Everyone I’ve talked to that has used a Vision Pro has said it’s an incredible piece of magical technology, but it’s utterly useless.
It’s literally just Apple flexing.
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
396 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59168 readers
3245 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
but it’s utterly useless.
That imo has been the issue with VR/AR for a while now. The Hardware as you said is pretty good by now and looking at something like the quest even afforable. What's lacking is content and use cases.
Smartphones had an easier time being adopted, since it was just moving from a larger to a smaller screen. But VR/AR actually needs a new type of content to make use of it's capabilities. And there you run into a chicken/egg problem, where no one is putting in the effort (and vr content is harder to produce) without a large user base.
Just games and some office stuff (that you can do just as well on a regular pc) aren't cutting it. You'd need stuff like every major sport event being broadcast with unique content, e.g. formula one with the ability to put yourself into the driver seat of any car.
You've nailed it. Ordinarily, Apple is good at throwing its weight (money) around to make things like this happen, but it seems like there weren't many takers this go-round, so we just got an overpriced, beautiful and fascinating paperweight.
That's why the biggest use case for VR has been gaming and metaverses. It's a ready-to-go thing that adapts well, but it's certainly not for everyone. For my part, I'm saving up for a PS VR2, because it's adding PC support soon and I already own a PS5 as well. Far, far cheaper than Apple's device, and likely quite good still.
Ordinarily, Apple is good at throwing its weight (money) around to make things like this happen, but it seems like there weren't many takers this go-round, so we just got an overpriced, beautiful and fascinating paperweight.
Yeah normally Apple is maybe the only company that has the scale and control over their ecosystem to force rapid adoption. But this was clearly not a consumer product aimed at capturing the masses, but more or less a dev kit sold to anyone willing to shell out the price.
The PS VR2 sounds nice, but feels like it is only aimed at the gaming market and even there sony only captures a fraction.
The Quest as a standalone device imo really would have the best shot at mass market adoption, but Facebook rightfully has an image problem. And despite spending so much on development doesn't seem to create any content or incentivize others to do so.
Edit: actually kind of forgot "bigscreenVR". I am somewhat surprised that the default is to cram all hardware into the headset making it much bulkier instead of a seperate piece on a belt, back, or maybe strap on your upper arm.
load more comments
(8 replies)
To be fair, they have a similar problem with iPad, but they can flog those at a price point where many people are happy to grab one to see how they can make it fit.
The overarching opinion of iPads is that they’re just big iPhones, and because they can share apps, it took a long time to get to where we are now, where most iPad apps are actually developed for it. But ultimately, they’re still iPhone apps, just rejigged to take advantage of the bigger screen. As someone with an iPad and a MacBook, who’s had a really good go at making an iPad my main computer, the platform just isn’t there. So if I do use it, it’s always in the knowledge that what I’m doing is probably easier on my Mac.
VisionPro feels the same to me. Sure, I could surround myself with work, but pinching and tapping nothing in the air has zero tactility and is far less satisfying than clicking a mouse and typing on a keyboard. And comes with having to wear a headset. So in the end, most people will just do the work on their Mac.
When the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift first came out, the rift didn’t yet have full-room support. You had to sit facing the base station and use a video game controller. Meanwhile, on Vive, you could stand up, walk around, and manipulate the world with two tracked remotes.
One pro-con comparison I read at the time actually listed needing to walk around the room as a con against HTC. That is the whole point of VR.
I think the core issue is that every piece of new technology so far has helped us get lazier. People used to walk around an office, then they sat at a computer, now they carry their computer with them and do things from the couch.
Nobody wants to get up to do things if they can avoid it, and that’s the only real benefit VR/AR provides.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
as a VR enthusiast: if the had just added controllers it would have made it so much more useable.
No matter how good your gesture controlls are, it still greatly limits its use. Theres a reason we use mice and styluses with computers, instead of touch and mid-air gestures!
load more comments
(3 replies)
I use mine daily… primarily as a monitor for my laptop.
Now you might think that’s dumb, but I can go sit outside in the backyard, park, beach, coffee shop, wherever and work on a big, totally private, crisp and clear, glare-free anywhere monitor. I can bring it to the in-laws or on trips and even use it as a monitor for my Steam Deck. Or I can lay in bed or on the sofa or on a lawn chair and use the Steam Link app to play games from my PC.
Taken purely as a private, portable, omni-monitor, it’s absolutely worth the price for me.
As an AR/MR/XR device, it has some MAJOR software problems. Honestly, it makes sense they’d pause hardware development… it’ll be a couple years before there’s anything worth upgrading and they have a long way to go on UX, gestures, inputs, and even basic real-time object recognition and tracking. I bought mine knowing it was a Development Kit and planning to use it to get ahead on AR development experience, but I hit major roadblocks so frequently I’ve just about given up on every interesting use-case I went into this with.
VisionOS 2 is a baby step forward, but Apple has a long, long way to go before it makes sense for regular people. Heck, they aren’t even including all the cool new AI features in VisionOS 2, and it’s the one device that could benefit from that stuff the most.
So, yeah… it can still be worth it to certain people with specific use-cases, but I think it’ll be a solid 5 years before the software and hardware can reach a “normal consumer” level of quality and value.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(15 replies)
Note that suspends != cancelled and it's just the "Pro", with a cheaper model allegedly in the works.
We'll see where a cheaper model lands in terms of price, but it's very clear now that $3500+ isn't really the price range where most people buy something out of curiosity. Because let's face it: the Vision (Pro) still lacks a "killer app" for the masses.
That's the important bit that everybody is missing:
Apple has suspended work on the second-generation Vision Pro headset to singularly focus on a cheaper model
Clicking through to the paywalled article, the headlines reads as follows:
Apple Suspends Work on Next Vision Pro, Focused on Releasing Cheaper Model in Late 2025.
I am as unoptimistic on the future of VR as everybody else here, but can we please leave the nuance in? Apple are not turning the key on VR, at least not yet, they are simply doing the predicable thing that everybody said their would: Release a VR headset that isn't targeted at developers only.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Apple has suspended work on the second-generation Vision Pro headset to singularly focus on a cheaper model
That seems very reasonable and like what they probably should’ve been doing all along.
I still don't understand who the pro was actually for. Everyone who had one said exactly the same thing about it which was they couldn't understand how to use it productively for anything.
IMHO, it’s a fancy dev kit.
Exactly. Not promoting it as a dev kit was a major failure. This is the kind of product where you CAN'T do without external feedback, not everybody will use one in a clean office (or even one that stands still), not everybody has the same spatial awareness or motor skills, not supporting controllers locks out numerous people with limited hand movements, etc... As a dev kit it could've worked much better at getting the kind of feedback they need from devs working on useful AR stuff
load more comments
(2 replies)
The kind of people who would go around driving a Cybertruck with a Vision Pro on their faces and an humane pin strapped on.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Companies have been pushing VR so long now. I'll say that I think the tech is cool and the idea is cool, but I will literally never use them.
I can't wear them while working as I am in meetings 99% of the time.
I would not wear them in my free time, as I do not want to disassociate from my wife and cats.
I love VR. So I use it for gaming maybe once a week, for 1-2 hours, usually as an activity with my SO so we can switch who's playing each "round" depending on the game. That's the maximum I find fun instead of tiring. I can't see using it for long periods or for work, that sounds like a nightmare.
My issue is, aside from gaming, I'm not interacting with the content or data in any meaningful, improved way.
VR for real life is just a series of flat two dimensional screens, usually with a novelty background of a waterfall.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)
Bro, just one more year. Let them come up with just another pair of goggles bro, trust me bro, one more year and we will be in VR future bro.
I'm still waiting for:
- good Linux support, including apps/games
- not too expensive - $500-ish
- relatively privacy-friendly, so anything Meta is out
Valve Index is close, but it's expensive and Linux content is very limited. Bigscreen VR Headsets looks interesting since it seems more comfortable than Index, just as privacy-friendly, and should work on Linux, but it's still a little expensive ($1k) and there aren't many Linux VR apps AFAIK. I might get it though, still deciding.
This requires an Apple iPhone XR or newer, as the face scan utilizes the TrueDepth sensor.
I'd rather take a plaster mold of my face than have to use a specific phone to order a VR headset.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
You mean they're doing what everyone said they should have done to begin with - release an affordable consumer product that will in turn attract more developers?
load more comments
(2 replies)
To do:
Cheaper headset
Actual controllers
Make it work with PCs
- Don't make it out of a solid chunk of aluminium and glass so it weighs a ton and has nothing to balance it out on the back.
Apple: nah
load more comments
(5 replies)
I watched a YouTuber telling something like:
"I cannot believe Apple's biggest premium VR tech wants to change the world... And they are advertising it with... Fucking spreadsheets"
I am paraphrasing ofc, but the meaning was that this could have been a pretty good toy for everyone, but they are trying to sell it as a work-buddy thingy, yeah seeing those spreadsheets focus was kinda dystopian (like in Ready Player One where they are caged doing work or something hah), watching movies in crazy sites yeah, that was what would have sell it more for me, and other ppl, if it wasn't crazily expensive.
It's not for gaming and it's not for porn... what were they thinking?
Is this the virtual boy of Apple? A product that never really made no sense to anybody and was never really supported?
I was hoping they'd get the price down to something sane. It looks like it could be a cool tool for CAD. Of course there won't be any input available from a non-Apple computer so I still wouldn't want one.
I desperately want a virtual desktop environment for plain ass computing. Give me infinite windows for my spreadsheet and IDE and that’s all I need!
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Why does this feel like another "voice assistant" that we're supposed to talk to all day?
If we worked from home, maaaayyybe voice control could be a thing once it's 100%? But Boss Man wants us back at work. Are we really going to be a open-office with everyone talking to their computer like some sort of crypto bro boiler room?
It's sorta like the "video phone" that everyone was dying to have for decades. We finally got it and everyone went "meh". A few grandparents use it to talk to their grandkids. Hell, most of the current generations don't even use phones anymore.
It's one more technology that's being pushed out before it's baked and will likely be only really useful in niche applications. Really fucking good for those niche applications, but just too expensive and awkward for anyone else.
The video phone is now facetime, skype, zoom, google meet etc…
Yeah, FaceTime. But how often do people use it in practice?
Good point about Zoom. Business clearly like Zoom for meetings, but big business is still hammering BTO hard. Will Zoom be marginalized when they finally force in-person meetings?
Also, the last few companies I worked for that did Zoom meetings, everyone kept their cameras off.
There are some demographics where its usage is extremely common. I’ve come across multiple people who are on FaceTime calls while in public. Just walking around on video and speaker, talking to someone else. I can’t conceive of using it this way, but in some social circles it’s totally normalized.
This page has some interesting quotes. Reading through, it sounds like it’s hovering at or below the top 5 most common video chat tools. There’s a lot of bias towards quotes about 2020 usage so that’s obviously skewed, but that year at least 9-25% of various demographics were cited using FaceTime daily.
I use FaceTime 2-3 times a year to talk to my nephew, and maybe 3-5 times a year to screen share or show my mum things. But I do use Teams video calls literally 5 days a week (I try to avoid the video part when I can, but there are a few in leadership who really push for it. My company is never doing RTO, so I’ll accept a bit of video calling for the sake of permanent WFH!).
load more comments
(2 replies)
I don't know why everyone is so negative. The gameplan seems pretty clear to me.
- Make expensive fancy product. This is effectively a "devkit" that companies can use to start experimenting with AR software.
- Make lower cost product. There are now a few decent apps available and early adopters will be willing to buy it to be one the leading edge.
- Now there is a bigger market, leading more companies to be willing to develop apps.
Apple is hoping that this is enough to break the chicken-and-egg cycle. Enough to get a few powerful apps such that more regular consumers will be willing to buy which again increases the addressable market which makes it more attractive to companies.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Apple should make a virtual headset you can buy in META, then put it on when you are already in a VR setting, except now you can use Apple services with it!
That way it would have zero production cost, be absolutely as useless as it already is, and can be just as overpriced.
It seems like the perfect Apple scheme.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm not sure why they tried this.
'We made a VR games headset, but replaced the games with office related programs, like calenders and notepads'
Did any of them ever use an Oculus Quest? Like, why did they try this? Is this Apple's Google Glass moment? Did they really think that if you pay enough youtubers to wear it in public, normal people would magically go into car-level debt to emulate them?
In fact, I'll go as far as to say this campaign and price point was a bigger mistake, and a louder failure than Google Glasses.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The only thing I could see myself using it for, is being in bed and watching a movie. I can do that with ar glasses for 300$.
load more comments
(2 replies)
BUT THE SHAREHOLDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The price immediately put this product into the grave. They should take out all the useless features like the eye passthrough, or the bizarre face scanning, if it’ll only ever be used for calls. If this were to be used in a gaming scenario, sort of like what the PSVR2 does, that’d be a whole different conversation
view more: next ›