Probably isn't going to be so special if you have to worry so much about negative reviews.
Regardless, this device will probably be well received, but it wouldn't be an iPhone replacement. Not for the next decade.
What a strange comment. Apple isn’t promoting Vision Pro as an iPhone replacement. So yeah, it’s not going to be an iPhone replacement it also won’t replace the Apple Watch, your car, oven and shower.
Many people on this forum and Reddit are considering this device to be the one which replaces iPhones, just like iPhones did for iPods cutting off Microsoft's chance before the Zune could even compete, they hope the same will happen to Android based phones. I made the comment addressing that mentality about it, history isn't going to repeat this instance.
In my opinion it's going to be a separate niche category and isn't going to replace phones anytime soon, though it heavily depends upon the advancement of the technology.
Your opinion is also Apple's opinion, and also pretty much everyone's opinion.
I haven't seen a single person suggest this is being considered as an iPhone replacement except for you.
Seem like the lack of cellular connectivity is the big tell that this isn’t intended to be a phone replacement, right?
I also haven’t see anyone make this claim either and when they had to fall back on “people in this forum and Reddit” they pretty much lost all credibility in the conversation.
Can’t review it without us telling you what to and not to say.
reviews with conditions.
That’s not very genuine.
If it doesn’t just make sense or someone sees it differently or explains it differently - that’s why we have so many reviewers.
Ridiculous. Everything about this thing is and has been so in-apple.
Send the unit and let the reviewer be honest about it.
I think Apple just wants educated reviews which the article already mentioned by making sure they are properly briefed and device is configured beforehand. Can’t have stupidity in the way.
Reviewers don’t need a babysitter to “educate” them how to use or review something.
That’s very manipulative and screams of a guarded and controlling issue. Not a good sign at all. With this going on, no one can trust the initial “press” reviews by actual press, YouTubers, etc.
you can just feel the pressure from these folks who’ve invested their livelihoods to cover apple being covertly pressed to review it positively or face a sense that they might not be early in receiving review units of important products anymore.
incredibly bad and unethical move.
If someone doesn’t know how to review it right, that reflects on the user.
If they don’t know how to use it, that’s a failure of the apple UX team. Not a need for babysitters. And that failure should be reflected in the interview, because guess what? That’s what actual customers will face.
If it’s about being sure that special features are noted, just highlight it in the press kit.
Zero need for such interference. You’d think this was coming from China or something.
Reviewers don’t need a babysitter to “educate” them how to use or review something.
That’s very manipulative and screams of a guarded and controlling issue. Not a good sign at all. With this going on, no one can trust the initial “press” reviews by actual press, YouTubers, etc.
you can just feel the pressure from these folks who’ve invested their livelihoods to cover apple being covertly pressed to review it positively or face a sense that they might not be early in receiving review units of important products anymore.
incredibly bad and unethical move.
If someone doesn’t know how to review it right, that reflects on the user.
If they don’t know how to use it, that’s a failure of the apple UX team. Not a need for babysitters. And that failure should be reflected in the interview, because guess what? That’s what actual customers will face.
If it’s about being sure that special features are noted, just highlight it in the press kit.
Zero need for such interference. You’d think this was coming from China or something.
You can't review this as 'yet another VR google'.
Expectations are sky-high, and people are treating this thing as a competitor to the Quest, which is not (yet). It can't do what the Quest can do, namely, play half-decent VR games, because there aren't any for this device. So what can you do with it? Not that much. That is not a great start for a review, of which many think will be aimed at regular consumers, which is also not the target group. So who is it for? I can understand Apple having to explain that, but it does feel a bit lame. But given the trackrecord of the tech-press, they are pretty stupid, so yeah, some guidance is needed.
I think it's a fantastic device, a decent first step into AR. Something I might consider to buy in its 4th or 5th iteration, if it ever gets that far.
Probably isn't going to be so special if you have to worry so much about negative reviews.
Regardless, this device will probably be well received, but it wouldn't be an iPhone replacement. Not for the next decade.
What a strange comment. Apple isn’t promoting Vision Pro as an iPhone replacement. So yeah, it’s not going to be an iPhone replacement it also won’t replace the Apple Watch, your car, oven and shower.
Many people on this forum and Reddit are considering this device to be the one which replaces iPhones, just like iPhones did for iPods cutting off Microsoft's chance before the Zune could even compete, they hope the same will happen to Android based phones. I made the comment addressing that mentality about it, history isn't going to repeat this instance.
In my opinion it's going to be a separate niche category and isn't going to replace phones anytime soon, though it heavily depends upon the advancement of the technology.
It's a replacement for computer monitors and televisions.
In many places in East Asia, and Europe where people live in smaller flats and townhomes that have money it will. With the M2 processor the Apple Vision will be able run all Mac software if the developer wants too and the same applies to iPad software, for example my E*Trade iPad software works on the Mac and the iPad because they did their job right my BOA, Chase, and TRowe Price iPad software doesn't and it was their choice not to. The same will be true with the Apple VisionOS, those that can will and those that don't won't.
Reviewers don’t need a babysitter to “educate” them how to use or review something.
That’s very manipulative and screams of a guarded and controlling issue. Not a good sign at all. With this going on, no one can trust the initial “press” reviews by actual press, YouTubers, etc.
you can just feel the pressure from these folks who’ve invested their livelihoods to cover apple being covertly pressed to review it positively or face a sense that they might not be early in receiving review units of important products anymore.
incredibly bad and unethical move.
If someone doesn’t know how to review it right, that reflects on the user.
If they don’t know how to use it, that’s a failure of the apple UX team. Not a need for babysitters. And that failure should be reflected in the interview, because guess what? That’s what actual customers will face.
If it’s about being sure that special features are noted, just highlight it in the press kit.
Zero need for such interference. You’d think this was coming from China or something.
You can't review this as 'yet another VR google'.
Expectations are sky-high, and people are treating this thing as a competitor to the Quest, which is not (yet). It can't do what the Quest can do, namely, play half-decent VR games, because there aren't any for this device. So what can you do with it? Not that much. That is not a great start for a review, of which many think will be aimed at regular consumers, which is also not the target group. So who is it for? I can understand Apple having to explain that, but it does feel a bit lame. But given the trackrecord of the tech-press, they are pretty stupid, so yeah, some guidance is needed.
I think it's a fantastic device, a decent first step into AR. Something I might consider to buy in its 4th or 5th iteration, if it ever gets that far.
This take is a case in point. To consumers it IS exactly “just another VR goggle” until or unless Apple has convinced the consumer otherwise by their marketing and end product.
People turn to reviewers to get an unbiased take. They don’t want the reviewer tainted by Apple’s “high stakes” desperation - personified in a babysitter.
If it’s such high stakes, those concerns need to be addressed in the PRODUCT. and NOT in some manipulative pressure on the reviewer. If Apple’s UX doesn’t make enough sense to reviewers, then DONT SHIP! Go back to the drawing board and get it right! Do t just ship and then hope your cult-like stranglehold on the review process does the job your UX team should have.
If people’s expectations are high, then a fair, unbiased, and non-manipulative review process will sis’s it out-whether those expectations are valid or not or whether it’s a quest competitor or not. Every company has high hopes for a product. They do what they can and then release it to sink or swim. That’s how it works. They don’t prop up a turd.
Because of this, we can already discard initial reviews from the usual suspects as they will all be feeling the pressure in a very personal way from apple. It’s like mob tactics.
People getting ready to spend nearly FOUR GRAND on some XR goggles deserve far better. They deserve fair and unbiased reviews, with no on-rails reviews with Tommy-two-toes from Apples glowering behind the camera.
You really disrespect “the tech press” thinking that they are somehow total idiots who don’t know how to use stuff. In reality, sure, Billy and Bobby and YouTube who haven’t really made a go of it might fit that bill. But the majority, especially the well known apple crew and news publishers are a far different story. They make their living knowing how to figure stuff out. And actually your “guidance is needed” point is a slap in the face to the Vision Pro itself. The iPhone, iPad, iPod, etc. never needed that. They just worked. People could pick it up and it became intuitive. Better to just provide a QuickStart card in the press kit and apples vp os should walk you through a tutorial as you start it up. If it doesn’t, that should be noted in the review as it’s an issue actual customers will face, with no one from apple there to help them.
This is such a clear bad move, I really hope they change this manipulative stipulation.
Reviewers are not Apples marketing department. They are an independent source for potential customers to verify whether or not a product is suitable for them. Apple has tried to taint that process.
Reviewers don’t need a babysitter to “educate” them how to use or review something.
That’s very manipulative and screams of a guarded and controlling issue. Not a good sign at all. With this going on, no one can trust the initial “press” reviews by actual press, YouTubers, etc.
you can just feel the pressure from these folks who’ve invested their livelihoods to cover apple being covertly pressed to review it positively or face a sense that they might not be early in receiving review units of important products anymore.
incredibly bad and unethical move.
If someone doesn’t know how to review it right, that reflects on the user.
If they don’t know how to use it, that’s a failure of the apple UX team. Not a need for babysitters. And that failure should be reflected in the interview, because guess what? That’s what actual customers will face.
If it’s about being sure that special features are noted, just highlight it in the press kit.
Zero need for such interference. You’d think this was coming from China or something.
You can't review this as 'yet another VR google'.
Expectations are sky-high, and people are treating this thing as a competitor to the Quest, which is not (yet). It can't do what the Quest can do, namely, play half-decent VR games, because there aren't any for this device. So what can you do with it? Not that much. That is not a great start for a review, of which many think will be aimed at regular consumers, which is also not the target group. So who is it for? I can understand Apple having to explain that, but it does feel a bit lame. But given the trackrecord of the tech-press, they are pretty stupid, so yeah, some guidance is needed.
I think it's a fantastic device, a decent first step into AR. Something I might consider to buy in its 4th or 5th iteration, if it ever gets that far.
This take is a case in point. To consumers it IS exactly “just another VR goggle” until or unless Apple has convinced the consumer otherwise by their marketing and end product.
People turn to reviewers to get an unbiased take. They don’t want the reviewer tainted by Apple’s “high stakes” desperation - personified in a babysitter.
If it’s such high stakes, those concerns need to be addressed in the PRODUCT. and NOT in some manipulative pressure on the reviewer. If Apple’s UX doesn’t make enough sense to reviewers, then DONT SHIP! Go back to the drawing board and get it right! Do t just ship and then hope your cult-like stranglehold on the review process does the job your UX team should have.
If people’s expectations are high, then a fair, unbiased, and non-manipulative review process will sis’s it out-whether those expectations are valid or not or whether it’s a quest competitor or not. Every company has high hopes for a product. They do what they can and then release it to sink or swim. That’s how it works. They don’t prop up a turd.
Because of this, we can already discard initial reviews from the usual suspects as they will all be feeling the pressure in a very personal way from apple. It’s like mob tactics.
People getting ready to spend nearly FOUR GRAND on some XR goggles deserve far better. They deserve fair and unbiased reviews, with no on-rails reviews with Tommy-two-toes from Apples glowering behind the camera.
You really disrespect “the tech press” thinking that they are somehow total idiots who don’t know how to use stuff. In reality, sure, Billy and Bobby and YouTube who haven’t really made a go of it might fit that bill. But the majority, especially the well known apple crew and news publishers are a far different story. They make their living knowing how to figure stuff out. And actually your “guidance is needed” point is a slap in the face to the Vision Pro itself. The iPhone, iPad, iPod, etc. never needed that. They just worked. People could pick it up and it became intuitive. Better to just provide a QuickStart card in the press kit and apples vp os should walk you through a tutorial as you start it up. If it doesn’t, that should be noted in the review as it’s an issue actual customers will face, with no one from apple there to help them.
This is such a clear bad move, I really hope they change this manipulative stipulation.
Reviewers are not Apples marketing department. They are an independent source for potential customers to verify whether or not a product is suitable for them. Apple has tried to taint that process.
This is a vertical market device, and I wonder which of two verticals it will fit in (Or will it fit between them in some odd way)?
Consumer VR headsets are gaming devices, much as their makers try to make them something else. Every vision of the metaverse I have seen is about expanding the paradigm of gaming, about gamifying the world. This ignores the fact that, while gaming is incredibly popular, most people are not gamers. Many non-gamers are non-gamers by choice - we have looked at games and decided that they are not for us. We don't hate gaming or gamers, any more than someone who ignores baseball hates baseball. Maybe a few people actually hate baseball, but many more are fine with its existence - it's simply not for them. The same is true of video games, and this is the problem with consumer VR. Things like Horizon Worlds are sufficiently gaming-adjacent that they won't interest a lot of non-gamers, and non-gamers will resent it if they are forced into them, just as non-baseball people would resent being required to watch a bunch of baseball games. Vision Pro is VERY expensive as a gaming-type headset. Nobody's made a really successful one much over $500 or so. Maybe Apple could get away with $1000 for something noticeably better - but $3499???
The other vertical is the professional use of VR - by the standards of astrophysicists using VR to visualize galaxies, or engineers seeing how parts will fit together, this thing's CHEAP. There are two problems - one is that isn't a big enough market to interest Apple. They haven't made a stand-alone camera in decades, that is a MUCH bigger market than the Pro VR vertical, and a professional camera can easily cost $3499 or more. If they were interested in markets of that size, why not a great mirrorless camera - they could join Leica, Panasonic and Sigma's L-mount so they started out with lenses available... NONE of the camera makers can write software, and Apple CAN - I'd love to see what they'd do!
The second problem is that a LOT of the Pro VR vertical requires ruggedness. Astrophysicists don't need it, but engineers often do, and mechanics certainly do. Nobody has yet built a VR headset that is right for car mechanics, even though aircraft mechanics use them all the time. The Vision Pro could be a huge breakthrough for fixing cars, helping diagnose and replacing the service manual - but can you imagine one lasting five minutes in the shop? Even a Porsche repair shop? How quickly is someone going to put a wrench through that front glass (hopefully while nobody's wearing it)...
When Apple launched the iPhone in 2007, it was in such a weak position that it probably sent review units to anyone who'd write about it. Now with Apple Vision Pro, everything has changed and Apple aims to do all it can to ensure it gets the best press coverage it can.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t remember it this way at all.
The 2007 iPhone was click generating monster. There are articles, papers and now probably marketing classes in school on how the 2007 iPhone generated hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising for Apple. Everyone wanted to know if it was for real.
The four handpicked technology journalists who got to review it prior to shipping were considered the luckiest tech journalists on the planet.
Apple controlled the messaging of the iPhone by doing this. Those journos were certainly told what they could say and not say, and they themselves certainly knew the box they were in. Apple put their trust in them and if they didn’t give an honest review, they would have blacklisted them.
Apple does a variation of this for every early access review product. They brief the journalists about the product and what features they would like them to talk about it. The journalists understand the box they are in. There is a back and forth between Apple and the reviewer during the early access review period over issues and what they can talk about.
It’s only the post-shipping reviewers that get less attention. This 2nd or 3rd wave who get review units just get less attention as the initial review period is done when the ad campaign has the biggest effect. It’s really only mature products that get easier access as well, and have a 2nd or 3rd wave at all.
For the first product of a platform, that’s going to be controlled much more tightly. Nothing regarding the Vision Pro review process of in-store experience is actually new. Apple does it for every product to a varying degree.
Unsurprisingly, Apple has a plan for just how to make sure technology reviewers learn about Apple Vision Pro, but there's now a schedule too.
Apple Vision Pro
When Apple launched the iPhone in 2007, it was in such a weak position that it probably sent review units to anyone who'd write about it. Now with Apple Vision Pro, everything has changed and Apple aims to do all it can to ensure it gets the best press coverage it can.
For consumers, that's meant presenting a video teaser that has more than a nod to the original iPhone ad. For the industry, it's meant announcing the Vision Pro's shipping date during CES.
Now according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, Apple is also controlling just how and when reviewers get to see and use the Vision Pro.
Apple's carefully orchestrated Vision Pro reviews plan: a hands-on "experience" with chosen reviewers on Jan 16, a follow up meeting to go over the device again on Jan 23, device then shipped to reviewers. Reviews published at the end of the month. Nothing left to chance.
It's not unusual for Apple to give a hands-on briefing to journalists, though it is unusual for them to give each journalist two. But reportedly that is what will happen, with the initial meeting on Tuesday, January 16, 2024, and the follow-up a week later.
Apple obviously can't control what any reviewer says about Vision Pro. But it can ensure that no one gives it a bad review just because they've put it on the wrong way, forgotten to plug in the battery, or that they've simply missed a key feature.
It's also likely that by having meetings before a reviewer gets a Vision Pro to try, that Apple can also make sure that the lenses are correct for each person. This is what stops Vision Pro being an entirely off-the-shelf purchase, the need to potentially have it adjusted with corrective or prescription lenses.
There are very few reviewers technically competent of reviewing this devise, (Mtwhosetheboss & Marquees Brownlee) The rest will either try to trash it or sing it's praises, without much of an unbiased review. It's not for me personally, for two reasons; I wear very focal glasses, but the main reason is I can't share my experience or content I watch, without buying two, which is just too expensive, if they offered a cheap additional slave unit, that would definitely swing me to buy it. However I think it's brilliant and every unit they can make will sell
Comments
I also haven’t see anyone make this claim either and when they had to fall back on “people in this forum and Reddit” they pretty much lost all credibility in the conversation.
you can just feel the pressure from these folks who’ve invested their livelihoods to cover apple being covertly pressed to review it positively or face a sense that they might not be early in receiving review units of important products anymore.
incredibly bad and unethical move.
I think it's a fantastic device, a decent first step into AR. Something I might consider to buy in its 4th or 5th iteration, if it ever gets that far.
Consumer VR headsets are gaming devices, much as their makers try to make them something else. Every vision of the metaverse I have seen is about expanding the paradigm of gaming, about gamifying the world. This ignores the fact that, while gaming is incredibly popular, most people are not gamers. Many non-gamers are non-gamers by choice - we have looked at games and decided that they are not for us. We don't hate gaming or gamers, any more than someone who ignores baseball hates baseball. Maybe a few people actually hate baseball, but many more are fine with its existence - it's simply not for them. The same is true of video games, and this is the problem with consumer VR. Things like Horizon Worlds are sufficiently gaming-adjacent that they won't interest a lot of non-gamers, and non-gamers will resent it if they are forced into them, just as non-baseball people would resent being required to watch a bunch of baseball games. Vision Pro is VERY expensive as a gaming-type headset. Nobody's made a really successful one much over $500 or so. Maybe Apple could get away with $1000 for something noticeably better - but $3499???
The other vertical is the professional use of VR - by the standards of astrophysicists using VR to visualize galaxies, or engineers seeing how parts will fit together, this thing's CHEAP. There are two problems - one is that isn't a big enough market to interest Apple. They haven't made a stand-alone camera in decades, that is a MUCH bigger market than the Pro VR vertical, and a professional camera can easily cost $3499 or more. If they were interested in markets of that size, why not a great mirrorless camera - they could join Leica, Panasonic and Sigma's L-mount so they started out with lenses available... NONE of the camera makers can write software, and Apple CAN - I'd love to see what they'd do!
The second problem is that a LOT of the Pro VR vertical requires ruggedness. Astrophysicists don't need it, but engineers often do, and mechanics certainly do. Nobody has yet built a VR headset that is right for car mechanics, even though aircraft mechanics use them all the time. The Vision Pro could be a huge breakthrough for fixing cars, helping diagnose and replacing the service manual - but can you imagine one lasting five minutes in the shop? Even a Porsche repair shop? How quickly is someone going to put a wrench through that front glass (hopefully while nobody's wearing it)...
The rest will either try to trash it or sing it's praises, without much of an unbiased review.
It's not for me personally, for two reasons; I wear very focal glasses, but the main reason is I can't share my experience or content I watch, without buying two, which is just too expensive, if they offered a cheap additional slave unit, that would definitely swing me to buy it.
However I think it's brilliant and every unit they can make will sell