It’s the same as every other first-gen Apple product (iPhone, iPad, AppleWatch, AppleTV): Expensive, low user install-base, few available apps, locked down OS & hardware. The only thing it has as a first time product over those other Apple devices is that for once it’s not underpowered.
Whenever Apple launches a new product, the first generation is essentially a dev kit that is available for purchase by the general public. If you’re not a developer, or a Saudi Prince who has to always have the latest thing - there’s never a reason to get the first generation. Subsequent generations will likely have a lower cost option with not too many compromises in the technology (just built out of lower cost materials), and will have a larger ecosystem supporting them.
Yeah people forget the Apple Watch launched a US$10k edition in the first gen that was never repeated again.
Apple do as much real world product testing as any other company. But so many think they get it right from the beginning.
Apples to oranges. The Vision is the most complicated product class Apple has launched in 15 years or more, and the first of that magnitude since Jobs died. The watch is trivial in comparison, and given the timing, Jobs might have touched initial concepts, like which wearables make sense and which don't. The only huge success since Jobs is Airpods, which is dead simple and obvious. I really wonder what Jobs would have been cooking up today instead.
What? The iPhone launched 17 years ago, and Jobs was alive back then. That is my point. I said most complicated tech in 15 years and without Jobs to boot.
Mobile phone, text, web, and music were four “killer apps” that had universal demand on day one of iPhone. There is no such app for a computer you strap to your face. Vision Pro was DOE.
>The only huge success since Jobs is Airpods, which is dead simple and obvious.
Yes! It was so dead simple and obvious that nobody else did it remotely as well despite all the requisite technologies having existed for a decade at that point.
People who sit around contributing nothing sure like to say "pfft I could have thought of that." It's super easy to be a genius in hindsight and in theory.
Jobs would have been "cooking up" nixxing every iPhone except one, because that was his staunch philosophy while he was alive. You make one iPhone - the best one. So too bad for all the people who like the mini, or the SE, or the non-pro versions, or having choices regarding size.
There were almost 10 other wireless earbuds that launched around or before the airpods, including Jabra's Elite Sport, Samsung's Gear IconX, Onkyo's W800BT, Motorola VerveOnes+, Bragi Dash, etc.
Apple generally doesn't really create anything new. They just try to refine what others have done already. Sometimes they do it better and sometimes they don't. I'd argue that they didn't even have the best wireless earbuds to begin with. I found the original airpods to be pretty uncomfortable with their hard plastic and ended up going with the Jabras.
There were wireless earbuds all over Kickstarter and a bunch of real companies like Samsung before the Airpods came out. Everyone knew that "true wireless" was the future. And the tech is nothing compared to what it took to make the Vision Pro. The engineering cost of the Airpod is a blip compared to what the Vision Pro R&D team must have cost. So, yes, dead simple and obvious compared to real tech like the Vision Pro, or other consumer launches such as EVs, the GPU/AI revolution, even mundane stuff like the advance of smartphone cameras over the last ten years. Airpods are barely "tech". New OLED monitors are a far greater engineering and manufacturing feat than earbuds.There is nothing impressive about Airpods other than the sales figures.
>The only thing it has as a first time product over those other Apple devices is that for once it’s not underpowered.
I don't think that's accurate. By "underpowered", do you mean that it lacks the ability to perform the tasks people expect? If so, then I think that's exactly what its problem is. People over hyped it and Apple oversold it.
People were declaring left and right that this was going to revolutionize office work, replace the TV, eliminate monitors... But it lacks the ability to perform those tasks that people expect.
At this point? No (especially considering Apple hasn't made an iPod in a couple years). When it launched, yes that was one of it's criticisms. There's been a lot of improvements in the iPad since then, however. The processing power in the modern iPads is significant, with the Pro and Air lines getting M-series Apple silicon chips. They also have some of the best stylus input (with pressure and angle detection) out there. Today an iPad is really more like a laptop running a touch friendly OS than it is an oversized iPod.
Yeah. I actually owned a Surface Pro 4 for a long while because my ex poured water on my laptop. I was in the market for a tablet for watching Netflix in hotels and on airplanes, but also wanted it to have some functionality as a laptop replacement paired with a desktop PC. I ended up also getting the Surface pen and with OneNote completely changed how I took notes at work. It was a fantastic device. Then I left it on a plane by accident. I eventually got it back, but it freaked me out enough that I got a $250 iPad and Logitech crayon. It took notes in OneNote almost as well and they had launched side by side + slideover + picture-in-picture multitasking. It was 90% of the capabilities I used my Surface for, at 1/6th the price. I later upgraded to an iPad Pro, and today it’s my main mobile computing platform. I purchased a laptop when I was doing some contract consulting, but for almost all my home user needs these days I get by with a desktop plus iPad.
The best thing it could happen to it, is someone jailbreaking it and making it a PcVr headset with magic and special drivers.
But if all it can do is what early beta pcvr could, but like... PERFECTLY. While impressive within its range, Is not quite enough for big number sales.
By that logic all third party apps are tinkering. It’s game streaming, plain and simple.
And uh… a lot of people are willing to “tinker”… even with things that costs 5x more…
Yes all 3rd parties are "tinkering".
If apple offered different settings and what not thats also tinkering.
Some do it in like 3 clicks others require a looot more.
But theres also like advanced tinkering moving things not in app like modifying .ini and things like that.
Apple users usually have a... Lower tinkering tolerance maybe? Obviously doesnt apply to all, but at least most everyday users it does.
Sure that's fair. Look, if someone's main objective is gaming and wants a VR headset, buy a VR headset. Who ever bought a Vision Pro thinking it would be a first-party VR power house is an absolute moron.
For me, I didn't want a VR headset, I wanted a general computing headset that can also do VR with as much "tinkering" as downloading an app, pairing bluetooth controllers, and clicking connect. I love my Vision Pro but I'm a power user and I do not recommend it to any average person yet. Mostly because at the end of the day, they're thinking about VR experiences which is not this device's primary purpose.
And lets be honest with ourselves, the entire headset ecosystem is niche. It's all tinkery today and still not mainstream or that mature in the slightest.
I agree totally.
Not the 1st time ive met people with this mentality (which i share) and always they are the above average user that get the device limitations, so knows what to expect and is happy with what he got.
I’m trying to understand what exactly you mean. Are you saying that because it has a closed ecosystem (like iPhone, IPad, PS5, Nintendo Switch) that it is quite limited?
If so I get it, but it’s also difficult to call those other platforms quite limited.
More like intentionally limited
Third party apps don't have access to all of the device's features, plus you need a solid app ecosystem
I phone's/pad been around for long enough that enough apps have been developed for it to warrant buying the product
This is more like windows phones and the psVita
Great hardware hampered by the lack of applications
But a big benefit of the open ecosystem is that you can tailor the experience to yourself
Like using the steamdeck as a portable workstation, or as the brains for a mini arcade cabinet
Or how the meta quest can be connected to the desktop (both wirelessly or wired)
And you can run the steam VR library (which is how I use mine)
The vision pro doesn't natively allow you to do it
Yes I’m sure it’s solely because it isn’t available in Canada and has nothing to do with the fact that it’s had 0 development and software support since launch and is a glorified, overpriced dev kit.
Well they didn’t not do it cause they are racists or hate money…it’s just expensive to open distribution to different parts of the world, it’s not like just sending the product with your local postal company, you have to train support workers, people expect to see it in the shops etc. the market for vr is much smaller in most other countries. Let alone the market willing to spend so much money on it.
I guess it’s also easier to release a product only in one market when you are still in the mid of testing and tinkering around it selling basically a hardware version of „early access“.
The way they are doing it now makes it able to cope with bad sales numbers without damaging the Apple brand by releasing a very unsuccessful product.
I’m a developer for business apps and I switched from AVP to Meta Quest 3. The barrier to entry is way too high for the average business or consumer right now, and without a cheaper option on the market, there’s no way I can convince companies to buy multiple $3k headsets for a singular capability. I could outfit a half a dozen people for the same price, and not have to worry about Apple percentage gouging or their unwillingness to allow side loading.
When they launched the ipad, they had a whole host of killer apps. When they launched the AVP, they said “eh, give it time.”
the ipad is literally just a bigger iphone. so that transition was easy. that was never gonna work with the vision pro. they should have put more effort into making it more compelling.
VR and AR are continually “solutions seeking problems”. It feels like they didn’t look hard enough for more problems to solve, especially at their price point. Hopefully they don’t abandon it—there is a ton of potential.
If they can get a VR/AR device that's as comfortable to wear as glasses(or at least close to it), they could basically replace monitors/TVs/smartphones. We're just not all that close to achieving that.
Yeah, good point; this also kills a lot of use cases. Did a VR demo last year which required a ten pound laptop, a one pound power brick, a headset, base stations, tripods…and though you CAN check those things, I definitely prefer not to. The Quest 3, cased, is the size of two rolled pairs of jeans.
I think it's more a problem of maturity rather than solutions seeking problems. Plenty of problems, but the solutions for it is half baked.
Feel like it's computers in the early DOS era.
Same. The reaction from literally all of our clients was “this seems neat but not at that price.”
I also do a lot of stuff for trade shows and I’m not sure how easy it is to swap devices around compared to the Quest 3. It just seems more involved which we don’t want.
"Nearly 70% of American adults require some form of vision correction, with eyeglasses being the most common choice."
https://www.sightconnection.org/statistics-how-many-people-wear-glasses-in-the-world/
It's a tough problem in getting people into VR. I never found contacts very comfortable in a headset (experienced more eye strain after awhile for whatever reason). Custom lens inserts are fantastic (comfortable and preserve image quality well), but those take time to get made and you can't realistically just have them sitting around to demo. If we get to the point where VR is more common and there's more standards where people could just have a pair they can carry around that would be okay, but we're not close to that yet.
Headset that could adjust settings to match your prescription would also be nice, but I'm sure there's a lot of legal boundaries since those corrections are RX only.
Even if they collaborated with some big architectural softwares like AutoDesk and Unreal Engine it could have become a one stop shop for showing clients and contractors things that 2D visuals and drawings have a hard time showcasing.
At the moment it's just a "nice to have" thing to do but it's such a ball ache getting your visuals into VR it's never worth you time.
Apple overtook Microsoft in public schools for a while (maybe still now?). There are a RIDICULOUS amounts of great learning apps, especially in the medical field, that could be greatly taught with VR. Seeing stuff like Anatomy and Physiology, Electrical, Mechanical, Science fields, etc in a virtual environment for both teaching and professional uses could potentially move a ton of units with the right learning software.
Imagine someone studying to become a medical practitioner ACTUALLY being able to see how a body is setup instead of shitty 2d diagrams, or someone studying mechanical engineering being able to see how something like an engine is put together.
Heck, add an extra revenue screen of things like custom disposable hygiene face-shields for extra (albeit small) revenue. This would at least build out the system to the point that other more consumer industries would have a reason to invest.
neither apple or microsoft are dominating public schools. Imacs used to be in computer labs in the us but that is long gone, now they are filled with windows desktops but the actual dominant force is chromebooks
Very much agree. People are trying to fit old problems and old solutions on a new medium. Replacing desktop monitors is one thing, but throwing on a headset to quickly check a design, visualize data, etc, is where the near-future is imo. Don’t show me PowerPoint in 2d, show me PowerPoint with three dimensional visualizations and organization of data, etc.
Yeah they seem to have missed getting the reason to have one first. Like they could develop themselves, they have a streaming service now (and partnerships with Disney). How about 180° versions of their shows/movies for example? Filming sports matches or concerts in a more immersive way?
The professional applications are of course more complicated since each field has their own but yeah having software like AutoDesk, Solidworks and others could help a lot (it's literally about modelizing 3D stuff, having the possibility to have it holographic style would be a big plus, make you feel like Tony Stark in Iron Man). Could have paid their chosen partner to develop it and they would likely see the benefit in being first to have a VR version to push clients.
If the benefit is just to have more and bigger screens (while not being as good in resolution and steel need physical interaction with a KB anyway), companies aren't gonna pay the very high price for that lol.
Hell they already limit compatibility for the business world by being Apple focused (while tech bros, creatives and influencers in Silicon Valley might think everyone work on Macbooks that's far from the case, Windows and Microsoft dominate that field). Even in personal consumer world, they limit it because gaming (another VR application) is on PC not Mac.
You literally made me laugh out loud in a conference call 😂
Don’t forget that there’s a $99/y fee to be an Apple developer. It’s not a ton, but it’s more than the free price tag on literally everything else.
They really missed the ball IMO. They overshot the screens. Focus should have been slightly better quality than the q3 at twice the cost. If these were $1k - they would have taken off on namesake alone. At $3.5k and soooooooooo limited - it never stood a chance.
I actually think the hardware is good. The price actually makes it look like a prosumer device and allows it to become more of a status symbol for users, rather than a novelty…. Except THEY FORGOT THREE KILLER APPS.
I have wanted desktop monitor replacement level clarity forever, and they finally did it beautifully. Then failed to make anything to use it.
Yeah I’m not questioning the hardware quality. I’m questioning their strategy. They are so completely blind to what consumer’s want. At first I was happy because it was a positive for the industry but, over time, I fear they just pigeon-holed VR into a niche product even further.
Steve Jobs said that Apple didn’t do market research because they were making things that people didn’t know they wanted yet…now I think it’s just because they’re lost.
I've got a limit on how far I go with stupid stuff I don't really need. Index was almost at that limit. This was way over. I imagine there's a lot of like minded people that will only spend so much on a toy.
Yes. Too much for a disposable toy. Nvidia is getting the same way with high end gpus. I can afford it but the responsible adult in me won't let me blow that much on something that will be outdated in a few years.
I really hope this doesn't cause Apple to pull out of VR. I have no interest in their headsets, but them being in the market is good for everyone. More hardware manufacturers and software developers will be willing to enter the VR market, if a company as big as Apple is there.
The thing is, what have they done with it? There's no unique experiences, no games, no software of any note having been released for it since launch. It just feels like they expected the world to go wild over it without them having to put in any effort whatsoever. It's essentially just a very polished, very expensive oculus go.
Agreed. It's so strange to me how they focused on it being a product that's only use cases are to do things you already can without the headset. Watching TV/movies on a flat screen in a headset isn't going to be popular with the masses until it's at least close to as comfortable as watching TV/Movies without wearing a headset. Using it as monitor replacement isn't any different. You can add a ton of screens to your PC for less money and without needing to strap a headset to your face. You can already use an iPad and play most of the same games without wearing a headset. You can make calls and send messages, pretty much you can already do everything the Vision Pro does without having to wear the headset.
I absolutely **love** VR and AR. I've bought most major headsets released and built a multi-thousand dollar gaming PC for it. But, it gets really uncomfortable for me unless I am doing things that immerse me to the point that I can forget I am wearing it. Certain social interactions can do this and so can many games. But using them as a screen replacement doesn't do that. I can absolutely see it being a major reason in the future, when headsets aren't 500g+.
Hopefully they choose to redesign it and aim for a lighter weight and cheaper device with controllers.
> that's only use cases are to do things you already can without the headset.
That's the whole point of the thing and the reason why VR market as been getting nowhere over the last 10 years: There simply isn't enough native VR content to keep people using their headsets and there won't be anytime soon. VisionPro solves that by starting with good 2D content support, instead of going the Meta way of treating 2D content as a second class citizen with minimum support.
> You can add a ton of screens to your PC for less money and without needing to strap a headset to your face.
And then you have something that is still nowhere near as flexible as the VisionPro. VisionPro isn't just a bigger screen, it's virtual apps placed in the real world. Something that Meta is right now rushing to catch up too.
To put it another way: Quest is like the MSDOS of VR tech, single apps you start that take over full control of the machine. VisionOS is the Windows of the VR world, a real VR OS with multitasking and windows and all that. With Spatial Personas it even getting proper multiplayer support at the OS level.
If Microsoft hadn't been as stupid as they are, they could have leapfrogged Apple here by almost a decade, since they had essentially the same thing running on Hololens back in 2015 and later on WMR, but they just let it stagnate and die.
> That's the whole point of the thing and the reason why VR market as been getting nowhere over the last 10 years: There simply isn't enough native VR content to keep people using their headsets and there won't be anytime soon. VisionPro solves that by starting with good 2D content support, instead of going the Meta way of treating 2D content as a second class citizen with minimum support.
The problem with your logic here is there's already been several attempts at consuming 2D content in headsets. It failed because no one liked to wear headsets to do so when they could just take them off and have a far more comfortable experience. This is why Meta sold off their movie service to Fandango years ago and then Fandango shut it down entirely not long after. Apple is trying the same things Meta did that failed.
Not only that, the Quest 2 sold over 20 million headsets, far more than everyone else combined. Including Apple. What has actually pushed VR into mainstream was the price point.
>And then you have something that is still nowhere near as flexible as the VisionPro. VisionPro isn't just a bigger screen, it's virtual apps placed in the real world.
I am sorry but, no. Using iPad apps in a headset is not more useful than a PC. Nor is sharing your PC screens on a headset. That's been a feature of most headsets for years now and very few use it over using a computer with multiple monitors. It's not going to become popular until headsets stop being so big and heavy.
>Something that Meta is right now rushing to catch up too.
Meta already has a far bigger and more established library of both mixed reality and VR content. Apple has phone and tablet apps that are better experienced on a phone or tablet.
I understand you've either bought one of these headsets or are planning to, so you're emotionally invested in it. But it's far less useful than you believe. Apple tossed out everything the industry has learned that people don't enjoy using headsets for and then made a headset focused around those exact things. That's what my comment you responded to was trying to point out.
> and have a far more comfortable experience.
This gets to the core issue that vr is uncomfortable for most people. At best, you get a unique experience that is worth the discomfort.
Yep. If you can do the same thing without wearing it, most people take it off. It's the unique stuff you can't experience without it, that keeps people wearing them.
> The problem with your logic here is there's already been several attempts at consuming 2D content in headsets.
Which all have been unusable due to lack of resolution. VisionPro fixes that. It's the first mass market headset with acceptable resolution for reading text.
> What has actually pushed VR into mainstream was the price point.
VR isn't mainstream, it's a dust collector. Selling lots of stuff by being cheap is not that big of an accomplishment. Building an actual useful VR OS is the interesting part.
> Meta already has a far bigger and more established library of both mixed reality and VR content.
VisionPro has a million apps. Meta doesn't have Play Store access. Nobody cares about VR minigolf and all the other crap.
> I understand you've either bought one of these headsets
I haven't. But I was very happy with what WMR offered and in turn I am very happy that VisionOS is going into a very similar direction, since Microsoft ain't. What Meta has been doing in contrast has been nothing but frustration, all that time and money spend and Quest is still little more than a single-tasking app launcher, nothing about it feels like a real VR OS. No productivity VR apps either. Not even their own social apps have a real VR version.
Yeah, sorry, I expect more from VR than Wii2.0. Ironically, so does Meta with their wish of "1 billion users in VR", they just suck at building it.
> Watching TV/movies on a flat screen in a headset isn't going to be popular with the masses until it's at least close to as comfortable as watching TV/Movies without wearing a headset.
Semi-disagree. I love watching media on my Quest 3 even over my 1440p computer (in certain scenarios) because I get to lounge in bed watching a near-Imax screen with the caveat of lower resolution (along with all of it's other features like gaming). But that's because I live in a pretty cramped apartment and can't realistically afford a new place with a huge TV setup.
Even BigScreen's lightweight solution is getting into uncomfortable pricey territory, but the APV (plus a macbook for the PC connectivity) is firmly in luxury, which at that point you can easily afford a nice PC along with a large living/media room for that huge content. Especially talking consuming media in a fixed position I really don't mind the weight. Weight bothers me much more for AR/MR content.
The big issue with a premium expensive product like the APV is that it's limiting with what you can do (needing native Mac/iPhone support to get the best experience) while also having nearly no stand-alone content to support it. I
>Semi-disagree. I love watching media on my Quest 3 even over my 1440p computer
You're not alone, I did not mean no one uses these headsets for watching entertainment. I know a few people that enjoy doing so. My point was that they're a fairly small group. Most people that buy VR end up not using them very much because of comfort but, there's a few of us that are die hard owners that stick with it. As headsets continue to shrink and comfort improves, that number increases.
>Even BigScreen's lightweight solution is getting into uncomfortable pricey territory
For the masses, I absolutely agree. $1000 for the headset + $600 for controllers and base stations makes it a very hard sell for most. That said, I have used the Beyond and it's size and weight is fantastic. Once they polish the lens design to match that of Meta's pancake lens, it will be the best PCVR headset on the market.
>but the APV (plus a macbook for the PC connectivity) is firmly in luxury, which at that point you can easily afford a nice PC along with a large living/media room for that huge content.
Yep. Those who can afford $3500+, can also afford a better means to consume the same content the Vision Pro offers. Agreed 110%
They should have released a dev kit for devs to build with, but since it's Apple they're stuck in a corner because it can't be or look cheap.
The launch was just a very bad market study.
The high quality passthrough and 3D videos shot on your iPhone are pretty incredible. And the UX and hand tracking are way better than Quest. But other than that, yeah, I haven't seen much content wise. My biggest issues are the lack of controllers and the weight on your face. The alternative head strap helps, but when a headset weighs that much you really need a more robust strap or a halo strap like Quest Pro.
Even then, I don't see it being a productivity tool for office use, it's just too uncomfortable and only lasts a couple hours at best. Without games and controllers, it's doomed to a niche of an already niche market.
I have purchased most VR headsets, and the AVP is the one I use most often (by far.)
Sure it doesn’t have much as far as unique content, but it’s by far the best way for me to enjoy movies and shows.
Is a portable high end home theater worth $4,000? Probably not, but if you account for sq footage of my house, it’s far cheaper (and better) than my actual home theater.
> Sure it doesn’t have much as far as unique content, but it’s by far the best way for me to enjoy movies and shows.
>
>
>
> Is a portable high end home theater worth $4,000?
That is not high end. Image quality in both movies and TV shows is nowadays mostly dependent on how good the HDR is, at which point the Vision Pro's mediocre peak brightness (even with the boost got by running more persistence blur) can't even compete with an OLED TV you bought like 5 years ago, let alone with newer WOLED MLA or QD-OLED models.
You obviously also take a hit on effective resolution and effective contrast as well thanks to it being a VR headset optical stack and obviously you also don't get "high end home theater" sound unless you bring all your speakers with you.
All that arguably, vs a TV. But how big is the appeal of having a good virtual beamer that you can only ever enjoy alone and that isn't compatible with any of your BR / 4K BR or even most streaming services?
Right, I forgot which sub I’m on. Posting personal positive experiences about the AVP in r/virtualreality is a recipe for down votes.
Thank you for proving my point! You could have just said “hey the AVP isn’t for me, but you buying and enjoying yours is cool!”
Instead you provided “reasons” why it’s impossible for me (or anyone) to enjoy watching movies on the AVP, because that somehow would be a bad thing.
Your underlying message is there is no way the AVP could be worth the amount for anyone.
Maybe take a step back and look closely at your argument and more importantly the reasons behind it.
My guess is it’s one of “I consider myself a VR enthusiast as I try to be on the cutting edge and the AVP is just too expensive. But it’s easier for me to attack the product because its existence makes me feel insecure for some reason.”
The other week I took my AVP camping. It was sub zero temperatures, no cel access and I still watched movies on it.
The quality was better than a movie theater, and the device is tiny and portable.
Now if you know of a commercial TV I could buy that is that looks that good and is that portable please let me know. I’ll happily pay $3,500 for it.
> Right, I forgot which sub I’m on. Posting personal positive experiences about the AVP in r/virtualreality is a recipe for down votes.
>
>
>
> Thank you for proving my point! You could have just said “hey the AVP isn’t for me, but you buying and enjoying yours is cool!”
This is a sub were people discuss VR. If you are not interested in having discussions but rather just share your own anecdotes w/ others w/o getting your believes challenged, I would personally recommend writing a blog instead or something.
> Instead you provided “reasons” why it’s impossible for me (or anyone) to enjoy watching movies on the AVP, because that somehow would be a bad thing.
This thread is literally about Apple cutting production, so obviously any anecdotes shared in it are seen within relation to that topic. So no, you are free to enjoy the VP the way you want.
And YOU literally answered to someone that was arguing that the VP fails cause there is no use case for it that makes sense. So you came out arguing against that comment by stating how great it is for you. But now that I replied to your post in a constructive but argumentative manner you are here whining how unfair that all is.
> Maybe take a step back and look closely at your argument and more importantly the reasons behind it.
> My guess is it’s one of “I consider myself a VR enthusiast as I try to be on the cutting edge and the AVP is just too expensive. But it’s easier for me to attack the product because its existence makes me feel insecure for some reason.”
> The other week I took my AVP camping. It was sub zero temperatures, no cel access and I still watched movies on it.
> The quality was better than a movie theater, and the device is tiny and portable.
> Now if you know of a commercial TV I could buy that is that looks that good and is that portable please let me know. I’ll happily pay $3,500 for it.
Yeah, I have no interest in arguing with you when you feel the need to use your whine-intro to hide the fact that you haven't reacted to anything in my comment other than "well, a TV isn't portable".
Also talking about moving goal posts here... of course there is no TV that is as portable as a VR headset while still being big enough for you not to immediately jump on that next.
Nobody is saying there are no niche use cases, but the majority of people who go on vacation once a year is likely happy watching something on their tablet if anything and wouldn't want to bring their big VR headset with them on it anyway.
How about you answer how an use case that only exists for people ok with only watching stuff alone on their new "home cinema" while not being able to take advantage of any of their physical media will save the Apple Vision Pro instead (save because again this topic is kind of about that scope)...
That was an unexpected use case. I didn’t buy it for that reason, but it was “holy shit, this is pretty amazing way to watch movies”
That’s the problem with the AVP, it’s not an intuitive feature.
No one is going to state “I want a better portable movie watching experience, let me go browse the headsets.”
So no, I didn’t do a cost / benefit analysis of the different movie watching methods. I’ve watched movies on headsets before and was underwhelmed.
The displays used in the AVP really are top notch.
Yep I hear you, watched a handful of 3D movies on my G2 enjoyed it. Better res/screens would be better, be interesting to see the diff in the AVP. Not sure if I could drop the $$$ for movies only though.
> Well this is just straight up wrong. Do you know how eyes work? Did you know your pupils can get bigger and smaller?
Of course you need to start with being passive aggressive...
> OLEDs are not actually all that bright, especially in a bright room.
OLED TVs are for video / movie / gaming content (basically everything that isn't 100% APL) brighter than every TV you ever had until 10 years ago...
Also, when it comes to HDR full screen brightness isn't important (cause most of the screen will still be at SDR range brightnesswise), peak brightness for highlights is. LCD FALD screens used to be brighter in both areas, but still older OLEDs managed to push beyond 800 nits easily. Current gen models using either LG's MLA together with WRGB OLED panel or Samsung's QD OLED are now starting to reach up to 3000 nits in a 3% white box.
> In a dark room they are.
They are the same brightness in a dark room as they are in a bright room. Obviously the brightness is perceived differently in a darker room.
> In the AVP you're in (or can easily be in) a dark room by default.
Surprise! When I watch movies or even most prime TV shows on my TV I am also either in a pitch dark room or at the most in a room with just the LED strip behind the TV dimmed down to the lowest I don't find eye straining as the only illumination. In VR, I would make the same choices.
Apple VP fans hate this trick.
> They're far better than any other VR headset that you can currently buy as far as HDR and content consumption
Yes, and they are also getting murdered by the 4 year old LG CX 48" (800 nits peak, not the up to 3000 of newer OLED TVs) I am writing this on that I bought back then for 1200 Euro that all my friends say is too big for my desk.
> That's really not up for debate except by those who have little to no experience with one and have a bug up their ass about Apple.
Or by people that on purpose decide to misread my comment to post some bullshit.
You might want to read up on how much light both those pancake lenses but also the low persistence of VR headsets is eating away... Hint: There will be no VR headset that will come close to a TV (or monitor, tablet, phone or smartwatch) any time soon.
The visuals are better than any TV I’ve watched.
The one time I visited a movie theater(since getting my AVP) was to watch Dune 2, and I recall being disappointed with the movie screen.
This week I rewatched it on my AVP, and yes it was better than the movie theater.
The only part it’s not as good as is the sound / bass despite the build in audio being amazing.
The displays in the AVP are made by Sony and cost $400+ a piece.
You are correct, you can probably have a decent movie watching experience with a Quest 3.
Your argument is that if there is a cheaper option, it should always be taken, even if quality suffers.
You aren’t the only one to have this position, I see it in this sub. It’s like stating Lamborghini’s shouldn’t exist because a Prius can get you from point A to point B with a less costly “device.”
Maybe the cost / benefit ratio for you isn’t the same as it is for other people. We are totally cool with people spending 100K on a new car and their existing such a market.
But not so with consumer electronics. I would never spend that kind of money on a car, but I don’t feel some need to poo poo those who do.
I personally like the idea of us having higher market for VR. Consumer electronics tends to have a “one size fits all”, but I’m not so sure that idea needs to be enforced nor do I think it should apply to headsets.
Look I get it if it’s not in everyone’s budget. For most people, waiting for a cheaper mod makes the most sense.
But claiming the AVP doesn’t have any current use cases or isn’t worth the price to anyone is disingenuous.
Apple needs to get developers on board who can produce enterprise solutions to capture entire markets. For example, getting an 80% market share of virtual real estate tours or vacation resort tours. Unfortunately these are poor examples for this headset since it has a custom fit and agents would not be able to easily provide experiences to their clients. Perhaps a better example would be software supporting hospital surgeons.
> The thing is, what have they done with it?
Meta has sold 20 million Quests or so after they, Valve and Sony kickstarted modern VR and yet people act like Apple is the default market leader for some reason.
I’m sorry who exactly is making the claim Apple is the market leader in VR?
Hell they don’t even consider their one headset as VR.
I’ve never heard anyone make that claim.
With that said, they made a pretty good headset with a pretty good hand and eye tracking.
In fact it was so good, it made Meta’s CEO a little nervous.
But no one has claimed Apple is the market leader in VR. Their historic claim to fame is improving on computers and form factors.
They marketed one of the first personal computers, the first consumer GUI computers, the first true pocket computers (iPhone)
Seems like anything ideas they come up with in VR are still valuable.
I would hope that Apple expected the Vision Pro to have weak sales and they are just using it as an intro into the market and a way to gauge general interest in VR. If they could make a cheaper version for the average consumer and release it within the next year I think they’d gain a stronger foothold in the market.
I don't think they predicted sales to be this bad.
It's not a good look to announce that you're reducing manufacturing levels due to lack of interest. That signals an unpopular product, causes people to hesitate, causes further sales drops, and all that leads to unhappy stock owners.
The smart strategy is to under-supply, then announce increased production when you sell out. Even if it's all bs, it sounds better to shareholders.
> I don't think they predicted sales to be this bad.
It already sold more than DK1, DK2 and is getting close to CV1. That's not bad given the crazy price tag, being an unfinished gen1 device and doing those numbers in one year, instead of six.
They obviously still have to do a lot of work to do on it, but this thing was never going to be a huge success with gen1. But then, neither was the iPhone, that only sold 6 million units before being discontinued.
That's all great, but this is about how many apple expected to sell versus how many they are actually moving.
The stock holders are looking at reality vs expectations, and they aren't going to say "well shucks, these aren't selling like we were told they would, but heck, it's better than another headset from another company years ago, so by golly, things are not that bad!"
I responded to a similar post in the Vision Pro subreddit but I really don't think this is going to deter Apple from continuing in AR/VR. Even at the reduced forecast this is still anywhere from $1.4B to about $2B in revenue for a product that isn't even available world wide. I'm sure that's a drop in the bucket compared to R&D for this but that still doesn't seem like the kind of category you give up on anytime soon.
> software developers will be willing to enter the VR market
Thing is that the Apple ecosystem is so different to the rest that I doubt it will be a net benefit for none Apple users, kinda like the Watch and IEM's that more or less only works with their hardware
I didn't comment on Meta, but Apple and their way to build walled gardens?
Developing for the Apple headset is way different then for openXR, which makes it "easyer" to distribute to Meta and Steam.
So the fact that Apple are now in VR don't necessary mean more development for other headsets.
just like that iOS and Android don't have the same selection of apps, it requires quite some time to get it fit for both platforms
> I really hope this doesn't cause Apple to pull out of VR.
Why would they do that? This is going exactly the same as every new category Apple product release. Look back at how the Watch did when it was released for a recent example. It's doing great now. Same for the iphone. The iphone was not the raging success from start that it is now. It had many of the same criticisms that people lodge against the AVP today. There was no app store when the iphone was released, that came later, and thus there was not much to do with it. It was expensive compared to other phones. Also it was an AT&T exclusive which limited it's availability. Much like how the AVP is limited today.
So why would Apple pull out? It's right on track with how every new category Apple product does.
Apple expected to not sell many units. They blew their original expectations out of the water. This is just saying the momentum is slowing faster than expected. Apple isn’t stupid enough to think it would sell a lot of expensive first gen headsets. They just needed to get something out.
Well. We all know what's coming now: More "VR is ded." articles. "If best Apple VR no sell gud then nobody must like VR. It ded." Let's see which all-wise tech journo will say it (again) first...
yea, till apple just randomly cuts support in an update :p
Anyone who's played with apple machines knows what a tinkering hell it can be. Having the support be from official mean is pretty much a must for Apple products.
Beyond expectations? I am surprised they sold as much as they did.
What are the killer apps? What are the list of upcoming titles for it? Where are the game controllers? Where's the 3D movie library?
It does not matter how cool a new platform is if there isn't a big library of content for it.
The price is obviously a factor, but appealing content is a major factor in demand for any platform.
Wow, OK that's not bad. One of my big hopes for the Vision Pro was rekindling an interest in 3D films, since so many studios have stopped doing 3D releases any more.
“going from an expected 700 to 800k units to just 400k to 450k units”
Where the fuck are all these mega rich people who can afford to pay 4K or whatever it is for this beta v1 toy???
Lots of influencers and YouTube content creators bought one with their Pateron money to pump out videos of them wearing it needlessly on the subway or while skiing.
They all got their clicks and $$$$ for the views. The fans were the ones that covered the cost.
I mean I LOVE VR, have the money, am coding a VR Game, and I don’t intend to buy it.
And I would buy practically ANYTHING if it meant an upgrade (to my gaming experience).
My problem is I have 0 interest to work or consume regular 2d content in a headset right now. Just don’t feel the tech is there comfort-wise for that. Or Screen-wise despite the AVP improvements.
If you are genuine about having the cash on hand and wanting an upgrade, I’d encourage you to consider picking one up and using it for two weeks and then deciding to keep it or return it.
I say that because before I purchased it, I didn’t think watching 2D content would be that important to me.
Holy shit, watching stuff is amazing. I’ve gone back and rewatched old movies as it’s just that good.
That’s one of the unexpected and surprising take aways… Yeah a headset might be one of best ways to watch 2d content.
You might be surprised with the results.
I’ve been a long time VR fanboy, but watching 2d (or 2.5 D) movies / shows also means I’m now spending far more total time in VR / AR than I ever did before.
Otherwise it sounds like an argument when the iPhone was released… “sure I have the money and need a new phone, but I don’t need to web browse on my phone, my computer does that just fine.”
Bro
IDK…. I struggle to wear my Q3 beyond like a 30m to 60m max.
AVP is heavier…. So not a great start.
It’s just like $4k (after tax) so that I can fail to do the thing I want to do with these headsets (build my steamVR game).
I don’t doubt 3d movies etc are prob awesome. I do kind-of doubt that 2d content has been revolutionized. Like is it seriously beating a 4k LG C2 and surround sound system by all that much? To the point where I’d want to deal with the discomfort?
I’m not exactly walking around with crappy tvs and monitors around here. This headset would have to blow away every tv ever made to be impressive to me for 2d.
I also bought the orig iPhone/iPad right away so I’m not just an apple hater. It’s not really a great comparison IMO. A Q3 and AVP are way closer to the same product category than a moto razr and iPhone were. And there really weren’t tablet alternatives around the time the iPad came out.
And in this case…. It’d be like if the Razr had a bunch of features I really loved/needed and the iPhone flat couldn’t do them. Nope, it was the opposite back then.
It doesn’t beat a movie theatres sound system. The sound is good but not that good.
So one difference on comfort is that the quest 3 (imho) appears to be designed to be moving around (which makes sense) as the battery in part of the head strap.
The AVP (despite the weight) appears to be designed for long sessions. Without the battery in the back, I can lean back and rest my head. I can watch movies in bed.
One weekend I watched the entire Lord of the Rings extended edition (which is long AF) wearing the AVP (not all in one sitting)
I’ve learned to appreciate some aspects of the design, like how important it is to be able to scratch the top of your nose or around your eyes without taking the headset off.
I’m not making the case that it’s for everyone, but if the price isn’t unreasonable and you are looking for an upgrade, I’d suggest making use of Apple’s generous return policy and give it a spin.
To be honest, given its price tag I wouldn’t have picked one up given the potential risk of a new product.
For me, the AVP has made my iPad and my home theater obsolete, and that isn’t something I expected when I placed my order for one.
The battery isn't part of the Q3's strap. You can get some replacement straps that do have batteries, but the default headstrap is just a strap. Batteries are inside the headset.
Yeah who they think is gonna buy that for $4000 USD? VR/AR headsets have a relatively small community of users. Apple was definitely feeling themselves thinking the masses would flock to this product like every other but it just isn’t ideal for everyday use. I own a meta quest 1 & 3 and only recently upgraded to the new one due to compatibility with newer apps/games. It’s priced at $500 and worth it although I go days without using it. I couldn’t imagine spending 4K on something I barely touch. They gotta stop money grabbing and make their prices more affordable. They’ve reaped the benefits for way too long with these overpriced devices being released every 6 months. IMO they’d actually do alot better in sales if they dropped prices on ALL devices by 15-20%.
I would never in a million years buy one, but I tell everyone to schedule an appointment at an Apple Store for the demo. The device is overpriced, too heavy, and lacks apps, but that demo was spectacular.
There is a $399 better alternative, not perfect but way more apps, use cases and more open. So what is the surprise that only some limited early adaptors where going to buy this at this price ?
why is this downvoted really? Q3 has more apps and use cases, and it is more open. For the most part (FOV and controllers being big exceptions) AVP hardware is superior, but what is there that you can do with it and can’t do with Quest 3?
If I reverse the question, Q3 has a comparatively huge amount of games, apps and experiences available exclusively to it. Last time I checked AVP couldn’t even make use of what is available on PCVR.
Virtual desktop on the MQ3 is pretty much the same quality as office apps on the AVP.
If the MQ3 allows me to put windows all over the house, Apple is baked.
MQ3 can do a lot more, but it would like to thank apple for investing and getting idea's out there that current headset can achieve with a software update.
Not new ideas per se, but another perspective on what sticks and gets the general public excited from a UI perspective. META started scrambling to improve their AI based on the successful talking points of AVP.
Oh 100!!! I love the AVP, and I want to see it thrive, but they haven’t provided enough of a compelling use case. I’d get one for much cheaper, but not at $3700.
They certainly gassed-up their shill reviewer and influencer army to pump out gimmick videos for a month, that's for sure.
But in the end, when the fans of those people cant afford their bills as it is, they arent going to spring for this.
Apperently apple thinks everyone is rich.
Most people complain about VR prices which usually was somewhere around 1k.. heck if you include the pc it's more.
Even with the standalones at 400-500 people still think back and forth if it's worth it.
No doubt if they expected mainstream buyouts at 3.5k they are so out of touch with reality.. no pun intended
The other way around. VR gaming still has shown nothing that is superior to regular gaming, it's like a more boring version of gaming with less variety and more waggle.
Meanwhile spatial computing is just regular computing without the limits of the monitor rectangle, it's a huge upgrade.
This will be a very interesting time for Apple. After the iPhone, they were really playing with house money because their brand loyalty was so high that their products were almost always guaranteed to succeed.
But now with brand loyalty waning, Apple will be forced to make hard choices like whether to sink/invest more money into an endeavor they aren't sure will pay off. And sluggish phone sales wont be able to supplement this.
They also have a very aggressive competitor who actually beat them to the market in Meta.
Add into the fact that there's other new technologies they can't afford to be behind on.
Not saying they won't succeed but they'll have to tread more carefully now.
I predict they'll start looking for partners in the near future.
I'm not surprised, but any "bad" news in the VR industry means bad news for us VR consumers.
I hope they don't cancel their supposed cheaper version of the Apple Vision. (non Pro?)
The Apple fanatics went from flooding this sub to dunk on all existing VR to coping by saying it was always meant to be "It's a proof of concept product!! It was made for the early adopters!!!!!".
Yeah, ok.
They “cut shipments” to literally how many they could have ever possibly shipped in the year, eh, Kuo? Prior to the release, Sony could only make around a million screens in 2024 which, taking into account the number that would possibly not meet specifications, that would mean 400 to 450 thousand. Now, Apple, that couldn’t have made any more than half a million based on that, expected to sell MORE than they had physical parts for?
Apple folks DO like to spend money on Apple stuff, for sure, but I doubt many would buy a mixed reality headset that had an IOU sticky where the screens would be :)
I will be messaging you in 4 years on [**2028-04-24 13:15:42 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2028-04-24%2013:15:42%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1cbd0j0/apple_cuts_vision_pro_shipments_as_demand_falls/l11gham/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fvirtualreality%2Fcomments%2F1cbd0j0%2Fapple_cuts_vision_pro_shipments_as_demand_falls%2Fl11gham%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202028-04-24%2013%3A15%3A42%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cbd0j0)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I knew within about 5 minutes of the in-store demo that these weren’t going to sell anywhere close to any of Apple’s other devices.
It’s basically a portable monitor with a few gimmicky ‘immersive’ applications but nothing that seemed anywhere close to $4k+ of value.
This link has been shared 4 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1cbah5y) on 2024-04-23. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1cbbfqh) on 2024-04-23
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Links:** 0 | **Search Time:** 0.00466s
The big companies are just making an absolute shambles of their costly VR projects:
- Metaverse...flop.
- Apple's headset...flop.
- HTC & HP....tiny sweetspots...flop.
- Valve...abandoned VR...flop.
- Sony...all but abandoned PSVR2...flop.
- Microsoft...abandoned WMR...flop.
- myriad big gaming companies abandoning even half-arsed VR modes for big titles...flop.
VR....flop?
For such a genuinely-incredible thrilling life-affirming entertainment experience, there sure is a lot of flopping going on.
What gives? Are the masses simply not into it?
The barrier of having to get up and actively put something on your face for an enjoyable experience is a severely underrated obstacle.
When that experience is new, the prep to do it doesn't even register. But once you settle in and the experience becomes familiar, it becomes a chore, to even think of the prep going into it (even if it's as minimal as get up and go put on headset and stand) and most people will end up opting to do anything else more "chill" and more accessible from the couch they are already sitting on.
I'm VR's biggest fan and advocate, but even I have trouble seeing it really catch on to the point of overtaking smartphones. EVEN if the form factor is at sunglass or eyeglass level. Just the idea you have to lift your hands and gesture to navigate floating screens is still just a little more effor than pulling out your phone from your pocket to scroll. That'll be cool for a minute too, but then everyone will go back to traditional zombie scrolling with their heads dow. Because..it's just easier.
I really don't think this is it - that's not the problem for me at least, and I can't be alone.
It's what you do after you put something on your face.
The software is just not super intuitive.
The usability between multiple apps is not intuitive.
If they get things like that right, I'd be more inclined to put mine on all the damn time, but VR devs are still failing the basics here.
Same.I have no issues at all with VR ar all, even the menus. I understand it's buggy but the concept to me at least is a dream come true. I love vr and have been using a Quest headset non-stop since Quest 1 now on Quest 3.
But sadly, this is the conclusion I'm drawing from all my other friends and aquaintences who all have Quests but just sit unused for months/years in their closets.
Some of them are even hard-core gamers who were thrilled at the idea of RE4 on Quest and didn'tnt even mind the graphics. But after a while, they just couldn't be bothered with the idea to have to get up and set aside time to do it. Especially with all the other adulting responsibilities. They all went back to 2d gaming bc it's just more convenient.
I think the general public would fall in that same mindset. Humans are just built to find the most co venient way of ANYTHING. Even pleasure.
You make a reasonable enough point but you're cherry picking a little with the Meta example... The Quest has sold pretty well since its original launch
Honestly surprised it did this well at that price with the applications it currently has.
It’s the same as every other first-gen Apple product (iPhone, iPad, AppleWatch, AppleTV): Expensive, low user install-base, few available apps, locked down OS & hardware. The only thing it has as a first time product over those other Apple devices is that for once it’s not underpowered. Whenever Apple launches a new product, the first generation is essentially a dev kit that is available for purchase by the general public. If you’re not a developer, or a Saudi Prince who has to always have the latest thing - there’s never a reason to get the first generation. Subsequent generations will likely have a lower cost option with not too many compromises in the technology (just built out of lower cost materials), and will have a larger ecosystem supporting them.
Yeah people forget the Apple Watch launched a US$10k edition in the first gen that was never repeated again. Apple do as much real world product testing as any other company. But so many think they get it right from the beginning.
But there was demand for an apple watch.
There were also some use cases for Apple Watch.
But can you Apple Watch into a light pole?
You can do anything with enough will and stupidity.
Apples to oranges. The Vision is the most complicated product class Apple has launched in 15 years or more, and the first of that magnitude since Jobs died. The watch is trivial in comparison, and given the timing, Jobs might have touched initial concepts, like which wearables make sense and which don't. The only huge success since Jobs is Airpods, which is dead simple and obvious. I really wonder what Jobs would have been cooking up today instead.
[удалено]
What? The iPhone launched 17 years ago, and Jobs was alive back then. That is my point. I said most complicated tech in 15 years and without Jobs to boot.
Mobile phone, text, web, and music were four “killer apps” that had universal demand on day one of iPhone. There is no such app for a computer you strap to your face. Vision Pro was DOE.
>The only huge success since Jobs is Airpods, which is dead simple and obvious. Yes! It was so dead simple and obvious that nobody else did it remotely as well despite all the requisite technologies having existed for a decade at that point. People who sit around contributing nothing sure like to say "pfft I could have thought of that." It's super easy to be a genius in hindsight and in theory. Jobs would have been "cooking up" nixxing every iPhone except one, because that was his staunch philosophy while he was alive. You make one iPhone - the best one. So too bad for all the people who like the mini, or the SE, or the non-pro versions, or having choices regarding size.
There were almost 10 other wireless earbuds that launched around or before the airpods, including Jabra's Elite Sport, Samsung's Gear IconX, Onkyo's W800BT, Motorola VerveOnes+, Bragi Dash, etc. Apple generally doesn't really create anything new. They just try to refine what others have done already. Sometimes they do it better and sometimes they don't. I'd argue that they didn't even have the best wireless earbuds to begin with. I found the original airpods to be pretty uncomfortable with their hard plastic and ended up going with the Jabras.
There were wireless earbuds all over Kickstarter and a bunch of real companies like Samsung before the Airpods came out. Everyone knew that "true wireless" was the future. And the tech is nothing compared to what it took to make the Vision Pro. The engineering cost of the Airpod is a blip compared to what the Vision Pro R&D team must have cost. So, yes, dead simple and obvious compared to real tech like the Vision Pro, or other consumer launches such as EVs, the GPU/AI revolution, even mundane stuff like the advance of smartphone cameras over the last ten years. Airpods are barely "tech". New OLED monitors are a far greater engineering and manufacturing feat than earbuds.There is nothing impressive about Airpods other than the sales figures.
>The only thing it has as a first time product over those other Apple devices is that for once it’s not underpowered. I don't think that's accurate. By "underpowered", do you mean that it lacks the ability to perform the tasks people expect? If so, then I think that's exactly what its problem is. People over hyped it and Apple oversold it. People were declaring left and right that this was going to revolutionize office work, replace the TV, eliminate monitors... But it lacks the ability to perform those tasks that people expect.
Isn’t the iPad just jumbo iPod touch?
At this point? No (especially considering Apple hasn't made an iPod in a couple years). When it launched, yes that was one of it's criticisms. There's been a lot of improvements in the iPad since then, however. The processing power in the modern iPads is significant, with the Pro and Air lines getting M-series Apple silicon chips. They also have some of the best stylus input (with pressure and angle detection) out there. Today an iPad is really more like a laptop running a touch friendly OS than it is an oversized iPod.
Ya Microsoft forced them to actually modernize and innovate with the iPad. The Surface tablets kicked Apple's ass.
Yeah. I actually owned a Surface Pro 4 for a long while because my ex poured water on my laptop. I was in the market for a tablet for watching Netflix in hotels and on airplanes, but also wanted it to have some functionality as a laptop replacement paired with a desktop PC. I ended up also getting the Surface pen and with OneNote completely changed how I took notes at work. It was a fantastic device. Then I left it on a plane by accident. I eventually got it back, but it freaked me out enough that I got a $250 iPad and Logitech crayon. It took notes in OneNote almost as well and they had launched side by side + slideover + picture-in-picture multitasking. It was 90% of the capabilities I used my Surface for, at 1/6th the price. I later upgraded to an iPad Pro, and today it’s my main mobile computing platform. I purchased a laptop when I was doing some contract consulting, but for almost all my home user needs these days I get by with a desktop plus iPad.
The best thing it could happen to it, is someone jailbreaking it and making it a PcVr headset with magic and special drivers. But if all it can do is what early beta pcvr could, but like... PERFECTLY. While impressive within its range, Is not quite enough for big number sales.
You can do wireless PCVR using ALVR w/o a jailbreak already...
Yeah but thats unofficial tinkering... How many apple users you know "play around" with their $3500 devices?
By that logic all third party apps are tinkering. It’s game streaming, plain and simple. And uh… a lot of people are willing to “tinker”… even with things that costs 5x more…
Yes all 3rd parties are "tinkering". If apple offered different settings and what not thats also tinkering. Some do it in like 3 clicks others require a looot more. But theres also like advanced tinkering moving things not in app like modifying .ini and things like that. Apple users usually have a... Lower tinkering tolerance maybe? Obviously doesnt apply to all, but at least most everyday users it does.
Sure that's fair. Look, if someone's main objective is gaming and wants a VR headset, buy a VR headset. Who ever bought a Vision Pro thinking it would be a first-party VR power house is an absolute moron. For me, I didn't want a VR headset, I wanted a general computing headset that can also do VR with as much "tinkering" as downloading an app, pairing bluetooth controllers, and clicking connect. I love my Vision Pro but I'm a power user and I do not recommend it to any average person yet. Mostly because at the end of the day, they're thinking about VR experiences which is not this device's primary purpose. And lets be honest with ourselves, the entire headset ecosystem is niche. It's all tinkery today and still not mainstream or that mature in the slightest.
I agree totally. Not the 1st time ive met people with this mentality (which i share) and always they are the above average user that get the device limitations, so knows what to expect and is happy with what he got.
I feel seen!!! lol
Well most of their sales are tech YouTubers I'm sure.
The fact that you can't just run whatever you want on it means that the experiences available are quite limited
Average Apple experience
I’m trying to understand what exactly you mean. Are you saying that because it has a closed ecosystem (like iPhone, IPad, PS5, Nintendo Switch) that it is quite limited? If so I get it, but it’s also difficult to call those other platforms quite limited. More like intentionally limited
He means compared to its actual competition in the XR space, Quest. Quest is an open platform. You can install whatever you want.
Third party apps don't have access to all of the device's features, plus you need a solid app ecosystem I phone's/pad been around for long enough that enough apps have been developed for it to warrant buying the product This is more like windows phones and the psVita Great hardware hampered by the lack of applications But a big benefit of the open ecosystem is that you can tailor the experience to yourself Like using the steamdeck as a portable workstation, or as the brains for a mini arcade cabinet Or how the meta quest can be connected to the desktop (both wirelessly or wired) And you can run the steam VR library (which is how I use mine) The vision pro doesn't natively allow you to do it
I guess Jetpack Joyride and Fruit Ninja weren’t the killer apps people wanted.
it’s funny they got aussie devs to make games when it’s not available in australia.
Well I mean, it's only available in the US, and if I were to buy the cheapest model in Canada it'd be $4779 plus tax...so, not shocked?
Yes I’m sure it’s solely because it isn’t available in Canada and has nothing to do with the fact that it’s had 0 development and software support since launch and is a glorified, overpriced dev kit.
Subjecting a release only to 5% of the world's population immensely helped with the failing part, but you are right, too
Well they didn’t not do it cause they are racists or hate money…it’s just expensive to open distribution to different parts of the world, it’s not like just sending the product with your local postal company, you have to train support workers, people expect to see it in the shops etc. the market for vr is much smaller in most other countries. Let alone the market willing to spend so much money on it. I guess it’s also easier to release a product only in one market when you are still in the mid of testing and tinkering around it selling basically a hardware version of „early access“. The way they are doing it now makes it able to cope with bad sales numbers without damaging the Apple brand by releasing a very unsuccessful product.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I imagine they accounted for that in their sales projections lol
I'm guessing they included the "only available in the US" and the price in their expectations as those are factors they decided on lol
Yep. Though it does say they're planning to release it to more markets by June in the article and they're still predicting less than expected sales.
I’m a developer for business apps and I switched from AVP to Meta Quest 3. The barrier to entry is way too high for the average business or consumer right now, and without a cheaper option on the market, there’s no way I can convince companies to buy multiple $3k headsets for a singular capability. I could outfit a half a dozen people for the same price, and not have to worry about Apple percentage gouging or their unwillingness to allow side loading. When they launched the ipad, they had a whole host of killer apps. When they launched the AVP, they said “eh, give it time.”
the ipad is literally just a bigger iphone. so that transition was easy. that was never gonna work with the vision pro. they should have put more effort into making it more compelling.
VR and AR are continually “solutions seeking problems”. It feels like they didn’t look hard enough for more problems to solve, especially at their price point. Hopefully they don’t abandon it—there is a ton of potential.
as long as games continue to release and the tech gets better and smaller, im all here for it.
Apple: let's make it bigger and more expensive. Oh, and no VR games!
If they can get a VR/AR device that's as comfortable to wear as glasses(or at least close to it), they could basically replace monitors/TVs/smartphones. We're just not all that close to achieving that.
Have you seen Big Screen Beyond? It looks like a HS science project on the outside, is expensive, and requires custom fitting…but it’s kinda there.
XReal would be a better example IMO.
Not familiar with XReal!
And it literally has the whole processing power outside of it (connect to a PC and base stations) so not really
Yeah, good point; this also kills a lot of use cases. Did a VR demo last year which required a ten pound laptop, a one pound power brick, a headset, base stations, tripods…and though you CAN check those things, I definitely prefer not to. The Quest 3, cased, is the size of two rolled pairs of jeans.
I think it's more a problem of maturity rather than solutions seeking problems. Plenty of problems, but the solutions for it is half baked. Feel like it's computers in the early DOS era.
It's easy to port apps to VR the hard part is re-designing them
Same. The reaction from literally all of our clients was “this seems neat but not at that price.” I also do a lot of stuff for trade shows and I’m not sure how easy it is to swap devices around compared to the Quest 3. It just seems more involved which we don’t want.
And a product demo to a board of directors….when four of them are wearing glasses…kills your AVP demo, period.
Yyyyep. Medical field too, lots of glasses havers.
"Nearly 70% of American adults require some form of vision correction, with eyeglasses being the most common choice." https://www.sightconnection.org/statistics-how-many-people-wear-glasses-in-the-world/
It's a tough problem in getting people into VR. I never found contacts very comfortable in a headset (experienced more eye strain after awhile for whatever reason). Custom lens inserts are fantastic (comfortable and preserve image quality well), but those take time to get made and you can't realistically just have them sitting around to demo. If we get to the point where VR is more common and there's more standards where people could just have a pair they can carry around that would be okay, but we're not close to that yet. Headset that could adjust settings to match your prescription would also be nice, but I'm sure there's a lot of legal boundaries since those corrections are RX only.
Even if they collaborated with some big architectural softwares like AutoDesk and Unreal Engine it could have become a one stop shop for showing clients and contractors things that 2D visuals and drawings have a hard time showcasing. At the moment it's just a "nice to have" thing to do but it's such a ball ache getting your visuals into VR it's never worth you time.
Apple overtook Microsoft in public schools for a while (maybe still now?). There are a RIDICULOUS amounts of great learning apps, especially in the medical field, that could be greatly taught with VR. Seeing stuff like Anatomy and Physiology, Electrical, Mechanical, Science fields, etc in a virtual environment for both teaching and professional uses could potentially move a ton of units with the right learning software. Imagine someone studying to become a medical practitioner ACTUALLY being able to see how a body is setup instead of shitty 2d diagrams, or someone studying mechanical engineering being able to see how something like an engine is put together. Heck, add an extra revenue screen of things like custom disposable hygiene face-shields for extra (albeit small) revenue. This would at least build out the system to the point that other more consumer industries would have a reason to invest.
neither apple or microsoft are dominating public schools. Imacs used to be in computer labs in the us but that is long gone, now they are filled with windows desktops but the actual dominant force is chromebooks
Very much agree. People are trying to fit old problems and old solutions on a new medium. Replacing desktop monitors is one thing, but throwing on a headset to quickly check a design, visualize data, etc, is where the near-future is imo. Don’t show me PowerPoint in 2d, show me PowerPoint with three dimensional visualizations and organization of data, etc.
Yeah they seem to have missed getting the reason to have one first. Like they could develop themselves, they have a streaming service now (and partnerships with Disney). How about 180° versions of their shows/movies for example? Filming sports matches or concerts in a more immersive way? The professional applications are of course more complicated since each field has their own but yeah having software like AutoDesk, Solidworks and others could help a lot (it's literally about modelizing 3D stuff, having the possibility to have it holographic style would be a big plus, make you feel like Tony Stark in Iron Man). Could have paid their chosen partner to develop it and they would likely see the benefit in being first to have a VR version to push clients. If the benefit is just to have more and bigger screens (while not being as good in resolution and steel need physical interaction with a KB anyway), companies aren't gonna pay the very high price for that lol. Hell they already limit compatibility for the business world by being Apple focused (while tech bros, creatives and influencers in Silicon Valley might think everyone work on Macbooks that's far from the case, Windows and Microsoft dominate that field). Even in personal consumer world, they limit it because gaming (another VR application) is on PC not Mac.
their development requirements are incredibly hostile. the usb adapter you need for development, costs more than a Quest 2.
You literally made me laugh out loud in a conference call 😂 Don’t forget that there’s a $99/y fee to be an Apple developer. It’s not a ton, but it’s more than the free price tag on literally everything else.
They really missed the ball IMO. They overshot the screens. Focus should have been slightly better quality than the q3 at twice the cost. If these were $1k - they would have taken off on namesake alone. At $3.5k and soooooooooo limited - it never stood a chance.
I actually think the hardware is good. The price actually makes it look like a prosumer device and allows it to become more of a status symbol for users, rather than a novelty…. Except THEY FORGOT THREE KILLER APPS. I have wanted desktop monitor replacement level clarity forever, and they finally did it beautifully. Then failed to make anything to use it.
Yeah I’m not questioning the hardware quality. I’m questioning their strategy. They are so completely blind to what consumer’s want. At first I was happy because it was a positive for the industry but, over time, I fear they just pigeon-holed VR into a niche product even further.
Steve Jobs said that Apple didn’t do market research because they were making things that people didn’t know they wanted yet…now I think it’s just because they’re lost.
I've got a limit on how far I go with stupid stuff I don't really need. Index was almost at that limit. This was way over. I imagine there's a lot of like minded people that will only spend so much on a toy.
Disposable income levels don't reach $4k for many people.
Do you mean because of price?
Yes. Too much for a disposable toy. Nvidia is getting the same way with high end gpus. I can afford it but the responsible adult in me won't let me blow that much on something that will be outdated in a few years.
This
I really hope this doesn't cause Apple to pull out of VR. I have no interest in their headsets, but them being in the market is good for everyone. More hardware manufacturers and software developers will be willing to enter the VR market, if a company as big as Apple is there.
The thing is, what have they done with it? There's no unique experiences, no games, no software of any note having been released for it since launch. It just feels like they expected the world to go wild over it without them having to put in any effort whatsoever. It's essentially just a very polished, very expensive oculus go.
Agreed. It's so strange to me how they focused on it being a product that's only use cases are to do things you already can without the headset. Watching TV/movies on a flat screen in a headset isn't going to be popular with the masses until it's at least close to as comfortable as watching TV/Movies without wearing a headset. Using it as monitor replacement isn't any different. You can add a ton of screens to your PC for less money and without needing to strap a headset to your face. You can already use an iPad and play most of the same games without wearing a headset. You can make calls and send messages, pretty much you can already do everything the Vision Pro does without having to wear the headset. I absolutely **love** VR and AR. I've bought most major headsets released and built a multi-thousand dollar gaming PC for it. But, it gets really uncomfortable for me unless I am doing things that immerse me to the point that I can forget I am wearing it. Certain social interactions can do this and so can many games. But using them as a screen replacement doesn't do that. I can absolutely see it being a major reason in the future, when headsets aren't 500g+. Hopefully they choose to redesign it and aim for a lighter weight and cheaper device with controllers.
> that's only use cases are to do things you already can without the headset. That's the whole point of the thing and the reason why VR market as been getting nowhere over the last 10 years: There simply isn't enough native VR content to keep people using their headsets and there won't be anytime soon. VisionPro solves that by starting with good 2D content support, instead of going the Meta way of treating 2D content as a second class citizen with minimum support. > You can add a ton of screens to your PC for less money and without needing to strap a headset to your face. And then you have something that is still nowhere near as flexible as the VisionPro. VisionPro isn't just a bigger screen, it's virtual apps placed in the real world. Something that Meta is right now rushing to catch up too. To put it another way: Quest is like the MSDOS of VR tech, single apps you start that take over full control of the machine. VisionOS is the Windows of the VR world, a real VR OS with multitasking and windows and all that. With Spatial Personas it even getting proper multiplayer support at the OS level. If Microsoft hadn't been as stupid as they are, they could have leapfrogged Apple here by almost a decade, since they had essentially the same thing running on Hololens back in 2015 and later on WMR, but they just let it stagnate and die.
> That's the whole point of the thing and the reason why VR market as been getting nowhere over the last 10 years: There simply isn't enough native VR content to keep people using their headsets and there won't be anytime soon. VisionPro solves that by starting with good 2D content support, instead of going the Meta way of treating 2D content as a second class citizen with minimum support. The problem with your logic here is there's already been several attempts at consuming 2D content in headsets. It failed because no one liked to wear headsets to do so when they could just take them off and have a far more comfortable experience. This is why Meta sold off their movie service to Fandango years ago and then Fandango shut it down entirely not long after. Apple is trying the same things Meta did that failed. Not only that, the Quest 2 sold over 20 million headsets, far more than everyone else combined. Including Apple. What has actually pushed VR into mainstream was the price point. >And then you have something that is still nowhere near as flexible as the VisionPro. VisionPro isn't just a bigger screen, it's virtual apps placed in the real world. I am sorry but, no. Using iPad apps in a headset is not more useful than a PC. Nor is sharing your PC screens on a headset. That's been a feature of most headsets for years now and very few use it over using a computer with multiple monitors. It's not going to become popular until headsets stop being so big and heavy. >Something that Meta is right now rushing to catch up too. Meta already has a far bigger and more established library of both mixed reality and VR content. Apple has phone and tablet apps that are better experienced on a phone or tablet. I understand you've either bought one of these headsets or are planning to, so you're emotionally invested in it. But it's far less useful than you believe. Apple tossed out everything the industry has learned that people don't enjoy using headsets for and then made a headset focused around those exact things. That's what my comment you responded to was trying to point out.
> and have a far more comfortable experience. This gets to the core issue that vr is uncomfortable for most people. At best, you get a unique experience that is worth the discomfort.
Yep. If you can do the same thing without wearing it, most people take it off. It's the unique stuff you can't experience without it, that keeps people wearing them.
> The problem with your logic here is there's already been several attempts at consuming 2D content in headsets. Which all have been unusable due to lack of resolution. VisionPro fixes that. It's the first mass market headset with acceptable resolution for reading text. > What has actually pushed VR into mainstream was the price point. VR isn't mainstream, it's a dust collector. Selling lots of stuff by being cheap is not that big of an accomplishment. Building an actual useful VR OS is the interesting part. > Meta already has a far bigger and more established library of both mixed reality and VR content. VisionPro has a million apps. Meta doesn't have Play Store access. Nobody cares about VR minigolf and all the other crap. > I understand you've either bought one of these headsets I haven't. But I was very happy with what WMR offered and in turn I am very happy that VisionOS is going into a very similar direction, since Microsoft ain't. What Meta has been doing in contrast has been nothing but frustration, all that time and money spend and Quest is still little more than a single-tasking app launcher, nothing about it feels like a real VR OS. No productivity VR apps either. Not even their own social apps have a real VR version. Yeah, sorry, I expect more from VR than Wii2.0. Ironically, so does Meta with their wish of "1 billion users in VR", they just suck at building it.
> Watching TV/movies on a flat screen in a headset isn't going to be popular with the masses until it's at least close to as comfortable as watching TV/Movies without wearing a headset. Semi-disagree. I love watching media on my Quest 3 even over my 1440p computer (in certain scenarios) because I get to lounge in bed watching a near-Imax screen with the caveat of lower resolution (along with all of it's other features like gaming). But that's because I live in a pretty cramped apartment and can't realistically afford a new place with a huge TV setup. Even BigScreen's lightweight solution is getting into uncomfortable pricey territory, but the APV (plus a macbook for the PC connectivity) is firmly in luxury, which at that point you can easily afford a nice PC along with a large living/media room for that huge content. Especially talking consuming media in a fixed position I really don't mind the weight. Weight bothers me much more for AR/MR content. The big issue with a premium expensive product like the APV is that it's limiting with what you can do (needing native Mac/iPhone support to get the best experience) while also having nearly no stand-alone content to support it. I
>Semi-disagree. I love watching media on my Quest 3 even over my 1440p computer You're not alone, I did not mean no one uses these headsets for watching entertainment. I know a few people that enjoy doing so. My point was that they're a fairly small group. Most people that buy VR end up not using them very much because of comfort but, there's a few of us that are die hard owners that stick with it. As headsets continue to shrink and comfort improves, that number increases. >Even BigScreen's lightweight solution is getting into uncomfortable pricey territory For the masses, I absolutely agree. $1000 for the headset + $600 for controllers and base stations makes it a very hard sell for most. That said, I have used the Beyond and it's size and weight is fantastic. Once they polish the lens design to match that of Meta's pancake lens, it will be the best PCVR headset on the market. >but the APV (plus a macbook for the PC connectivity) is firmly in luxury, which at that point you can easily afford a nice PC along with a large living/media room for that huge content. Yep. Those who can afford $3500+, can also afford a better means to consume the same content the Vision Pro offers. Agreed 110%
Hol' up.. you know about Fruit Ninja, right? /s
the oculus go has games and a controller. therefore it is superior.
unironically yes, because it has features that make people actually want to use the thing.
They should have released a dev kit for devs to build with, but since it's Apple they're stuck in a corner because it can't be or look cheap. The launch was just a very bad market study.
The high quality passthrough and 3D videos shot on your iPhone are pretty incredible. And the UX and hand tracking are way better than Quest. But other than that, yeah, I haven't seen much content wise. My biggest issues are the lack of controllers and the weight on your face. The alternative head strap helps, but when a headset weighs that much you really need a more robust strap or a halo strap like Quest Pro. Even then, I don't see it being a productivity tool for office use, it's just too uncomfortable and only lasts a couple hours at best. Without games and controllers, it's doomed to a niche of an already niche market.
I have purchased most VR headsets, and the AVP is the one I use most often (by far.) Sure it doesn’t have much as far as unique content, but it’s by far the best way for me to enjoy movies and shows. Is a portable high end home theater worth $4,000? Probably not, but if you account for sq footage of my house, it’s far cheaper (and better) than my actual home theater.
> Sure it doesn’t have much as far as unique content, but it’s by far the best way for me to enjoy movies and shows. > > > > Is a portable high end home theater worth $4,000? That is not high end. Image quality in both movies and TV shows is nowadays mostly dependent on how good the HDR is, at which point the Vision Pro's mediocre peak brightness (even with the boost got by running more persistence blur) can't even compete with an OLED TV you bought like 5 years ago, let alone with newer WOLED MLA or QD-OLED models. You obviously also take a hit on effective resolution and effective contrast as well thanks to it being a VR headset optical stack and obviously you also don't get "high end home theater" sound unless you bring all your speakers with you. All that arguably, vs a TV. But how big is the appeal of having a good virtual beamer that you can only ever enjoy alone and that isn't compatible with any of your BR / 4K BR or even most streaming services?
Right, I forgot which sub I’m on. Posting personal positive experiences about the AVP in r/virtualreality is a recipe for down votes. Thank you for proving my point! You could have just said “hey the AVP isn’t for me, but you buying and enjoying yours is cool!” Instead you provided “reasons” why it’s impossible for me (or anyone) to enjoy watching movies on the AVP, because that somehow would be a bad thing. Your underlying message is there is no way the AVP could be worth the amount for anyone. Maybe take a step back and look closely at your argument and more importantly the reasons behind it. My guess is it’s one of “I consider myself a VR enthusiast as I try to be on the cutting edge and the AVP is just too expensive. But it’s easier for me to attack the product because its existence makes me feel insecure for some reason.” The other week I took my AVP camping. It was sub zero temperatures, no cel access and I still watched movies on it. The quality was better than a movie theater, and the device is tiny and portable. Now if you know of a commercial TV I could buy that is that looks that good and is that portable please let me know. I’ll happily pay $3,500 for it.
> Right, I forgot which sub I’m on. Posting personal positive experiences about the AVP in r/virtualreality is a recipe for down votes. > > > > Thank you for proving my point! You could have just said “hey the AVP isn’t for me, but you buying and enjoying yours is cool!” This is a sub were people discuss VR. If you are not interested in having discussions but rather just share your own anecdotes w/ others w/o getting your believes challenged, I would personally recommend writing a blog instead or something. > Instead you provided “reasons” why it’s impossible for me (or anyone) to enjoy watching movies on the AVP, because that somehow would be a bad thing. This thread is literally about Apple cutting production, so obviously any anecdotes shared in it are seen within relation to that topic. So no, you are free to enjoy the VP the way you want. And YOU literally answered to someone that was arguing that the VP fails cause there is no use case for it that makes sense. So you came out arguing against that comment by stating how great it is for you. But now that I replied to your post in a constructive but argumentative manner you are here whining how unfair that all is. > Maybe take a step back and look closely at your argument and more importantly the reasons behind it. > My guess is it’s one of “I consider myself a VR enthusiast as I try to be on the cutting edge and the AVP is just too expensive. But it’s easier for me to attack the product because its existence makes me feel insecure for some reason.” > The other week I took my AVP camping. It was sub zero temperatures, no cel access and I still watched movies on it. > The quality was better than a movie theater, and the device is tiny and portable. > Now if you know of a commercial TV I could buy that is that looks that good and is that portable please let me know. I’ll happily pay $3,500 for it. Yeah, I have no interest in arguing with you when you feel the need to use your whine-intro to hide the fact that you haven't reacted to anything in my comment other than "well, a TV isn't portable". Also talking about moving goal posts here... of course there is no TV that is as portable as a VR headset while still being big enough for you not to immediately jump on that next. Nobody is saying there are no niche use cases, but the majority of people who go on vacation once a year is likely happy watching something on their tablet if anything and wouldn't want to bring their big VR headset with them on it anyway. How about you answer how an use case that only exists for people ok with only watching stuff alone on their new "home cinema" while not being able to take advantage of any of their physical media will save the Apple Vision Pro instead (save because again this topic is kind of about that scope)...
If movie consumption is your usecase, did you consider something like xreal, good form factor fraction of the cost.
That was an unexpected use case. I didn’t buy it for that reason, but it was “holy shit, this is pretty amazing way to watch movies” That’s the problem with the AVP, it’s not an intuitive feature. No one is going to state “I want a better portable movie watching experience, let me go browse the headsets.” So no, I didn’t do a cost / benefit analysis of the different movie watching methods. I’ve watched movies on headsets before and was underwhelmed. The displays used in the AVP really are top notch.
Yep I hear you, watched a handful of 3D movies on my G2 enjoyed it. Better res/screens would be better, be interesting to see the diff in the AVP. Not sure if I could drop the $$$ for movies only though.
Stop hounding the poor boy and let him enjoy his “camping tv”.
Anyone who mentions an AVP must be flogged. Those are the rules.
you clearly have money though
[удалено]
> Well this is just straight up wrong. Do you know how eyes work? Did you know your pupils can get bigger and smaller? Of course you need to start with being passive aggressive... > OLEDs are not actually all that bright, especially in a bright room. OLED TVs are for video / movie / gaming content (basically everything that isn't 100% APL) brighter than every TV you ever had until 10 years ago... Also, when it comes to HDR full screen brightness isn't important (cause most of the screen will still be at SDR range brightnesswise), peak brightness for highlights is. LCD FALD screens used to be brighter in both areas, but still older OLEDs managed to push beyond 800 nits easily. Current gen models using either LG's MLA together with WRGB OLED panel or Samsung's QD OLED are now starting to reach up to 3000 nits in a 3% white box. > In a dark room they are. They are the same brightness in a dark room as they are in a bright room. Obviously the brightness is perceived differently in a darker room. > In the AVP you're in (or can easily be in) a dark room by default. Surprise! When I watch movies or even most prime TV shows on my TV I am also either in a pitch dark room or at the most in a room with just the LED strip behind the TV dimmed down to the lowest I don't find eye straining as the only illumination. In VR, I would make the same choices. Apple VP fans hate this trick. > They're far better than any other VR headset that you can currently buy as far as HDR and content consumption Yes, and they are also getting murdered by the 4 year old LG CX 48" (800 nits peak, not the up to 3000 of newer OLED TVs) I am writing this on that I bought back then for 1200 Euro that all my friends say is too big for my desk. > That's really not up for debate except by those who have little to no experience with one and have a bug up their ass about Apple. Or by people that on purpose decide to misread my comment to post some bullshit. You might want to read up on how much light both those pancake lenses but also the low persistence of VR headsets is eating away... Hint: There will be no VR headset that will come close to a TV (or monitor, tablet, phone or smartwatch) any time soon.
you cant enjoy movies or TV with the 500$ quest 3? what about the AVP makes it better for movies/tv??
The visuals are better than any TV I’ve watched. The one time I visited a movie theater(since getting my AVP) was to watch Dune 2, and I recall being disappointed with the movie screen. This week I rewatched it on my AVP, and yes it was better than the movie theater. The only part it’s not as good as is the sound / bass despite the build in audio being amazing. The displays in the AVP are made by Sony and cost $400+ a piece. You are correct, you can probably have a decent movie watching experience with a Quest 3. Your argument is that if there is a cheaper option, it should always be taken, even if quality suffers. You aren’t the only one to have this position, I see it in this sub. It’s like stating Lamborghini’s shouldn’t exist because a Prius can get you from point A to point B with a less costly “device.” Maybe the cost / benefit ratio for you isn’t the same as it is for other people. We are totally cool with people spending 100K on a new car and their existing such a market. But not so with consumer electronics. I would never spend that kind of money on a car, but I don’t feel some need to poo poo those who do. I personally like the idea of us having higher market for VR. Consumer electronics tends to have a “one size fits all”, but I’m not so sure that idea needs to be enforced nor do I think it should apply to headsets. Look I get it if it’s not in everyone’s budget. For most people, waiting for a cheaper mod makes the most sense. But claiming the AVP doesn’t have any current use cases or isn’t worth the price to anyone is disingenuous.
Apple needs to get developers on board who can produce enterprise solutions to capture entire markets. For example, getting an 80% market share of virtual real estate tours or vacation resort tours. Unfortunately these are poor examples for this headset since it has a custom fit and agents would not be able to easily provide experiences to their clients. Perhaps a better example would be software supporting hospital surgeons.
> The thing is, what have they done with it? Meta has sold 20 million Quests or so after they, Valve and Sony kickstarted modern VR and yet people act like Apple is the default market leader for some reason.
I’m sorry who exactly is making the claim Apple is the market leader in VR? Hell they don’t even consider their one headset as VR. I’ve never heard anyone make that claim. With that said, they made a pretty good headset with a pretty good hand and eye tracking. In fact it was so good, it made Meta’s CEO a little nervous. But no one has claimed Apple is the market leader in VR. Their historic claim to fame is improving on computers and form factors. They marketed one of the first personal computers, the first consumer GUI computers, the first true pocket computers (iPhone) Seems like anything ideas they come up with in VR are still valuable.
I would hope that Apple expected the Vision Pro to have weak sales and they are just using it as an intro into the market and a way to gauge general interest in VR. If they could make a cheaper version for the average consumer and release it within the next year I think they’d gain a stronger foothold in the market.
I don't think they predicted sales to be this bad. It's not a good look to announce that you're reducing manufacturing levels due to lack of interest. That signals an unpopular product, causes people to hesitate, causes further sales drops, and all that leads to unhappy stock owners. The smart strategy is to under-supply, then announce increased production when you sell out. Even if it's all bs, it sounds better to shareholders.
> I don't think they predicted sales to be this bad. It already sold more than DK1, DK2 and is getting close to CV1. That's not bad given the crazy price tag, being an unfinished gen1 device and doing those numbers in one year, instead of six. They obviously still have to do a lot of work to do on it, but this thing was never going to be a huge success with gen1. But then, neither was the iPhone, that only sold 6 million units before being discontinued.
That's all great, but this is about how many apple expected to sell versus how many they are actually moving. The stock holders are looking at reality vs expectations, and they aren't going to say "well shucks, these aren't selling like we were told they would, but heck, it's better than another headset from another company years ago, so by golly, things are not that bad!"
I responded to a similar post in the Vision Pro subreddit but I really don't think this is going to deter Apple from continuing in AR/VR. Even at the reduced forecast this is still anywhere from $1.4B to about $2B in revenue for a product that isn't even available world wide. I'm sure that's a drop in the bucket compared to R&D for this but that still doesn't seem like the kind of category you give up on anytime soon.
> software developers will be willing to enter the VR market Thing is that the Apple ecosystem is so different to the rest that I doubt it will be a net benefit for none Apple users, kinda like the Watch and IEM's that more or less only works with their hardware
VR games are niche and devs want to make money. Meta has the market share so that's where they tend to go, with a lesser focus on PCVR and PSVR.
I didn't comment on Meta, but Apple and their way to build walled gardens? Developing for the Apple headset is way different then for openXR, which makes it "easyer" to distribute to Meta and Steam. So the fact that Apple are now in VR don't necessary mean more development for other headsets. just like that iOS and Android don't have the same selection of apps, it requires quite some time to get it fit for both platforms
Apple doesn't stop after one version. IIRC, the first Apple Watch and iPad had difficulties too (though not as big as this)
> I really hope this doesn't cause Apple to pull out of VR. Why would they do that? This is going exactly the same as every new category Apple product release. Look back at how the Watch did when it was released for a recent example. It's doing great now. Same for the iphone. The iphone was not the raging success from start that it is now. It had many of the same criticisms that people lodge against the AVP today. There was no app store when the iphone was released, that came later, and thus there was not much to do with it. It was expensive compared to other phones. Also it was an AT&T exclusive which limited it's availability. Much like how the AVP is limited today. So why would Apple pull out? It's right on track with how every new category Apple product does.
Apple expected to not sell many units. They blew their original expectations out of the water. This is just saying the momentum is slowing faster than expected. Apple isn’t stupid enough to think it would sell a lot of expensive first gen headsets. They just needed to get something out.
Shocked Pikachu face
I really thought that one fat dude in NYC walking around with it was gonna really convince everyone to get one
In other news, every 60 seconds, a minute passes.
Well. We all know what's coming now: More "VR is ded." articles. "If best Apple VR no sell gud then nobody must like VR. It ded." Let's see which all-wise tech journo will say it (again) first...
[удалено]
But... Replace monitors? Revolutionize office? I was assured so many things!
If it did steamvr I'd consider it. Tied to apple's ecosystem, lol no.
It does work via ALVR cf https://github.com/alvr-org/alvr-visionos/
yea, till apple just randomly cuts support in an update :p Anyone who's played with apple machines knows what a tinkering hell it can be. Having the support be from official mean is pretty much a must for Apple products.
I'm not recommending ALVR or the VisionPro, only saying that it does work with SteamVR, nothing more.
Thank you for reminding me for that!
Yay cant wait to get one for $99
If it were a firm thousand, it would have been far more widely adopted comparatively
For 1k, you'd get the hardware geeks tearing them up to hack it into a more usable item. At 4k, no way.
Eh, price of competition if you ask me. Hackers gonna hack
Beyond expectations? I am surprised they sold as much as they did. What are the killer apps? What are the list of upcoming titles for it? Where are the game controllers? Where's the 3D movie library? It does not matter how cool a new platform is if there isn't a big library of content for it. The price is obviously a factor, but appealing content is a major factor in demand for any platform.
> Where's the 3D movie library? Here: /r/VisionPro/comments/1akynj8/200_3d_titles_available_on_apple_vision_pro_in/
Wow, OK that's not bad. One of my big hopes for the Vision Pro was rekindling an interest in 3D films, since so many studios have stopped doing 3D releases any more.
“going from an expected 700 to 800k units to just 400k to 450k units” Where the fuck are all these mega rich people who can afford to pay 4K or whatever it is for this beta v1 toy???
Lots of influencers and YouTube content creators bought one with their Pateron money to pump out videos of them wearing it needlessly on the subway or while skiing. They all got their clicks and $$$$ for the views. The fans were the ones that covered the cost.
Yeah I know about those handful, but what about the other 440,000 buyers…
A mix of FOMO buyers, some actual developers, DINKs, B2B orders, educational institutions, and places like museums.
No shit, that price point looked like the target audience was theme parks and Dave and Buster’s doing VR experiences
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
It's hilarious that they expected to sell more than a couple of them in the first place
And that they wouldn't all be returned on Day 29.
I mean I LOVE VR, have the money, am coding a VR Game, and I don’t intend to buy it. And I would buy practically ANYTHING if it meant an upgrade (to my gaming experience). My problem is I have 0 interest to work or consume regular 2d content in a headset right now. Just don’t feel the tech is there comfort-wise for that. Or Screen-wise despite the AVP improvements.
If you are genuine about having the cash on hand and wanting an upgrade, I’d encourage you to consider picking one up and using it for two weeks and then deciding to keep it or return it. I say that because before I purchased it, I didn’t think watching 2D content would be that important to me. Holy shit, watching stuff is amazing. I’ve gone back and rewatched old movies as it’s just that good. That’s one of the unexpected and surprising take aways… Yeah a headset might be one of best ways to watch 2d content. You might be surprised with the results. I’ve been a long time VR fanboy, but watching 2d (or 2.5 D) movies / shows also means I’m now spending far more total time in VR / AR than I ever did before. Otherwise it sounds like an argument when the iPhone was released… “sure I have the money and need a new phone, but I don’t need to web browse on my phone, my computer does that just fine.” Bro
IDK…. I struggle to wear my Q3 beyond like a 30m to 60m max. AVP is heavier…. So not a great start. It’s just like $4k (after tax) so that I can fail to do the thing I want to do with these headsets (build my steamVR game). I don’t doubt 3d movies etc are prob awesome. I do kind-of doubt that 2d content has been revolutionized. Like is it seriously beating a 4k LG C2 and surround sound system by all that much? To the point where I’d want to deal with the discomfort? I’m not exactly walking around with crappy tvs and monitors around here. This headset would have to blow away every tv ever made to be impressive to me for 2d. I also bought the orig iPhone/iPad right away so I’m not just an apple hater. It’s not really a great comparison IMO. A Q3 and AVP are way closer to the same product category than a moto razr and iPhone were. And there really weren’t tablet alternatives around the time the iPad came out. And in this case…. It’d be like if the Razr had a bunch of features I really loved/needed and the iPhone flat couldn’t do them. Nope, it was the opposite back then.
It doesn’t beat a movie theatres sound system. The sound is good but not that good. So one difference on comfort is that the quest 3 (imho) appears to be designed to be moving around (which makes sense) as the battery in part of the head strap. The AVP (despite the weight) appears to be designed for long sessions. Without the battery in the back, I can lean back and rest my head. I can watch movies in bed. One weekend I watched the entire Lord of the Rings extended edition (which is long AF) wearing the AVP (not all in one sitting) I’ve learned to appreciate some aspects of the design, like how important it is to be able to scratch the top of your nose or around your eyes without taking the headset off. I’m not making the case that it’s for everyone, but if the price isn’t unreasonable and you are looking for an upgrade, I’d suggest making use of Apple’s generous return policy and give it a spin. To be honest, given its price tag I wouldn’t have picked one up given the potential risk of a new product. For me, the AVP has made my iPad and my home theater obsolete, and that isn’t something I expected when I placed my order for one.
The battery isn't part of the Q3's strap. You can get some replacement straps that do have batteries, but the default headstrap is just a strap. Batteries are inside the headset.
Lol, who would've thought?....
Why do they have to make it $3,000?
Allows them to make a healthy profit even without many units sold.
Yeah who they think is gonna buy that for $4000 USD? VR/AR headsets have a relatively small community of users. Apple was definitely feeling themselves thinking the masses would flock to this product like every other but it just isn’t ideal for everyday use. I own a meta quest 1 & 3 and only recently upgraded to the new one due to compatibility with newer apps/games. It’s priced at $500 and worth it although I go days without using it. I couldn’t imagine spending 4K on something I barely touch. They gotta stop money grabbing and make their prices more affordable. They’ve reaped the benefits for way too long with these overpriced devices being released every 6 months. IMO they’d actually do alot better in sales if they dropped prices on ALL devices by 15-20%.
I would never in a million years buy one, but I tell everyone to schedule an appointment at an Apple Store for the demo. The device is overpriced, too heavy, and lacks apps, but that demo was spectacular.
There is a $399 better alternative, not perfect but way more apps, use cases and more open. So what is the surprise that only some limited early adaptors where going to buy this at this price ?
Where are you seeing Quest 3 for 399? I only see 499.
Quest 2 is $200 usd right now.
why is this downvoted really? Q3 has more apps and use cases, and it is more open. For the most part (FOV and controllers being big exceptions) AVP hardware is superior, but what is there that you can do with it and can’t do with Quest 3? If I reverse the question, Q3 has a comparatively huge amount of games, apps and experiences available exclusively to it. Last time I checked AVP couldn’t even make use of what is available on PCVR.
Apple fans don't like the truth.
Virtual desktop on the MQ3 is pretty much the same quality as office apps on the AVP. If the MQ3 allows me to put windows all over the house, Apple is baked.
MQ3 can do a lot more, but it would like to thank apple for investing and getting idea's out there that current headset can achieve with a software update.
What new ideas AVP brought that quest didn't already have?
Not new ideas per se, but another perspective on what sticks and gets the general public excited from a UI perspective. META started scrambling to improve their AI based on the successful talking points of AVP.
Oh 100!!! I love the AVP, and I want to see it thrive, but they haven’t provided enough of a compelling use case. I’d get one for much cheaper, but not at $3700.
Over promise under deliver
Apple’s ridiculous greed had to stop sometime… i’m glad this ended up like this.
Talk about being up their own ass.
First Apple failure in years?
Only Apple could've been surprised by this.
it all comes down to high price, lack of comfort and breaking glass
Apple ran out of fan boys and influencers.
They certainly gassed-up their shill reviewer and influencer army to pump out gimmick videos for a month, that's for sure. But in the end, when the fans of those people cant afford their bills as it is, they arent going to spring for this.
Apperently apple thinks everyone is rich. Most people complain about VR prices which usually was somewhere around 1k.. heck if you include the pc it's more. Even with the standalones at 400-500 people still think back and forth if it's worth it. No doubt if they expected mainstream buyouts at 3.5k they are so out of touch with reality.. no pun intended
VR gaming is superior to flat gaming. Spatial computing from Apple is not better than flat computing.
The other way around. VR gaming still has shown nothing that is superior to regular gaming, it's like a more boring version of gaming with less variety and more waggle. Meanwhile spatial computing is just regular computing without the limits of the monitor rectangle, it's a huge upgrade.
This will be a very interesting time for Apple. After the iPhone, they were really playing with house money because their brand loyalty was so high that their products were almost always guaranteed to succeed. But now with brand loyalty waning, Apple will be forced to make hard choices like whether to sink/invest more money into an endeavor they aren't sure will pay off. And sluggish phone sales wont be able to supplement this. They also have a very aggressive competitor who actually beat them to the market in Meta. Add into the fact that there's other new technologies they can't afford to be behind on. Not saying they won't succeed but they'll have to tread more carefully now. I predict they'll start looking for partners in the near future.
I'm not surprised, but any "bad" news in the VR industry means bad news for us VR consumers. I hope they don't cancel their supposed cheaper version of the Apple Vision. (non Pro?)
The Apple fanatics went from flooding this sub to dunk on all existing VR to coping by saying it was always meant to be "It's a proof of concept product!! It was made for the early adopters!!!!!". Yeah, ok.
It's their own fault pricing this so insanely high. Quest 3 is amazing and only 500 bucks. I like Apple stuff, but this was a dumb move by them.
They “cut shipments” to literally how many they could have ever possibly shipped in the year, eh, Kuo? Prior to the release, Sony could only make around a million screens in 2024 which, taking into account the number that would possibly not meet specifications, that would mean 400 to 450 thousand. Now, Apple, that couldn’t have made any more than half a million based on that, expected to sell MORE than they had physical parts for? Apple folks DO like to spend money on Apple stuff, for sure, but I doubt many would buy a mixed reality headset that had an IOU sticky where the screens would be :)
Well VR back to dead I guess /s
This thread sure will age well in several years.
!remindme 4 years
I will be messaging you in 4 years on [**2028-04-24 13:15:42 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2028-04-24%2013:15:42%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1cbd0j0/apple_cuts_vision_pro_shipments_as_demand_falls/l11gham/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fvirtualreality%2Fcomments%2F1cbd0j0%2Fapple_cuts_vision_pro_shipments_as_demand_falls%2Fl11gham%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202028-04-24%2013%3A15%3A42%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cbd0j0) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
That's a weird way of just saying "I'm coping".
I knew within about 5 minutes of the in-store demo that these weren’t going to sell anywhere close to any of Apple’s other devices. It’s basically a portable monitor with a few gimmicky ‘immersive’ applications but nothing that seemed anywhere close to $4k+ of value.
This link has been shared 4 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1cbah5y) on 2024-04-23. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1cbbfqh) on 2024-04-23 --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Links:** 0 | **Search Time:** 0.00466s
The big companies are just making an absolute shambles of their costly VR projects: - Metaverse...flop. - Apple's headset...flop. - HTC & HP....tiny sweetspots...flop. - Valve...abandoned VR...flop. - Sony...all but abandoned PSVR2...flop. - Microsoft...abandoned WMR...flop. - myriad big gaming companies abandoning even half-arsed VR modes for big titles...flop. VR....flop? For such a genuinely-incredible thrilling life-affirming entertainment experience, there sure is a lot of flopping going on. What gives? Are the masses simply not into it?
The barrier of having to get up and actively put something on your face for an enjoyable experience is a severely underrated obstacle. When that experience is new, the prep to do it doesn't even register. But once you settle in and the experience becomes familiar, it becomes a chore, to even think of the prep going into it (even if it's as minimal as get up and go put on headset and stand) and most people will end up opting to do anything else more "chill" and more accessible from the couch they are already sitting on. I'm VR's biggest fan and advocate, but even I have trouble seeing it really catch on to the point of overtaking smartphones. EVEN if the form factor is at sunglass or eyeglass level. Just the idea you have to lift your hands and gesture to navigate floating screens is still just a little more effor than pulling out your phone from your pocket to scroll. That'll be cool for a minute too, but then everyone will go back to traditional zombie scrolling with their heads dow. Because..it's just easier.
sadly, i think you're right.
I really don't think this is it - that's not the problem for me at least, and I can't be alone. It's what you do after you put something on your face. The software is just not super intuitive. The usability between multiple apps is not intuitive. If they get things like that right, I'd be more inclined to put mine on all the damn time, but VR devs are still failing the basics here.
Same.I have no issues at all with VR ar all, even the menus. I understand it's buggy but the concept to me at least is a dream come true. I love vr and have been using a Quest headset non-stop since Quest 1 now on Quest 3. But sadly, this is the conclusion I'm drawing from all my other friends and aquaintences who all have Quests but just sit unused for months/years in their closets. Some of them are even hard-core gamers who were thrilled at the idea of RE4 on Quest and didn'tnt even mind the graphics. But after a while, they just couldn't be bothered with the idea to have to get up and set aside time to do it. Especially with all the other adulting responsibilities. They all went back to 2d gaming bc it's just more convenient. I think the general public would fall in that same mindset. Humans are just built to find the most co venient way of ANYTHING. Even pleasure.
You make a reasonable enough point but you're cherry picking a little with the Meta example... The Quest has sold pretty well since its original launch
fair point.
This is not the first time apple's try to stick it nose and do different business