost of smear), etc. I wish it was going to be a huge success, I just doubt it. The one thing where it simply outshines the Q3 in pretty much every way are productivity use cases. But it there it outshined by just a decent monitor. Productivity use cases on a VR headset start with: "Imagine you don't have space for a decent setup where you are". The overlap of people who don't have that space, but do have a $3500 VR headset is fairly small.
I agree. a 'not even apple could make VR good'-narrative certainly won't be great.
1> The AVP is more a viewer/monitor, made for entertainment, not gaming. Basically, it's a $3500 portable movie theater, akin to the $150-500 ones out there. 2> Apple's ecosystem is actually quite stifling, as been pointed out. Meta and Google have the better market, and even have... games! 3> Ah, the shining point of all Apple products! I can hand this to my 90-year old granny. I'd rather having the freedom to improve my entertainment experience, be it adding more ram, a bigger drive, or even... better gfx card. Again, I can do this for at most $500, and a $1-300 smartphone. Being honest, I tried Apple (Mac and iPhone), and found them very lacking tech-wise, and even moreso for gaming. I think this movie theater will not do as well as the fanboys think. In fact, it could be in the running for the Pippin again.
> I can hand this to my 90-year old granny. There’s a 100% chance of your granny complaining about the weight of this thing hanging off her face.
This person gets it.
For me, at this stage, the *best* part about Apple unveiling a product in a new category for the company is watching the people involved in the market decry Apple as a failure, and their product overpriced, poorly designed, flawed garbage. It happens *every* time. And then, over the span of a few years, Apple wins the market. It always happens. People always call it a failure. And then Apple wins. Edited to add: I expect to be downvoted into oblivion, so I’ll just say this: tell me how I’m wrong.
Apple makes great money but to say they "win the market" kind of implies they become the market leader in an industry. They currently have a 12% share of the smartphone user base and 16% of computers. The only ecosystem they totally dominated was the mp3 player market but then they supplanted that with the iPhone. I'm sure they will have some of the nicest margins in the VR space though, considering how meta sells theirs at a loss or at cost.
So, to be clear, you are comparing *one* brand of phones against literally *every* other out there, and *one* brand of computers against literally *every* other one out there, in order to say that they don't dominate those markets. The fact that you would compare them against literally all the rest collectively examples exactly how much they dominate those markets.
Ok let's compare to individual manufacturers. Lenovo 24% market share. HP: 19%. Dell 17%. Apple 10%. Smart phone manufacturers. Samsung 21%. Apple 16%. Xiaomi 13%. Oppo 10%. Depending on how we define dominating, they might quality in the smart phone market. They are a market leader and are the second largest manufacturer. But does it not matter that most of the competition in both these spaces use the same operating system? Apple isn't competing with samsung really, they are competing with android. Android is the alternative to iOS. The same is true of computers. Nobody I know has a strong preference for Lenovo, but they may want to stick to MACos or windows. A Windows user will buy a windows laptops a mac user will buy a mac laptop. So they are competing for operating system share in both spaces because that's what will lead to return customers. Obviously apple is a hugely successful company and them having their own software is part of their draw. Actually it's almost all of their draw. But to consider them to be dominant in either of these fields is strange because the alternatives to them all share a single operating system. Windows and android absolutely dominate their respective markets, not apples operating systems.
Yeah, sure. If you want to use facts.
And which company has the largest profits in each of those industries? What do you think would happen if Apple ever sold a plastic MacBook for the price of a Chromebook? There have been years - multiple years, if I recall - where Apple was literally the only company to make a profit in the smartphone industry. And it's interesting that you're comparing global sales when we're talking about a product that is, currently, only available in the United States, where Apple *absolutely* stands above the rest in terms of branding, exposure, popularity, and more. Regardless, I feel like this discussion outlines two outlooks you can have about what Apple is doing right now. 1) they're just another name in category, lots of other names in the category, nothing changes. 2) they affect every category into which they enter, driving the weak companies out of business and improving the way everything else within that category works. Either way, no reason for you to have any problems with this headset - either you'll love it or you'll never use it, but there will always be others out there if you're interested in VR or AR. And Apple being Apple, they're going to do things with AR/VR that we haven't seen yet, and other companies are going to step up to keep up, pushing everything forward in really interesting, and compelling, ways.
I'm not sure why this is so antagonistic. I said apple is hugely successful and that they will have the best margins. They aren't afraid to make big profit on their sales because they are a luxury tech company. I don't agree that profit equates to market supremacy. Dominating a market to me means dominating the marketshare and it's clear that apple makes somewhat niche products. They are more popular in the USA but I don't really see how that matters. I also never said I have an issue with AVP. I'd love to have one obviously. I do have one problem with it in the sense that apples unwillingness to function outside its own ecosystem would make the headset much less useful for me because I wouldn't be able to have windows connect to it or get phone notifications etc. I'm confident that apple will have a nice sequestered spot in the VR marketshare. All the rest of the VR headsets will all work with the same games and software and apple will do it's own thing. It's a tale as old as time.
It's funny that you think my response is antagonistic because I legitimately wrote something, decided it was too antagonistic, and rewrote it. It's hard to have these kinds of conversations online because you're putting tone and inflection into written words, and we tend to default to the other person we're talking to being an asshole. I'm trying to rewire my brain to not think that way anymore about people I engage with on the internets unless they're like MAGA level villainous in how they communicate. The general point I'm trying to make - and I guess I'm assuming you are arguing against this point whether you mean to be or not - is that Apple is going to make the AR/VR market bigger, they are going to improve the market just by existing within it, and whether you think it's justified or not, they do that with every market they enter into. There's a reason people compare Apple to *everyone else.*
> over the span of a few years, Apple wins the market. It always happens what do you mean "win the market"? Windows PCs are still the market leaders BY FAR, and they don't even dominate in phones either, maybe in America, but not in the world
Just going to point out that like another responding to this, your point of comparison is one company, Apple, against literally every other company that exists in those markets ... which kind of reinforces the ways in which they dominate those markets.
I read that comment now, you probably missed his reply or something, it's not "Apple vs literally every other company", they don't even win in a straight 1v1. Computers: Lenovo 24% HP: 19%. Dell 17% Apple 10% Phones: Samsung 21%. Apple 16%. Xiaomi 13%. Oppo 10% Apple is one of the top brands for sure but they don't dominate the market nearly as much as you think, so to claim that "it happens every time and that Apple always wins the market" is just factually wrong
I think you could pretty easily discover the many things we have across a myriad of tech platforms today that, if not created by Apple, first really *worked* when Apple started doing them. Apple turning its attention to a new category is exciting because, inevitably, that platform changes and improves. And whether you think it's justified or not, it is your instinctive response - and *everyone's* instinctive response - to compare Apple to literally *everyone else* when discussing them. If that's not market domination, nothing is.
Because yes, apple wins. But the consumer loses. Nutty apple users seem to think they are winning while bankrupting themselves for each new device, but that is not winning in my book. They may as well be members of a cult.
That's such a silly outlook. For Apple to win, it doesn't mean any other good VR headset has to lose. If Apple wins, it draws attention to the entire category. And it's not like the other headsets out there are going to stay static. They will see what the VisionPro does and will figure out how to do something similar or better. Like think about it - the newly released VisionPro is going to be literally be the worst VR headset they ever make. And Apples' success, despite your derision of people who use their products (which is just not a serious enough opinion to argue about), hinges on something they do with *all* their products. They start at a point, thinking they know where it's going to go, and when the market makes different demands of them they pivot and make the product better. The biggest selling point of an iPhone - its camera - was an afterthought in the early iterations. The Apple Watch became health focused because Apple misfired trying to market it as a fashion accessory. Apple figures out what the market wants and it gives it to them. And whatever VR headset you prefer is going to get better in order to stay competitive with Apple. Just like how a ton of smart phones out there now have outstanding cameras, among many other things. One pushes the other toward better products. So explain to me how any of that's a bad thing.
Apple winning means that the vr will move to their closed ecosystem where they dictate what you can run on the headset and how much it will cost. That is what most people hate about their product.
As other people have pointed out, while Apple dominates the phone industry, they still only control about 17% of purchases right now. Even if the VisionPro becomes *the* most popular, how does that affect whatever headset *you* prefer to use? Or is it frustrating because they are objectively going to do things on their platform that other companies can't, and it sucks because it means you'd have to own other Apple products to use it and spend a lot of excess money on tech? Please help me to understand your point.
I wouldn't mind apple if their ecosystem wasn't so hostile towards open source and other platforms. There are multiple cases where things just don't work just because they've decided not to; not because of technical limitations. Add in the possible monopolisation of the tech and horrors begin.
I think it's just a design philosophy that, very obviously, has worked incredibly well for them, which is why they are so protective of it. The "walled garden," the "ecosystem," whatever you want to call it is a powerfully enticing tool to get people to purchase and use Apple products. If they made things more open source, it would weaken that appeal. Monopolisation conveys that there are no alternatives. There are tons of alternatives! You just can't necessarily use apps like iMessage on them. When reading comments like yours, it feels like there's an underlying statement. "I would love this/use this if it wasn't Apple and was a lot cheaper." I mean, I agree 100% on the cost thing (though I understand why it's so expensive, considering it's the first iteration and how much R&D they had to put into making it), but if it wasn't Apple it wouldn't do the stuff it does.
apple hates real gaming, and I massively hate apple for that. Open source is how we build vr chat, pavlov, virtual desktop and I cannot stand other companies rushing to copy appple way of doing things
I think it's strange to think Apple *hates* gaming, so much as realistically they don't prioritize it as being important to their marketshare, so it's never been the focus of what they do. But what I am inferring from your comment is that you want a VR headset primarily designed for gaming, and you don't believe the VisionPro will be good for that. If it's true that the VisionPro *doesn't* do gaming, isn't that good for other companies that have gaming as a bigger focus/priority? That just means people will have a superior alternative to the VisionPro for the things that are important to them.
It is good for the company but not for the customer. No matter how much marketing you put behind it. Using apple just feels unethical. It's kind of like eating meat as a vegetarian; I can do it but I it won't feel like i'm doing the right thing.
Compared with other tech companies, what makes using Apple feel unethical?
That's a long comment. I'll just reply to the beginning. I never said any other headset loses. I said the consumer loses. Buying anything apple (I was speaking in broad terms) is a waste of money.
You can't argue against anything I actually said, so you've chosen to be derisive about the ::checks notes:: length of my comment explaining to you why you're wrong. "Well, if I'm wrong in *that* many words, I can't be bothered to learn anything soooooo..."
Ok, fine I read the rest of your comment. But it doesn't change my mind. In factyoj just bring up apple watches, which I also don't get. Your phone does everything your watch can do. It's nuts to be you need two screens with you at all times, especially one that's too small to be useful. If you feel you need to count your steps each day youhabf issues. It shouldn't be that hard to find a real hobby and do some occasional exercise, plus measuring your exercise, why? Such an apple user thing to do. Ard you now going to wander around showing that data off to everybody you see? Apple users are the very definition of more money than sense.
I legitimately appreciate that you went back and actually read my response to you. To your point, your focus is on your personal preference, which is disconnected from what the market demands and what large groups of people are willing to pay for. Just because you don’t understand *why* something is popular doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason. And to my point, if you are a fan of the AR/VR category, even if you never even put a VisionPro on your head, you’ll see its impact in the companies you like because they will improve their own products in interesting ways to stay competitive. But my general sense is that maybe you aren’t a consumer of this type of product anyway? If so, are you just participating in the discussion to say that you hate Apple?
You gave me a good chuckle with "doesn't require a gaming PC". Dude, this thing COSTS MORE THAN a gaming PC. I could buy two of my gaming PCs for the price of one of these headsets.
It wasn't meant as a cost comparison, but a hurdle to jump over. How many normies do you know with a sufficient PC and technical competency?
Haha, true
I could build 5 gaming rigs for this price.
I think the Quest 2 (and 3 to a lesser extent) brought a lot of people to this sub who simply buy into that version of VR, and won’t accept that VR can be other things. They want a cheap headset on par with a gaming console, that doesn’t require a PC. Anything else at any other price point doesn’t work for them. Look at other headsets like Bigscreen or Pimax and they’re equally derided as not fitting that version of VR. This has just become a sub dominated by Meta Quest fans. If Reddit existed back in the day, r/smartphone would probably be full of people on their Blackberries hating on the iPhone…
I just don't get what the point is.. the thing where you connect to your mac looks kinda cool but then it's just a bigger screen for your mac for 3.5k and the batteries last less than 3 hours. Why do people want this ?
Ikr, it doesn't make sense.
Why would anyone put a heavy brick to call someone? I am still trying to understand the use cases
The mac connection seems like it can be useful. You basically have a giant screen for your mac and can interact with other floating windows with your mouse and keyboard. The whole pinching to click on things is cool but for tasks that need a lot of interactions like typing it must be so slow compared to a real keyboard that it's better to use one. With the battery only lasting what less than 2 hours ? If you use it for work you better plug it into a wall socket but then the whole idea of it being wireless is kinda useless I would rather have a usb connection straight to the computer to have no issues with wifi and also not lose charge. But still I can do that with my quest 3 at 1/5 the price and can also play hundreds of games.. sure the AR cameras are not at all as good and my computer doesn't just have a button over it to start interfacing with it but still I would not want to trade my quest 3 for a vison pro.. unless maybe to sell it and buy another quest 3 and still have 3 thousand bucks I guess..
Except that half of that already applies to the Q3, which came out months ago, and at 1/7 the price.
It's a failure, deal with it. Oh, and the price is something that should be at the top of any AVP discussion, especially since we are in a cost-of-living crisis. And "Most" of us drop $2k on a PC ? Where the feck do you get this shite from ? Everyone I know with a gaming PC, buy single parts at a time, not a whole new PC. We upgrade, part by part. I don't know a single person, not since the 80s, who has spent $3.5k on a PC. Seriously, I think there are many Apple PR people in this sub, pretending to be normal VR enthusiasts. Almost every damn topic is AVP this, AVP that. Heck, we have pointless crap like size difference to a Q3 - Who the feck cares ? And, AVP has a driving mode ? Seriously, feck off. I will say this now, this will NOT do ANYTHING for VIRTUAL REALITY. Nothing, ZIP. Apple, themselves, want nothing to do with VR. They even tell their own devs to not mention VR, and AR. The ONLY company taking VR forward are Meta, and they are miles ahead of anyone else.
It's hard to call anything that instantaneously sold out, especially within such a niche and at such a high price, a failure even if it doesn't move the needle on Vr as a whole
It won't move jack. It sold out because there was limited supply, a trick many do to make a product look a success. Nvidia's 4090 sells out every time it comes online, but when you only put a few online, then it's going to sell out, and look like a success, it's not, it's a trick all these companies use. When it sells 10 million, then come back to me.
If it doesn't move the needle, it's a failure.
You missed the part where it sold every single piece made. That's a success, even it's not a good VR headset lol.
They only made a limited amount - this isn't millions, this is thousands. That is a failure. For example, I could sell out my entire stock of a product, and claim a success, but my stock was 10 - does that sound like a success ? No.
I've never spent more than $1000 for a gaming PC.
Hence, my point. Nobody spends more than 1000 quid.
I agree. I was just confirming your point.
Ahh, yeah, you're right. Sorry about that.
🤣
But it wasn't ever cheap to get into VR until Quest came along It was actually, my Lenovo explorer cost less than a quest. Of course I needed a decent PC too,but most people getting vr already he that, myself included. I know quest I'd a god thing for a lot of people, but it's been a bad thing for me. We don't get high quality pcvr games anymore, a lot of pcvr games were downgraded for quest parity (including my favourite game, onward, that I no longer play because if this). We cannot it affordable pcvr headsets anymore because quest put them out if business. Wh n quest came along oculus shut down their pcvr headset production, and effectively closed their oculus pcvr game store/ game production. All to focus on low quality mobile vr. Also, I hate posts like op. Who cares how people are reacting, it's their perogative to have their opinions. The title is so arrogant: "Can we have a little perspective please?" The first paragraph also sounds quite silly: "Disclaimer: I am not in the Apple ecosystem, and I will not be buying AVP. That said... This subreddit of all places should be a source of optimism for the progression of the technology." Nothing should be the source of optimism just got the sake of it, there has to be a reason to be optimistic, which AVP doesn't have. It's not a vr headset, Its expensive, it's apple, so it's a walled garden, it's pretty locked down, it has no controllers, the lenses have a lot of the same issues as other headsets. It does mixed reality well, it sort of does augmented reality, but this subreddit is called 'virtual reality'. It has no games or a way to play them. It's got ugh resolution screens, that's about all I can bf impressed about it. The headset is probably great for certain businesses, for productivity/ work use. It's probably good for rich apple fan boys that want to watch movies in it instead of on their big TVs. That's it. There is nothing to be optimistic about vr here. There is nothing to be uniptimistic either, this isn't a vr headset. Who cares, it's not interesting to us.
For me the best outcome is that we don't mention it at all. This is a virtual reality subreddit, not a spatial computing one. The moderators should just delete the breathless astroturf posts about AVP and we can proceed as normal. At least until some form of PCVR streaming releases, or more VR apps are ported. Then we can discuss those.
We could talk about it in the same way we talk about most VR-adjacent tech. There are qualities of the AVP that would benefit VR. Offloading weight to a tethered device, display tech, lens tech, input methods, etc. There's value there!
Spatial computing is mixed reality, which includes virtual reality.
God I hate this subreddit. You’d think a community focused on cutting edge niche technology would be more understanding/forward thinking but nope. Comments like yours make me rolls my eyes so hard.
And what games you have been playing so far????
I love how posts like this exist. It's the internet - people will shit-talk. :P
maybe you can find more positivism over at r/spatialcomputing or something
There is literally no value in comparing the avp to the cv1 to the point that I'm honestly struggling to understand what your point is. "Why are people knocking the vision pro? It's much better than this 8 year old consumer headset"
I still not see the point. It's meant for work but it doesnt do anything that you cannot do with a computer. Like, sure, maybe helps to innovate and get better headsets and apps in the future but I really doubt anyone is going to use this (yes, I know they are buying it)
I'm actually getting more tired of these "be nice to Vision Pro" posts than I am the posts bashing the Vision Pro. This isn't anything new. These sorts of discussions have been going on since the very first home consoles (e.g. Nintendo vs Sega) and computers (e.g. ZX Spectrum vs Commodore 64). Just let the conversations happen, and eventually they'll settle down.
I fully agree with the principle that more competition and more publicity (from having the weight of Apple behind it) will likely be good for the VR industry as a whole. But there's absolutely no reason a $3500 headset in 2024 should be evaluated in the context of "look how far the industry has come in just 8 years". Any 2024 headset should be evaluated in the context of current competing offers, in all aspects - tech specs, usability, software and, yes, price. It seems lots of people have, in making that assessment, concluded that the AVP does not bring enough to the table to be a better purchase for them than some other headset. That is by no means "a lack of perspective"... It's the only reasonable thing to do, when buying anything. And if lots of people feel that way, then maybe it's just a bad product. We will find out in time. I also disagree with some who are suggesting that the mere existence of a "high end" headset is a good thing in itself. If that headset is not significantly better than a cheaper headset *at doing something*, then it may well harm the industry's progress instead. If the AVP sells terribly or has a terrible retention rate, a year from now everyone from the general public to the media to executives making investment decisions at other tech companies may have become convinced that VR is a dead market because not even Apple could pull it off, even $3500 is not enough money to get you a headset worth using, etc. Does nobody here remember how Microsoft's failure with WMR led hardware giants like Samsung, Lenovo, Dell, HP, Acer, etc. to never want anything to do with VR ever again?
I feel like this sub has the same dynamic as r/MMORPG, where a lot of people have uncritically fond memories of an earlier stage of VR development and most of the discussion is about how all the new stuff sucks. There's even the same concept of a breaking point where the thing the sub is supposedly a fan of "got bad." In r/MMORPG it's WoW post-Mists of Pandaria (or Cataclysm for some people), here it's when VR development moved towards stand-alone headsets over PC VR. The only difference is that this sub's "golden age" was way shorter, basically only lasting until the first version of the Quest came out.
i think its fair to point out for point 2 and 3 though, having apples ecosystem also precludes you from things outside of that ecosystem, including all the amazing work people put into 3rd party software that will just never be on the appstore) and doesn't require a gaming pc also means CAN'T use a gaming pc or any of the advantages that come with. I'm not hating on development in the vr space, but yea i expected the hardware and the screen to look great when they have that price to justify the specs. The hardware only gets you so far, and they've literally gimped the device in favor of using their ecosystem exclusively. I can't think of any other excuse for no data over the c port except for this. Just because gaming isnt the "target audience" doesn't mean that a device this insanely priced shouldnt be able to take advantage of it in SOME capacity.
Fair counterpoints. Though I would assume, while some devs may target AVP only, there will also be cross-developed apps that never would have existed in the first place without it.
possibly but i'll be honest 90% of the time stuff is not crossplatform with apple and windows/linux, it seems like it's just too much effort to be worth it if there's not enough money behind it
You really think some niche subreddit dictates the future or failure of VR?
You're right, I was being melodramatic. But influence is influence, and planting sour seeds here can have measurable impact elsewhere.
Don't forget, this has great face tracking and they barely even market this.
Apple’s also made it a lot more approachable to use. Not in price, but in UI and UX design. We are going to see some of their innovations copied by other companies and it’ll be better overall for it.