Apple hopes to convince people to buy its $3,500 Vision Pro headset using free 25-minute in-store demos
Apple hopes to convince people to buy its $3,500 Vision Pro headset using free 25-minute in-store demos
Apple hopes to convince people to buy its $3,500 Vision Pro headset using free 25-minute in-store demos::undefined
take a deep breath and realize; if you cannot afford this, you are not rich enough to be part of apples target audience.
no matter how much you want to tell yourself that you are.
I didn’t know apple target audiance was a total of 400.000 people which is the total amount the’ll make of these.
Seriously this is a proof of concept for rich kids children to be test users. I doubt it will visible move the needle on their profits.
You have some strange ideas, do android users enjoy being the “target audience” of google?
I am loyal to no brand, own a mix of devices and boycot some. Love tech, fuck capitalism.
It certainly is a big beta test product. I see it like the Tesla Roadster.
Isn't that kind of like saying that if you can't afford 2024 MB S63 AMG then you're not in Mercedes Benzs' target audience? I bet the profit Apple makes from selling iPhones dwarfs the earnings from selling these goggles even if they're successful.
Half of the US can't afford a $1000 emergency. $3500 for a toy seems steep in that context.
That's what credit card debt is for!
Half of the US is over a hundred million people. The rumours are Apple has supply constraints that will limit global sales to about a million devices for now.
This can't possibly be a mass market device - it's just not possible right now to manufacture that many. The tiny screens are 3,400 DPI and 5000 nits (that's about 10x brighter than a typical TV or computer screen). It's going to be a while before tech like that can be mass produced.
They named it Vision "Pro" which in Apple marketing speak basically means "the really expensive one". Their "Pro" desktop PC tower has a baseline price of $7k and fully upgraded it comes in at almost $13k which is actually cheaper than they were when they used Intel Xeons a couple years ago (those could hit something like $80k).
There will probably be a non-pro equivalent one day, which will be far cheaper.
Is 25 minutes a long enough in-store demo test time to have a $3500 wank?
Well it's indicative about the amount of content you'll have for it when you buy it.
The bigger question is what will you do with the other 24 minutes?
Yea what kind of privacy and amenities are provided?
Is this going to introduce “body tracking” similar to oculus hand tracking so it knows where the body is for it to become an AR wank? That’d be a game changer if VR wank.
Oh hey, it’s that time again. Copy-pasting from the last time around…
—
Because the price is always the main topic, I’m gonna drop a link to an AR/VR expert contextualizing the Vision Pro price within the current (well, 7 months ago) market:
Apple Just Beat the “BEST VR Headset In the WORLD”.. and did it cheaper.
OK, but that doesn't make it affordable or relevant.
It's like comparing a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. It doesn't matter because the world runs on Toyota Corollas.
Additionally, VR lives and dies on software.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Apple Just Beat the “BEST VR Headset In the WORLD”.. and did it cheaper.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It feels very much like most stuff that's likely to be developed for it will have the feel of "museum exhibit at home" or AR-ified iOS app.
The inability to use any controller is going to lose them a lot of latency and precision sensitive usecases. It is very Apple to make it totally standalone, but it's going to cost them a fair bit.
A lot of real time remote control usecases will be impossible for latency issues alone, it won't be a good solution in most multiuser environments (both due to no relative tracking, but also cost and hygiene issues for shared devices), it won't be great for bringing into public spaces (poor long range tracking, etc) or small spaces (limits gestures), hand tracking camera position means you have to hold your hands up and mostly open (accessibility issues), etc.
Even if the hardware can do more, Apple won't give developers access to more.
Oh yeah like I wanna get head lice from the snot-nosed kid some mom dumped there so she could go get some Starbucks in peace.
The price is always the joke, but this is aimed at commercial buyers right? Not consumers
Oh boy, you've got a lot to learn about apple consumers
Id buy it right now if it was maybe $500.
Spatial computing is the future.
I don't need 3 screens. I need a pair of spectacles.
Screens have always been the bottleneck. The phone tablet monitor tv.
Glasses can do entire field of vision.
It doesn't even do spatial computing well. It can simulate a single 4k display and that's it. You can have some other apps floating around you, but not much.
If I could simulate 8 4k displays all around me, or freely float my full blown Mac OS programs and resize them to infinity then I'd be cool with this. But I've got more screen in front of me right now than the vision could ever hope to do. And Apples "apps" are far too gimped to be useful. Notes and email are cool, but not much else.
It uses foveated rendering, so yeah it is effectively close to looking at a hidpi display across your entire field of vision, in a sphere around you. And you can use it effectively as a virtual monitor with a Mac, but you really have to design for the interface for a good experience
Then it's not spatial. Maybe they will bring that to the table.
That's what we need. I agree if it's a downgrade from your Mac.
It's an upgrade from my Thinkpad.
But price is the issue.
Once devs get it. They can improve.
That’s a no from me dawg
I’d buy one if it were useful enough.
How's it not useful? It provides an additional display to the ecosystem and a kind of immersion that is simply unrivaled unless you're with friends and family (weirdos)
The cost here is a bigger decisive factor, it's meant for early adopters, developers and tech entrepreneurs who will actually influence how the general public ends up using it for.
I don’t think they were saying it’s not useful. Personally I can’t see myself wearing this often enough to justify the cost
I’d buy one if it were reasonably priced.
A $2k CAD phone I can justify if it’s going to hold me in good stead over the next 6 years and have another 6 full OS upgrades straight from the manufacturer. My iPhone X held up great for 6 years, and only started struggling in 2023.
A $3,500 USD fashion accessory? What are they smoking, and can I have some?
Not trying to be pedantic, but did you mean 2023?
Whoops. Yes, thanks.
Lawl no worries about pedantry; my iPhone XS has no signs of slowing down.
And I thought buying an iPhone was crazy...
Buying Apple products is like buying permanent training wheels for bicycles. There are safeguards in place. The average consumer needs those safeguards. They are gullible, ignorant of technology, and they don't want to learn.
That said, Apple does do it right, at the cost of high prices and less control. Apple dumbs down their products for their consumers, and it works.
Making comments like this is a huge self-own. There are MacBook users whose software powers a good portion of your daily life.
I understand limiting application source to the official one by default. Heck, even on Linux systems the default is always to have just the official repositories enabled, with the exception of Flatpak which is quite sandboxed. And who else Apple would trust to bare the default source than Apple themselfs?
But user must be able to choose otherwise if wants, period.
Its an apple product, I don't feel like wasting money on overpriced closed source garbage
If it’s anything like my other VR headsets the novelty wears off in 10.. this runs dangerously close to not getting to the bottom of my cupboard with all the other shithouse headsets
It's Apple. I expected nothing less than the most ridiculously priced products to be produced by them. So the figure is eye watering but expected. If these sellout, as some predict, it proves unequivocally that Apple fanboys are the most rabid idiots in existence.
For a high end enterprise geared headset that functions as its own standalone device and doesn’t require any connection to any other computer to work, this isn’t even expensive.
This isn’t meant to compete with something like a Quest. It’s meant to compete with something like the Varjo Aero, which goes from $5-10k.
For a company deciding on implementing AR/VR, the cost to get a Quest Pro for $800 plus a $2500 workstation to power it, vs a $3500 Vision Pro that doesn’t need a workstation, it’s pretty comparable.
Microsoft's HoloLens 2 does less than Apple's Pro Vision and it costs the same. Is it really that overpriced? And the cost goes way way up from there.
it proves unequivocally that Apple fanboys are the most rabid idiots in existence.
Maybe you should look inward before making silly comments like these.
Honestly, I don't even need half of the things that it does to justify the price, for me - just give me a dual 4k, 100 hz displays and a display port connector and I'll gladly shell out 3k to play vr video games on it.
If these sellout, as some predict, it proves unequivocally that Apple fanboys are the most rabid idiots in existence.
looks like you value money much higher than some others do - interpret that however you will.
Is this VR or AR or both? And how robust is the actual software support?
To give a non-snarky answer, it does AR with external cameras and an incredibly low lag such that those who have tried it have said makes it almost natural (the resolution apparently isn’t perfect, but there is no discernible input lag when looking around which happens on other similar devices). But you can dial up the opacity to wind up in a fully VR environment. So, it is in fact, both.
Your question about software is a big one. Apple is advertising 1M apps available at launch (good) but these are iPad apps, which can run on Vision OS without any modifications by the developers (not so good). That does not mean it will be a good experience. I was listening to a podcast today where a developer clearly stated that after getting a chance to try their app on device at a lab, they totally stopped development because they missed the mark completely with their imagination and the simulator on how it should work. You’ll still be able to run their iPad app, but until they get their hands on their own hardware to iterate more rapidly, they’re giving up.
All that to say it’s unclear how many apps will be natively designed to work with it on launch, and if these will be any good.
Thankfully I don’t live in the US so I am immune to this particular reality distortion field. For now…
Careful there, that's about the amount of time it takes to realize that it's just a gimmick that has no use in your personal life, and very narrow industrial application. They might actually lose potential buyers rather than gain some.
I'm sure the demo will be highly controlled to only showcase general use practically and entertainment.
can I put expensive wheels on it?
Technology used to be more about solving a problem or making something difficult easier. This thing has no real use beyond "neat". But that Apple logo holds some very powerful magic for certain people.
Technology used to be more about solving a problem or making something difficult easier. This thing has no real use beyond "neat".
I guess you haven't been following the video game industry for the last half a century?
No I have. Creating a product then finding a use is the very definition of cart before horse-ing. Marketing does most of the heavy lifting for getting people excited about crap they don't need, and Apple is the king of marketing.
It replaces all your monitors for your workstation in a single portable device. That alone is worth it for a lot of people.
If you say so.
It replaced 1 single 4k Monitor. It can't do more than that.
I reckon this is a proof of concept model. It doesn’t yet have the onboard oomph to do graphics and games yet, so they’re positioning it as a spatial display.
This will probably be more limited than the v1 iPad, definitely for early adopters.
This is dead tech, they're only pushing it because it is 10 years of billions in R&D and a lot of egos involved
No thanks. I have never, and will never give any money to apple.
Okay.
Seconded. Few other companies can come close to the global, societal damage Apple has committed.
Can't wait to see people wearing those around the office. Thinking about it. if you remove the desk, monitors, keyboard, mouse and just sit down bunch of programmers next to each other with those goggles it can actually be cheaper for the company to run an office even at 3.5k per headset.
Imagine how many people you can pack in a small space. You only would need 2ft x 2ft space per person and you can put the entire company on a single floor!
/s
I wholeheartedly believe that Apple is a marketing company more than a tech company.
Every successful mega corp is a marketing company. Just look at video games where the marketing budget is the same as the development budget.
Can’t wait for these demos to be the new Covid epicenters.
Mixed reality has a ton of potential seeing the Quest 3, but they are usually not seamless enough.
If Apple can pull this one off then 3500 is a lot of money but some people spend this much on a TV or a bike. If it's a truly amazing AR experience it might be well worth that price.
Eh the general consensus is that this launch is a small early adopter phase and they have cheaper versions in the pipeline. They're only producing <100k units, definitely not going for mass adoption yet
The fact that they changed all references to it from “Vision Pro” to just “Apple Vision” really supports that.
Oh. My. Goodness.
$3,500?!? HAHAHAHAHAHA
It is not meant for the end consumer at this stage, it is a tech demo and development kit.
The real consumer variant will probably be released in a year or two.
Did they say this or is this your pet theory? I don't feel like that is necessarily the best strategy, since people won't develop for it, when there's no users and no users will appear when no one develops an ecosystem for this thing...
So... I can't buy it? If I can, you're either lying, wrong, or have an agenda.
It should be marketed as a dev kit, but they're marketing it for consumers
I’d buy it if it was the kind of tool that earned me $5000… but it’s still really hard to justify the business use case for VR these days.
If I can lie on my couch while typing away on my custom virtual workspace it might be worth it but the resolution requirements make that unlikely any time soon
Drone pilot?
It also has basically no battery life and once that mostly useless battery becomes completely useless you are never unplugging that thing from the wall because you bet Apple made that battery impossible to replace!
The battery pack is literally just USB c.
Not impossible, just impossible to afford
And I thought Apple consumers were out-of-touch!
A lot of tech, including computers, commonly cost that much for a long time. It's not a totally outrageous for consumer tech.
Have you heard of the Apple Cheesegrater?
Shit I've bought MacBooks for work that cost as much as that headset, and my current laptop costs about as much as this.
$3500 is nothing for a computer, let alone a prosumery AR/VR heatset with a computer built in.
yeah, no. People really don't understand how much bandwidth you actually need to stream even normal 4k 60hz video, let alone something like this. For reference, when I was figuring out how to dump my pc in the basement and have the monitor in my office, I had to run 12-strand fiber cables to do it.