Tim Cook calls spatial computing in Apple Vision Pro an 'aha moment' in a user's life

AppleInsider

Apple CEO Tim Cook believes spatial computing is a profound technology, with it adding more ways for developers to succeed on top of the already "outstanding" App Store.

Apple CEO Tim Cook

Cook was in the UK to end his tour of Europe on behalf of the company, and spoke as part of his visit to Apple's Battersea Power Station headquarters in London. As well as commenting on Apple's work on AI, he also discussed apps and the Apple Vision Pro.

"I think the apps today are outstanding," Cook said according to the Independent.. "It's a reminder of the empowerment of the App Store. I'm still amazed that an entrepreneur in any country in the world in a basement can start a company and it can be global like that."

As well as the existing success of the App Store, Cook also talked about the Apple Vision Pro, a headset using spatial computing that is expected to arrive in early 2024.

Cook offers that developers are looking forward to the headset's release. "We have developer labs in London and Munich, and we're seeing some incredible work. There's so much excitement out there."

The Apple Vision Pro is now part of Cook's nightly routine, which helps further his understanding of how it could become a major product down the road. He is also keen on getting others to don the head-mounted display for themselves.

"There are huge differences in how people look at it, depending on if they're read about it or actually tried it," he explained. "I believe even more about how profound spatial computing is. When you've tried it, it's an aha moment, and you only have a few of those in a lifetime."

The CEO also touched upon the view that Apple considers itself "tool makers" for people to change the world.

"We've always believed our tools should be as easy to use as our products, so we try to make the developer tools simple. It's the developer's idea that's the big lift, not the act of doing it themselves. It's great to see the validation of that playing out."

Read on AppleInsider

mikethemartian

Is an “aha moment” like when Navin Johnson discovered his “special purpose”?

thinkman100000000

mikethemartian said:

Is an “aha moment” like when Navin Johnson discovered his “special purpose”?

I wonder how many will recognize Navin……hint, youngins, it's from one of the funniest movies ever made!

mayfly

If I spent $3,500 on a toy, it would cost me way more when my wife filed for divorce. And that was MY Aha! moment.

mayfly

designr said:

As in "Aha! I just spent $3,500 so I could isolate myself from everyone and look like a dork!"? That kind of "aha" moment?

Or, uh oh, "You just spent the money for little Timmy's braces on a toy?" kind of "aha" moment.

strangedays

mayfly said:

If I spent $3,500 on a toy, it would cost me way more when my wife filed for divorce. And that was MY Aha! moment.

Hey remember when people said the original Macintosh (and GUIs, and PCs even) was just a toy? Yeah. Good times. 

edited October 2023

strangedays

designr said:

As in "Aha! I just spent $3,500 so I could isolate myself from everyone and look like a dork!"? That kind of "aha" moment?

Isolate from who? When I’m computing behind a screen I’m not enjoying a family dinner. You seem to be confusing the use cases. 

radarthekat

thinkman100000000 said:

mikethemartian said:

Is an “aha moment” like when Navin Johnson discovered his “special purpose”?

I wonder how many will recognize Navin……hint, youngins, it's from one of the funniest movies ever made!

It was funnier at the time than it would be to anyone watching today.  But, “he hates those cans” is gold! 

animill

Wow. I’d never had believed I’d ever see a The Jerk reference in an Apple blog.

I wonder, is the Apple VR Cook’s Newton?

mayfly

StrangeDays said:

mayfly said:

If I spent $3,500 on a toy, it would cost me way more when my wife filed for divorce. And that was MY Aha! moment.

Hey remember when people said the original Macintosh (and GUIs, and PCs even) was just a toy? Yeah. Good times. 

No, I don't. Can you quote a few people calling the Macintosh just a toy, please?

danox

designr said:

StrangeDays said:

designr said:

As in "Aha! I just spent $3,500 so I could isolate myself from everyone and look like a dork!"? That kind of "aha" moment?

Isolate from who? When I’m computing behind a screen I’m not enjoying a family dinner. You seem to be confusing the use cases. 

You seem to be the one confused here. This is an isolation device. Failure to recognize that can most likely be attributed to Apple Fanboy-ism™.

Like driving a car? most cars are isolation devices, and have basically been so for the last hundred years, currently most of those big SUVs rolling on the road only has one person in it 90% of the time, the very definition of an isolation device. Keyboards would also be an example of an isolation device.

edited October 2023

gatorguy

danox said:

designr said:

StrangeDays said:

designr said:

As in "Aha! I just spent $3,500 so I could isolate myself from everyone and look like a dork!"? That kind of "aha" moment?

Isolate from who? When I’m computing behind a screen I’m not enjoying a family dinner. You seem to be confusing the use cases. 

You seem to be the one confused here. This is an isolation device. Failure to recognize that can most likely be attributed to Apple Fanboy-ism™.

Like driving a car? most cars are isolation devices, and have basically been so for the last hundred years, currently most of those big SUVs rolling on the road only has one person in it 90% of the time, the very definition of an isolation device.

Can we put two heads behind those Apple goggles the other 10% of the time you're guessing at, maybe place the kids heads in behind those too when going to soccer practice or being picked up from school? 

edited October 2023

pauloseraa

Amazingly, it's the first product Apple has ever introduced that no one actually wants to use. Oh, some people want the experience it unlocks, for sure. But no one actually wants to use the product...they will use it in spite of it. No one actually wants a gigantic, heavy, nausea-inducing, world-isolating headset. Not for anything. And certainly not for what amounts to an iPad strapped to their head. So every single user will be someone who is putting up with that awful hardware in order to get access to an interesting software experience. What kind of potential does that actually have?

I feel like Apple is doing an awful lot of pretending here. And those championing the product are too. Riding the coattails of other confident successes where Apple was right to be confident. There are seeing if they can actually fake the confidence, and create a market as a result. I just don't see it, because you will never fake people into spending $3500+, and you won't fake them into wearing it for any length of time.

No one ever looked at the iPhone and said, "Ugh I have to hold this thing in order to use it?" 
No one ever looked at the Apple Watch and said "Ugh I have to wear this thing in order to use it?"
No one ever looked at the HomePod and said "Ugh I have to plug this thing in and put it out of the way somewhere in order to use it?"
No one ever looked at the AppleTV and said "Ugh I have to plug this thing into my TV and watch it?"

These are not objectionable products. The VisionPro is objectionable hardware from the start. People in the microscopic VR community seem to take for granted that shitty uncomfortable hardware is to be expected if you want such an experience. That shouldn't be acceptable to Apple, because it certainly isn't acceptable to average consumers.

filemakerfeller

PauloSeraa said:

Amazingly, it's the first product Apple has ever introduced that no one actually wants to use. Oh, some people want the experience it unlocks, for sure. But no one actually wants to use the product...they will use it in spite of it. No one actually wants a gigantic, heavy, nausea-inducing, world-isolating headset. Not for anything. And certainly not for what amounts to an iPad strapped to their head. So every single user will be someone who is putting up with that awful hardware in order to get access to an interesting software experience. What kind of potential does that actually have?

I feel like Apple is doing an awful lot of pretending here. And those championing the product are too. Riding the coattails of other confident successes where Apple was right to be confident. There are seeing if they can actually fake the confidence, and create a market as a result. I just don't see it, because you will never fake people into spending $3500+, and you won't fake them into wearing it for any length of time.

No one ever looked at the iPhone and said, "Ugh I have to hold this thing in order to use it?" 
No one ever looked at the Apple Watch and said "Ugh I have to wear this thing in order to use it?"
No one ever looked at the HomePod and said "Ugh I have to plug this thing in and put it out of the way somewhere in order to use it?"
No one ever looked at the AppleTV and said "Ugh I have to plug this thing into my TV and watch it?"

These are not objectionable products. The VisionPro is objectionable hardware from the start. People in the microscopic VR community seem to take for granted that shitty uncomfortable hardware is to be expected if you want such an experience. That shouldn't be acceptable to Apple, because it certainly isn't acceptable to average consumers.

It's amazing how much your argument covers desktop computers as well. Sitting down at a table or desk to operate a machine was unusual behaviour back in the day but, as with typewriters, people happily made the adjustment for the benefits provided.

When the Mac was released, people who were used to computers scoffed at the need to use a mouse and derided it as an under-powered toy. But within 15 years every desktop computer sported a GUI and a pointing device, despite the compromises that required.

So I'm quite bullish on the future of the Apple Vision Pro specifically and spatial computing in general. As with earlier devices we will see miniaturisation and performance improvements that will make the first generation seem antiquated after a mere decade. Having worn spectacles for 35 years now and having worn a helmet for kart racing I'm not averse to having a potentially heavy object on my head as long as the balance is correct and the experience the object enables brings benefits that outweigh the drawbacks. Nausea is the only troublesome aspect but from all reports Apple have managed to minimise that issue as well as the "world-isolating" aspect of VR headsets, so I expect the product to be quite successful.

filemakerfeller

mayfly said:

StrangeDays said:

mayfly said:

If I spent $3,500 on a toy, it would cost me way more when my wife filed for divorce. And that was MY Aha! moment.

Hey remember when people said the original Macintosh (and GUIs, and PCs even) was just a toy? Yeah. Good times. 

No, I don't. Can you quote a few people calling the Macintosh just a toy, please?

https://fortune.com/2009/01/12/jan-1984-how-critics-reviewed-the-mac/
https://lowendmac.com/1999/the-mac-is-a-toy/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-macintosh-is-a-toy.804946/

No direct quotes, but the implication is clear.

fastasleep

PauloSeraa said:

Amazingly, it's the first product Apple has ever introduced that no one actually wants to use. Oh, some people want the experience it unlocks, for sure. But no one actually wants to use the product...they will use it in spite of it. No one actually wants a gigantic, heavy, nausea-inducing, world-isolating headset. Not for anything. And certainly not for what amounts to an iPad strapped to their head. So every single user will be someone who is putting up with that awful hardware in order to get access to an interesting software experience. What kind of potential does that actually have?

I feel like Apple is doing an awful lot of pretending here. And those championing the product are too. Riding the coattails of other confident successes where Apple was right to be confident. There are seeing if they can actually fake the confidence, and create a market as a result. I just don't see it, because you will never fake people into spending $3500+, and you won't fake them into wearing it for any length of time.

No one ever looked at the iPhone and said, "Ugh I have to hold this thing in order to use it?" 
No one ever looked at the Apple Watch and said "Ugh I have to wear this thing in order to use it?"
No one ever looked at the HomePod and said "Ugh I have to plug this thing in and put it out of the way somewhere in order to use it?"
No one ever looked at the AppleTV and said "Ugh I have to plug this thing into my TV and watch it?"

These are not objectionable products. The VisionPro is objectionable hardware from the start. People in the microscopic VR community seem to take for granted that shitty uncomfortable hardware is to be expected if you want such an experience. That shouldn't be acceptable to Apple, because it certainly isn't acceptable to average consumers.

The more posts like this I see, the more I'm convinced this thing is going to be a hit. Sounds like Ed Colligan or Steve Ballmer before the iPhone.

I personally cannot wait. 

tht

designr said:

This quote from Steve Jobs, I think, represents exactly the problem I see with Apple Vision:

"Vision for Apple was: What incredible benefits can we give to the customer? Where can we take the customer ? Not starting with 'let's sit down with the engineers, and figure out what awesome technology we have and how we're gonna market that.'" — Steve Jobs, WWDC, 1997

The Apple Vision product seems like the exact opposite of this. It has this vibe that feels a lot like "what awesome technology do we have and how can we market it?" It feels like it's a solution in search of a real problem. A problem that no one—or at least very few people—has.

The vision for Apple's Vision Pro is directly stated: spatial computing. It lets you have displays anywhere you see and be able to interact with them through eye tracking, hand tracking and physical accessories. So instead of 25 to 50 inches if display area that users may have, they can have them anywhere you want. On you desk, in the next room, on the wall, etc. Since it is a pass-through AR headset, you can have VR applications and 3D AR objects.

So, do what you do today with a company, but you will have a lot more display space, that display space can be mobile, and it has VR and AR features.

The fundamental issues still need to be answered. Like, how many people are going to get nauseous with it? That fraction needs to be really small. Will text be readable with it? This is a vicious problem and they may need something like 35m pixels to make text readable. Will the focal lengths be such that it doesn't make people tired when using it? Can they reduce the weight, increase comfort and increase handling qualities?

Those are technical problems, and if solved, Vision products will basically be another computer product market like iPad or Mac or TV. Obviously you disagree, but if they can make spatial computing work, it's going to be a $50b per year revenue market for them.

tht

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

This quote from Steve Jobs, I think, represents exactly the problem I see with Apple Vision:

"Vision for Apple was: What incredible benefits can we give to the customer? Where can we take the customer ? Not starting with 'let's sit down with the engineers, and figure out what awesome technology we have and how we're gonna market that.'" — Steve Jobs, WWDC, 1997

The Apple Vision product seems like the exact opposite of this. It has this vibe that feels a lot like "what awesome technology do we have and how can we market it?" It feels like it's a solution in search of a real problem. A problem that no one—or at least very few people—has.

The vision for Apple's Vision Pro is directly stated: spatial computing. It lets you have displays anywhere you see and be able to interact with them through eye tracking, hand tracking and physical accessories. So instead of 25 to 50 inches if display area that users may have, they can have them anywhere you want. On you desk, in the next room, on the wall, etc. Since it is a pass-through AR headset, you can have VR applications and 3D AR objects.

So, do what you do today with a company, but you will have a lot more display space, that display space can be mobile, and it has VR and AR features.

The fundamental issues still need to be answered. Like, how many people are going to get nauseous with it? That fraction needs to be really small. Will text be readable with it? This is a vicious problem and they may need something like 35m pixels to make text readable. Will the focal lengths be such that it doesn't make people tired when using it? Can they reduce the weight, increase comfort and increase handling qualities?

Those are technical problems, and if solved, Vision products will basically be another computer product market like iPad or Mac or TV. Obviously you disagree, but if they can make spatial computing work, it's going to be a $50b per year revenue market for them.

Yes. I know what the stated vision is. That doesn't answer the even more fundamental questions (than the usability and technical ones you've jumped to): Is this solving a real problem that people want to be solved and in a way they want to solve it? Is it solving a real pain point for people? Is this something people really want?

Display sizes are creeping up as they have been for the past 40 years, in every form factor. Watches, phones, tablets, laptop, monitors, TV, they all are creeping up in size. So, yes, I think people want more display space.

tht

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

This quote from Steve Jobs, I think, represents exactly the problem I see with Apple Vision:

"Vision for Apple was: What incredible benefits can we give to the customer? Where can we take the customer ? Not starting with 'let's sit down with the engineers, and figure out what awesome technology we have and how we're gonna market that.'" — Steve Jobs, WWDC, 1997

The Apple Vision product seems like the exact opposite of this. It has this vibe that feels a lot like "what awesome technology do we have and how can we market it?" It feels like it's a solution in search of a real problem. A problem that no one—or at least very few people—has.

The vision for Apple's Vision Pro is directly stated: spatial computing. It lets you have displays anywhere you see and be able to interact with them through eye tracking, hand tracking and physical accessories. So instead of 25 to 50 inches if display area that users may have, they can have them anywhere you want. On you desk, in the next room, on the wall, etc. Since it is a pass-through AR headset, you can have VR applications and 3D AR objects.

So, do what you do today with a company, but you will have a lot more display space, that display space can be mobile, and it has VR and AR features.

The fundamental issues still need to be answered. Like, how many people are going to get nauseous with it? That fraction needs to be really small. Will text be readable with it? This is a vicious problem and they may need something like 35m pixels to make text readable. Will the focal lengths be such that it doesn't make people tired when using it? Can they reduce the weight, increase comfort and increase handling qualities?

Those are technical problems, and if solved, Vision products will basically be another computer product market like iPad or Mac or TV. Obviously you disagree, but if they can make spatial computing work, it's going to be a $50b per year revenue market for them.

Yes. I know what the stated vision is. That doesn't answer the even more fundamental questions (than the usability and technical ones you've jumped to): Is this solving a real problem that people want to be solved and in a way they want to solve it? Is it solving a real pain point for people? Is this something people really want?

Display sizes are creeping up as they have been for the past 40 years, in every form factor. Watches, phones, tablets, laptop, monitors, TV, they all are creeping up in size. So, yes, I think people want more display space.

Okay. This seems like an odd way to approach that problem. It presumes that people want this much additional screen space to spend this much money (yeah, it will probably come down over time) and engage with a device in this way.

Just as one example, one of the things presented was movie-watching. Now, this I could imagine, of course. But movie-watching for many people is a social and "collaborative" effort. I'm doubtful lots of people want to spend this kind of money to be able to watch the few IMAX-ish films that this would make seem better in their own homes—alone.

Yeah, I just don't see this as solving real problems in a real way that people actually want.

Yes, there is significant fraction of users who want a lot of screen space. Two, three, four 30" sized monitors. A pass-thru goggles set is the end-point of that desire as it delivers display space where ever the user looks. It needs at least 50% higher PPD and variable focus lens, but that's technology development that will come. This solve real problems as productivity scales with display space.

Some variation of this is applicable to every device with a display.

marvin

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

This quote from Steve Jobs, I think, represents exactly the problem I see with Apple Vision:

"Vision for Apple was: What incredible benefits can we give to the customer? Where can we take the customer ? Not starting with 'let's sit down with the engineers, and figure out what awesome technology we have and how we're gonna market that.'" — Steve Jobs, WWDC, 1997

The Apple Vision product seems like the exact opposite of this. It has this vibe that feels a lot like "what awesome technology do we have and how can we market it?" It feels like it's a solution in search of a real problem. A problem that no one—or at least very few people—has.

The vision for Apple's Vision Pro is directly stated: spatial computing. It lets you have displays anywhere you see and be able to interact with them through eye tracking, hand tracking and physical accessories. So instead of 25 to 50 inches if display area that users may have, they can have them anywhere you want. On you desk, in the next room, on the wall, etc. Since it is a pass-through AR headset, you can have VR applications and 3D AR objects.

So, do what you do today with a company, but you will have a lot more display space, that display space can be mobile, and it has VR and AR features.

The fundamental issues still need to be answered. Like, how many people are going to get nauseous with it? That fraction needs to be really small. Will text be readable with it? This is a vicious problem and they may need something like 35m pixels to make text readable. Will the focal lengths be such that it doesn't make people tired when using it? Can they reduce the weight, increase comfort and increase handling qualities?

Those are technical problems, and if solved, Vision products will basically be another computer product market like iPad or Mac or TV. Obviously you disagree, but if they can make spatial computing work, it's going to be a $50b per year revenue market for them.

Yes. I know what the stated vision is. That doesn't answer the even more fundamental questions (than the usability and technical ones you've jumped to): Is this solving a real problem that people want to be solved and in a way they want to solve it? Is it solving a real pain point for people? Is this something people really want?

Display sizes are creeping up as they have been for the past 40 years, in every form factor. Watches, phones, tablets, laptop, monitors, TV, they all are creeping up in size. So, yes, I think people want more display space.

Okay. This seems like an odd way to approach that problem. It presumes that people want this much additional screen space to spend this much money (yeah, it will probably come down over time) and engage with a device in this way.

Just as one example, one of the things presented was movie-watching. Now, this I could imagine, of course. But movie-watching for many people is a social and "collaborative" effort. I'm doubtful lots of people want to spend this kind of money to be able to watch the few IMAX-ish films that this would make seem better in their own homes—alone.

Yeah, I just don't see this as solving real problems in a real way that people actually want.

Yes, there is significant fraction of users who want a lot of screen space. Two, three, four 30" sized monitors. A pass-thru goggles set is the end-point of that desire as it delivers display space where ever the user looks. It needs at least 50% higher PPD and variable focus lens, but that's technology development that will come. This solve real problems as productivity scales with display space.

Some variation of this is applicable to every device with a display.

If you say so. Color me skeptical that this device is something that millions of people want.

It's not the device that people want, nobody wants to wear or hold anything, people want the experience of being immersed in a virtual world. The hardware is the compromise people have to make to get it. Millions of people own VR hardware already, around 30 million or so:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/677096/vr-headsets-worldwide/

This is primarily the $300-500 Meta Quest, which according to this has around 90% of the marketshare:

https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/meta-captures-90-of-vr-headset-market-share

Steam says Meta hardware is just over 50% and the Valve Index is 20%, HTC and Microsoft around 5% each but this survey is limited to gaming:

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Meta showed off photoreal avatars recently:



It doesn't take a leap of imagination to see how compelling that will be with something like OnlyFans (>200m users). That will be everyone's Aha and A-aah moment. People can appear in the same room as you in full 3D.

The Vision Pro price will be out of reach for a lot of people initially but as soon as displays get closer to smartphone display costs, they can make a sub-$2k model and this will bring 1st gen models down to 25% lower than that.

marvin

designr said:

Marvin said:

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

This quote from Steve Jobs, I think, represents exactly the problem I see with Apple Vision:

"Vision for Apple was: What incredible benefits can we give to the customer? Where can we take the customer ? Not starting with 'let's sit down with the engineers, and figure out what awesome technology we have and how we're gonna market that.'" — Steve Jobs, WWDC, 1997

The Apple Vision product seems like the exact opposite of this. It has this vibe that feels a lot like "what awesome technology do we have and how can we market it?" It feels like it's a solution in search of a real problem. A problem that no one—or at least very few people—has.

The vision for Apple's Vision Pro is directly stated: spatial computing. It lets you have displays anywhere you see and be able to interact with them through eye tracking, hand tracking and physical accessories. So instead of 25 to 50 inches if display area that users may have, they can have them anywhere you want. On you desk, in the next room, on the wall, etc. Since it is a pass-through AR headset, you can have VR applications and 3D AR objects.

So, do what you do today with a company, but you will have a lot more display space, that display space can be mobile, and it has VR and AR features.

The fundamental issues still need to be answered. Like, how many people are going to get nauseous with it? That fraction needs to be really small. Will text be readable with it? This is a vicious problem and they may need something like 35m pixels to make text readable. Will the focal lengths be such that it doesn't make people tired when using it? Can they reduce the weight, increase comfort and increase handling qualities?

Those are technical problems, and if solved, Vision products will basically be another computer product market like iPad or Mac or TV. Obviously you disagree, but if they can make spatial computing work, it's going to be a $50b per year revenue market for them.

Yes. I know what the stated vision is. That doesn't answer the even more fundamental questions (than the usability and technical ones you've jumped to): Is this solving a real problem that people want to be solved and in a way they want to solve it? Is it solving a real pain point for people? Is this something people really want?

Display sizes are creeping up as they have been for the past 40 years, in every form factor. Watches, phones, tablets, laptop, monitors, TV, they all are creeping up in size. So, yes, I think people want more display space.

Okay. This seems like an odd way to approach that problem. It presumes that people want this much additional screen space to spend this much money (yeah, it will probably come down over time) and engage with a device in this way.

Just as one example, one of the things presented was movie-watching. Now, this I could imagine, of course. But movie-watching for many people is a social and "collaborative" effort. I'm doubtful lots of people want to spend this kind of money to be able to watch the few IMAX-ish films that this would make seem better in their own homes—alone.

Yeah, I just don't see this as solving real problems in a real way that people actually want.

Yes, there is significant fraction of users who want a lot of screen space. Two, three, four 30" sized monitors. A pass-thru goggles set is the end-point of that desire as it delivers display space where ever the user looks. It needs at least 50% higher PPD and variable focus lens, but that's technology development that will come. This solve real problems as productivity scales with display space.

Some variation of this is applicable to every device with a display.

If you say so. Color me skeptical that this device is something that millions of people want.

It's not the device that people want, nobody wants to wear or hold anything, people want the experience of being immersed in a virtual world.

You are correct. It's not the device but rather the solution or experience. The question is whether millions of people really want that experience. It's a big and unverified question. I'm skeptical.

The question of whether millions of people want an immersive virtual experience is answered by millions of people already owning VR headsets. What millions of people don't want to do is spend $3500 on one (Microsoft HoloLens is this price) but millions are happy to buy <$500 VR headsets.