I agree it’s not the iPhone and it’s got a steep climb ahead, but not in the way the original author intended. It’s not the iPhone because the iPhone doesn’t replace one’s need for a PC/Mac or iPad, whereas the Vision Pro line of products will end up replacing the iPhone, watch, iPad and even Mac for most people. Once AVP evolves to the point where you can comfortably wear it around all day, all other physical screens become redundant. They just need to include cellular connectivity, have longer battery life, and make it lighter/more comfortable. All inevitable advancements with future versions and this transition will start faster than many expect.
I agree it’s not the iPhone and it’s got a steep climb ahead, but not in the way the original author intended. It’s not the iPhone because the iPhone doesn’t replace one’s need for a PC/Mac or iPad, whereas the Vision Pro line of products will end up replacing the iPhone, watch, iPad and even Mac for most people. Once AVP evolves to the point where you can comfortably wear it around all day, all other physical screens become redundant. They just need to include cellular connectivity, have longer battery life, and make it lighter/more comfortable. All inevitable advancements with future versions and this transition will start faster than many expect.
1) I don't see how it will replace any of those things. The iPhone, at least, was a device that replaced other cellphones, an iPod, and was finally a decent computing device in your pocket throughout all day. I've even known many people that stopped using PCs at home because the iPhone was a much better tool. The iPad is an offshoot of that OS and UI for those that really preferred what Apple offered in a handheld device that wasn't a traditional PC OS.
2) How exactly do you see if evolving into an "all day' device? It's a VR headset with AR only being possible because of the cameras on it. There is no see-through lenses which means it can't be adopted for driving or many other tasks people tend to do throughout the day. I've ordered one and yet fully expect my Watch, iPhone, and Mac to not sit ideal during the day.
IMHO the iPhone was a success from the very beginning--even before it was in customer hands. Google recognized it, too.
Agree. in 2008, the iPhone was already the fourth best selling mobile device in the country, as people continued to replace their mobile phones with this innovative disruptive device.
People need mobile devices, but who needs the Vision Pro and why? Time will tell.
Yeah. It launched into a market that already had successes and very clear use cases for the everyman. AVP is launching into a market that doesn't.
you're not thinking long term.
This Apple's 3rd new computing platform that changed the way people use computers
Macintosh iPhone Vision Pro
Macintosh in 1984. There were barely any apps, but it redefined how computers worked. At my job (NASA), we started buying them a day after release and for the next year or two we bought 1 of every app that came out to see what we could use it for. That's how few apps there were. It had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work and cost $2499 ($7238 in today's dollars).
40 years later, all computers work like that Macintosh.
iPhone in 2007 - here weren't any apps other than the ones Apple built. There was no 3rd party App Store for a full year after release. Again had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work. Redefined how mobile computing worked. Today all phones and tablets work like that first iPhone. The pointing device from the Mac was replace by your finger.
Vision Pro - At release it's already well ahead in apps of where Macintosh and iPhone were. Like Macintosh, it's the minimum hardware required to implement a new way to use computes. Augmented reality. To nail augmented reality, it has to look like reality. The pointing device is now your eyes. Like Macintosh, the first release is expensive. And the first release is heavy. But something went seriously wrong if 5 to 10 years from now devices that descend from or are inspired by Vision Pro aren't the dominate computing platform.
Imagine a future model that isn't much bigger or heavier than sunglasses, shows your eyes while you use it, has all day battery life, had robust AI, has fully shared experiences with other people if they're in the room with you or not, and runs every app you need. What do you even need a phone for with a device like that? What do you need a computer for?
Guys every day you have some feature article about how this launch is going to be nothing compared to the iPhone. Yesterday I was reading about the authors horrible trips to Thailand, and today it’s more recycled talking points about what the Vision Pro has against its launch - we get it lol. Post some actual Vision Pro news already….
Commenter, we are not requiring you to read everything that's published on AppleInsider.
We have multiple staffers with different opinions on the product, and we haven't been short on Apple Vision Pro news. The news has outnumbered the opinion pieces significantly.
Might be worth seeking out opinions outside of the usual staff, the device isn’t for wordsmiths. At least for now. If you only look at it form that perspective you are going to miss the interesting things that will happen and what makes them interesting.
Guys every day you have some feature article about how this launch is going to be nothing compared to the iPhone. Yesterday I was reading about the authors horrible trips to Thailand, and today it’s more recycled talking points about what the Vision Pro has against its launch - we get it lol. Post some actual Vision Pro news already….
Commenter, we are not requiring you to read everything that's published on AppleInsider.
We have multiple staffers with different opinions on the product, and we haven't been short on Apple Vision Pro news. The news has outnumbered the opinion pieces significantly.
Might be worth seeking out opinions outside of the usual staff, the device isn’t for wordsmiths. At least for now. If you only look at it form that perspective you are going to miss the interesting things that will happen and what makes them interesting.
While I can't speak for Dan or Wes, I did for this piece.
Do all the naysayers posting comments about how this product is not the iPhone realize that Apple knows that as well. Developers will lead the way coming up with uses that the rest of us have never thought of. Sales will follow as they always do. Innovation does not always equal sales, but portions of innovations make their way into other products.
Do all the naysayers posting comments about how this product is not the iPhone realize that Apple knows that as well. Developers will lead the way coming up with uses that the rest of us have never thought of. Sales will follow as they always do. Innovation does not always equal sales, but portions of innovations make their way into other products.
1) I'm finding it weird to compare it to the iPhone. Was the Apple Watch negatively compared to the iPhone when it was introduced? If it was, I don't recall. I remember looking at the Apple Watch and thinking that this will a great way to help reduce my overall screen time and iPhone use.
2) Google, Spotify, and Netflix want this to be like the original iPhone as they are forcing users to use the web apps.
IMHO the iPhone was a success from the very beginning--even before it was in customer hands. Google recognized it, too.
Agree. in 2008, the iPhone was already the fourth best selling mobile device in the country, as people continued to replace their mobile phones with this innovative disruptive device.
People need mobile devices, but who needs the Vision Pro and why? Time will tell.
Yeah. It launched into a market that already had successes and very clear use cases for the everyman. AVP is launching into a market that doesn't.
you're not thinking long term.
This Apple's 3rd new computing platform that changed the way people use computers
Macintosh iPhone Vision Pro
Macintosh in 1984. There were barely any apps, but it redefined how computers worked. At my job (NASA), we started buying them a day after release and for the next year or two we bought 1 of every app that came out to see what we could use it for. That's how few apps there were. It had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work and cost $2499 ($7238 in today's dollars).
40 years later, all computers work like that Macintosh.
iPhone in 2007 - here weren't any apps other than the ones Apple built. There was no 3rd party App Store for a full year after release. Again had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work. Redefined how mobile computing worked. Today all phones and tablets work like that first iPhone. The pointing device from the Mac was replace by your finger.
Vision Pro - At release it's already well ahead in apps of where Macintosh and iPhone were. Like Macintosh, it's the minimum hardware required to implement a new way to use computes. Augmented reality. To nail augmented reality, it has to look like reality. The pointing device is now your eyes. Like Macintosh, the first release is expensive. And the first release is heavy. But something went seriously wrong if 5 to 10 years from now devices that descend from or are inspired by Vision Pro aren't the dominate computing platform.
Imagine a future model that isn't much bigger or heavier than sunglasses, shows your eyes while you use it, has all day battery life, had robust AI, has fully shared experiences with other people if they're in the room with you or not, and runs every app you need. What do you even need a phone for with a device like that? What do you need a computer for?
I absolutely am thinking long term. From the article:
No matter how many units are available, sold, or coming in early 2024, no matter how loud Apple yells that the Apple Vision Pro is a success now, no matter if the stock analysts predict doom or triumph now, the whole-year 2024 is only the start of the saga and climb. I agree with the sentiment that Apple Vision Pro is right now in essence a paid developer kit unleashed on the world.
From the start, developers are the crank or starter motor that starts the big engine, and users are the fuel that makes the product run. Apple hopes the killer app will pop out, as it has before, but nothing is guaranteed.
This is a story told in the fullness of time. This is a story told in the non-Pro Apple Vision, and whatever the "Apple Glass" ultimately turns out to be. This is also a story about how the rest of the world reacts to the hardware, and what competing vendors do in response to the gear. Meta's, HTC's, and others' responses and timelines will perhaps be the most telling on how afraid the rest of the market is.
As far as the absolute measure of success goes, Apple can wait effectively forever. It doesn't need to be profitable out of the gate, as the company has a stack of money that would make the most covetous dragon jealous to weather the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with little or no impact to the company as a whole."
IMHO the iPhone was a success from the very beginning--even before it was in customer hands. Google recognized it, too.
Agree. in 2008, the iPhone was already the fourth best selling mobile device in the country, as people continued to replace their mobile phones with this innovative disruptive device.
People need mobile devices, but who needs the Vision Pro and why? Time will tell.
Yeah. It launched into a market that already had successes and very clear use cases for the everyman. AVP is launching into a market that doesn't.
you're not thinking long term.
This Apple's 3rd new computing platform that changed the way people use computers
Macintosh iPhone Vision Pro
Macintosh in 1984. There were barely any apps, but it redefined how computers worked. At my job (NASA), we started buying them a day after release and for the next year or two we bought 1 of every app that came out to see what we could use it for. That's how few apps there were. It had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work and cost $2499 ($7238 in today's dollars).
40 years later, all computers work like that Macintosh.
iPhone in 2007 - here weren't any apps other than the ones Apple built. There was no 3rd party App Store for a full year after release. Again had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work. Redefined how mobile computing worked. Today all phones and tablets work like that first iPhone. The pointing device from the Mac was replace by your finger.
Vision Pro - At release it's already well ahead in apps of where Macintosh and iPhone were. Like Macintosh, it's the minimum hardware required to implement a new way to use computes. Augmented reality. To nail augmented reality, it has to look like reality. The pointing device is now your eyes. Like Macintosh, the first release is expensive. And the first release is heavy. But something went seriously wrong if 5 to 10 years from now devices that descend from or are inspired by Vision Pro aren't the dominate computing platform.
Imagine a future model that isn't much bigger or heavier than sunglasses, shows your eyes while you use it, has all day battery life, had robust AI, has fully shared experiences with other people if they're in the room with you or not, and runs every app you need. What do you even need a phone for with a device like that? What do you need a computer for?
I absolutely am thinking long term. From the article:
No matter how many units are available, sold, or coming in early 2024, no matter how loud Apple yells that the Apple Vision Pro is a success now, no matter if the stock analysts predict doom or triumph now, the whole-year 2024 is only the start of the saga and climb. I agree with the sentiment that Apple Vision Pro is right now in essence a paid developer kit unleashed on the world.
From the start, developers are the crank or starter motor that starts the big engine, and users are the fuel that makes the product run. Apple hopes the killer app will pop out, as it has before, but nothing is guaranteed.
This is a story told in the fullness of time. This is a story told in the non-Pro Apple Vision, and whatever the "Apple Glass" ultimately turns out to be. This is also a story about how the rest of the world reacts to the hardware, and what competing vendors do in response to the gear. Meta's, HTC's, and others' responses and timelines will perhaps be the most telling on how afraid the rest of the market is.
As far as the absolute measure of success goes, Apple can wait effectively forever. It doesn't need to be profitable out of the gate, as the company has a stack of money that would make the most covetous dragon jealous to weather the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with little or no impact to the company as a whole."
I do hope we see an AR-only product down the road, but I do wonder what that might look like since Google Glass was panned so heavily — and rightly so — for being creepy. I feel like the only way around that is to remove the external cameras from an AR-only device so that surreptitious video recording can't occur; or, does Apple's credibility with personal security over Google, plus 11+ years of putting high-performance cameras in everyone's pockets changed how we feel about such products as a society?
But I don't think it faces an incredibly steep uphill climb. An incredibly steep uphill climb implies that with considerable effort, you can quickly move up. I don't think that's the case here. Instead, I think this is a long, gradual incline. With sustained moderate effort, the AVP will eventually move up.
Actually, it was the iPad was "an incredibly steep uphill climb." The iPad took off like crazy and Apple had to work really hard to meet demand. Demand took off so fast, people thought it would be the end of the Mac. (but it turned out people just wanted a big screen iPhone).
IMHO the iPhone was a success from the very beginning--even before it was in customer hands. Google recognized it, too.
Agree. in 2008, the iPhone was already the fourth best selling mobile device in the country, as people continued to replace their mobile phones with this innovative disruptive device.
People need mobile devices, but who needs the Vision Pro and why? Time will tell.
Yeah. It launched into a market that already had successes and very clear use cases for the everyman. AVP is launching into a market that doesn't.
you're not thinking long term.
This Apple's 3rd new computing platform that changed the way people use computers
Macintosh iPhone Vision Pro
Macintosh in 1984. There were barely any apps, but it redefined how computers worked. At my job (NASA), we started buying them a day after release and for the next year or two we bought 1 of every app that came out to see what we could use it for. That's how few apps there were. It had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work and cost $2499 ($7238 in today's dollars).
40 years later, all computers work like that Macintosh.
iPhone in 2007 - here weren't any apps other than the ones Apple built. There was no 3rd party App Store for a full year after release. Again had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work. Redefined how mobile computing worked. Today all phones and tablets work like that first iPhone. The pointing device from the Mac was replace by your finger.
Vision Pro - At release it's already well ahead in apps of where Macintosh and iPhone were. Like Macintosh, it's the minimum hardware required to implement a new way to use computes. Augmented reality. To nail augmented reality, it has to look like reality. The pointing device is now your eyes. Like Macintosh, the first release is expensive. And the first release is heavy. But something went seriously wrong if 5 to 10 years from now devices that descend from or are inspired by Vision Pro aren't the dominate computing platform.
Imagine a future model that isn't much bigger or heavier than sunglasses, shows your eyes while you use it, has all day battery life, had robust AI, has fully shared experiences with other people if they're in the room with you or not, and runs every app you need. What do you even need a phone for with a device like that? What do you need a computer for?
I absolutely am thinking long term. From the article:
No matter how many units are available, sold, or coming in early 2024, no matter how loud Apple yells that the Apple Vision Pro is a success now, no matter if the stock analysts predict doom or triumph now, the whole-year 2024 is only the start of the saga and climb. I agree with the sentiment that Apple Vision Pro is right now in essence a paid developer kit unleashed on the world.
From the start, developers are the crank or starter motor that starts the big engine, and users are the fuel that makes the product run. Apple hopes the killer app will pop out, as it has before, but nothing is guaranteed.
This is a story told in the fullness of time. This is a story told in the non-Pro Apple Vision, and whatever the "Apple Glass" ultimately turns out to be. This is also a story about how the rest of the world reacts to the hardware, and what competing vendors do in response to the gear. Meta's, HTC's, and others' responses and timelines will perhaps be the most telling on how afraid the rest of the market is.
As far as the absolute measure of success goes, Apple can wait effectively forever. It doesn't need to be profitable out of the gate, as the company has a stack of money that would make the most covetous dragon jealous to weather the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with little or no impact to the company as a whole."
I do hope we see an AR-only product down the road, but I do wonder what that might look like since Google Glass was panned so heavily — and rightly so — for being creepy. I feel like the only way around that is to remove the external cameras from an AR-only device so that surreptitious video recording can't occur; or, does Apple's credibility with personal security over Google, plus 11+ years of putting high-performance cameras in everyone's pockets changed how we feel about such products as a society?
How is that any different than the billions of phones? they can be recording at any time too. And the solution is easy, just show a little red light like computers do when their camera is on. Phones don't have that light and everyone is okay with them.
IMHO the iPhone was a success from the very beginning--even before it was in customer hands. Google recognized it, too.
Agree. in 2008, the iPhone was already the fourth best selling mobile device in the country, as people continued to replace their mobile phones with this innovative disruptive device.
People need mobile devices, but who needs the Vision Pro and why? Time will tell.
Yeah. It launched into a market that already had successes and very clear use cases for the everyman. AVP is launching into a market that doesn't.
you're not thinking long term.
This Apple's 3rd new computing platform that changed the way people use computers
Macintosh iPhone Vision Pro
Macintosh in 1984. There were barely any apps, but it redefined how computers worked. At my job (NASA), we started buying them a day after release and for the next year or two we bought 1 of every app that came out to see what we could use it for. That's how few apps there were. It had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work and cost $2499 ($7238 in today's dollars).
40 years later, all computers work like that Macintosh.
iPhone in 2007 - here weren't any apps other than the ones Apple built. There was no 3rd party App Store for a full year after release. Again had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work. Redefined how mobile computing worked. Today all phones and tablets work like that first iPhone. The pointing device from the Mac was replace by your finger.
Vision Pro - At release it's already well ahead in apps of where Macintosh and iPhone were. Like Macintosh, it's the minimum hardware required to implement a new way to use computes. Augmented reality. To nail augmented reality, it has to look like reality. The pointing device is now your eyes. Like Macintosh, the first release is expensive. And the first release is heavy. But something went seriously wrong if 5 to 10 years from now devices that descend from or are inspired by Vision Pro aren't the dominate computing platform.
Imagine a future model that isn't much bigger or heavier than sunglasses, shows your eyes while you use it, has all day battery life, had robust AI, has fully shared experiences with other people if they're in the room with you or not, and runs every app you need. What do you even need a phone for with a device like that? What do you need a computer for?
I absolutely am thinking long term. From the article:
No matter how many units are available, sold, or coming in early 2024, no matter how loud Apple yells that the Apple Vision Pro is a success now, no matter if the stock analysts predict doom or triumph now, the whole-year 2024 is only the start of the saga and climb. I agree with the sentiment that Apple Vision Pro is right now in essence a paid developer kit unleashed on the world.
From the start, developers are the crank or starter motor that starts the big engine, and users are the fuel that makes the product run. Apple hopes the killer app will pop out, as it has before, but nothing is guaranteed.
This is a story told in the fullness of time. This is a story told in the non-Pro Apple Vision, and whatever the "Apple Glass" ultimately turns out to be. This is also a story about how the rest of the world reacts to the hardware, and what competing vendors do in response to the gear. Meta's, HTC's, and others' responses and timelines will perhaps be the most telling on how afraid the rest of the market is.
As far as the absolute measure of success goes, Apple can wait effectively forever. It doesn't need to be profitable out of the gate, as the company has a stack of money that would make the most covetous dragon jealous to weather the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with little or no impact to the company as a whole."
But this is the kind of coverage Vision Pro should be receiving. I still have that magazine, the only Byte magazine I saved.
Interesting tidbit but I think differently. I see Apple Vision Pro serving as a model for the future of spatial computing. The device will continue to get thinner, lighter, and more powerful over a decade to the point it's easily mistaken for eyeglasses.
I mean, who imagined we would have a mobile device called iPhone that would be 1000 times faster and a magnitude smaller than a Mac, unplugged, just 3 decades ago?
IMHO the iPhone was a success from the very beginning--even before it was in customer hands. Google recognized it, too.
Agree. in 2008, the iPhone was already the fourth best selling mobile device in the country, as people continued to replace their mobile phones with this innovative disruptive device.
People need mobile devices, but who needs the Vision Pro and why? Time will tell.
Yeah. It launched into a market that already had successes and very clear use cases for the everyman. AVP is launching into a market that doesn't.
you're not thinking long term.
This Apple's 3rd new computing platform that changed the way people use computers
Macintosh iPhone Vision Pro
Macintosh in 1984. There were barely any apps, but it redefined how computers worked. At my job (NASA), we started buying them a day after release and for the next year or two we bought 1 of every app that came out to see what we could use it for. That's how few apps there were. It had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work and cost $2499 ($7238 in today's dollars).
40 years later, all computers work like that Macintosh.
iPhone in 2007 - here weren't any apps other than the ones Apple built. There was no 3rd party App Store for a full year after release. Again had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work. Redefined how mobile computing worked. Today all phones and tablets work like that first iPhone. The pointing device from the Mac was replace by your finger.
Vision Pro - At release it's already well ahead in apps of where Macintosh and iPhone were. Like Macintosh, it's the minimum hardware required to implement a new way to use computes. Augmented reality. To nail augmented reality, it has to look like reality. The pointing device is now your eyes. Like Macintosh, the first release is expensive. And the first release is heavy. But something went seriously wrong if 5 to 10 years from now devices that descend from or are inspired by Vision Pro aren't the dominate computing platform.
Imagine a future model that isn't much bigger or heavier than sunglasses, shows your eyes while you use it, has all day battery life, had robust AI, has fully shared experiences with other people if they're in the room with you or not, and runs every app you need. What do you even need a phone for with a device like that? What do you need a computer for?
I absolutely am thinking long term. From the article:
No matter how many units are available, sold, or coming in early 2024, no matter how loud Apple yells that the Apple Vision Pro is a success now, no matter if the stock analysts predict doom or triumph now, the whole-year 2024 is only the start of the saga and climb. I agree with the sentiment that Apple Vision Pro is right now in essence a paid developer kit unleashed on the world.
From the start, developers are the crank or starter motor that starts the big engine, and users are the fuel that makes the product run. Apple hopes the killer app will pop out, as it has before, but nothing is guaranteed.
This is a story told in the fullness of time. This is a story told in the non-Pro Apple Vision, and whatever the "Apple Glass" ultimately turns out to be. This is also a story about how the rest of the world reacts to the hardware, and what competing vendors do in response to the gear. Meta's, HTC's, and others' responses and timelines will perhaps be the most telling on how afraid the rest of the market is.
As far as the absolute measure of success goes, Apple can wait effectively forever. It doesn't need to be profitable out of the gate, as the company has a stack of money that would make the most covetous dragon jealous to weather the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with little or no impact to the company as a whole."
I do hope we see an AR-only product down the road, but I do wonder what that might look like since Google Glass was panned so heavily — and rightly so — for being creepy. I feel like the only way around that is to remove the external cameras from an AR-only device so that surreptitious video recording can't occur; or, does Apple's credibility with personal security over Google, plus 11+ years of putting high-performance cameras in everyone's pockets changed how we feel about such products as a society?
How is that any different than the billions of phones? they can be recording at any time too. And the solution is easy, just show a little red light like computers do when their camera is on. Phones don't have that light and everyone is okay with them.
1) I did address that first part.
2) phone cameras aren’t usually pointing at users when you’re looking at someone, which is a big reason Google Glass was creepy 11 years ago.
3) You can’t compare the light on Mac to one that could be on someone else’s glasses. On a Mac that you own the light is on if the camera is in use. This is so you know when it’s in use, not others. What you’re suggesting is that a light is on when other people are looking at you and recording you with AR glasses, which sounds great until you realize that one could easily mask that light without the target having any idea that it’s on.
IMHO the iPhone was a success from the very beginning--even before it was in customer hands. Google recognized it, too.
Agree. in 2008, the iPhone was already the fourth best selling mobile device in the country, as people continued to replace their mobile phones with this innovative disruptive device.
People need mobile devices, but who needs the Vision Pro and why? Time will tell.
Yeah. It launched into a market that already had successes and very clear use cases for the everyman. AVP is launching into a market that doesn't.
you're not thinking long term.
This Apple's 3rd new computing platform that changed the way people use computers
Macintosh iPhone Vision Pro
Macintosh in 1984. There were barely any apps, but it redefined how computers worked. At my job (NASA), we started buying them a day after release and for the next year or two we bought 1 of every app that came out to see what we could use it for. That's how few apps there were. It had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work and cost $2499 ($7238 in today's dollars).
40 years later, all computers work like that Macintosh.
iPhone in 2007 - here weren't any apps other than the ones Apple built. There was no 3rd party App Store for a full year after release. Again had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work. Redefined how mobile computing worked. Today all phones and tablets work like that first iPhone. The pointing device from the Mac was replace by your finger.
Vision Pro - At release it's already well ahead in apps of where Macintosh and iPhone were. Like Macintosh, it's the minimum hardware required to implement a new way to use computes. Augmented reality. To nail augmented reality, it has to look like reality. The pointing device is now your eyes. Like Macintosh, the first release is expensive. And the first release is heavy. But something went seriously wrong if 5 to 10 years from now devices that descend from or are inspired by Vision Pro aren't the dominate computing platform.
Imagine a future model that isn't much bigger or heavier than sunglasses, shows your eyes while you use it, has all day battery life, had robust AI, has fully shared experiences with other people if they're in the room with you or not, and runs every app you need. What do you even need a phone for with a device like that? What do you need a computer for?
I absolutely am thinking long term. From the article:
No matter how many units are available, sold, or coming in early 2024, no matter how loud Apple yells that the Apple Vision Pro is a success now, no matter if the stock analysts predict doom or triumph now, the whole-year 2024 is only the start of the saga and climb. I agree with the sentiment that Apple Vision Pro is right now in essence a paid developer kit unleashed on the world.
From the start, developers are the crank or starter motor that starts the big engine, and users are the fuel that makes the product run. Apple hopes the killer app will pop out, as it has before, but nothing is guaranteed.
This is a story told in the fullness of time. This is a story told in the non-Pro Apple Vision, and whatever the "Apple Glass" ultimately turns out to be. This is also a story about how the rest of the world reacts to the hardware, and what competing vendors do in response to the gear. Meta's, HTC's, and others' responses and timelines will perhaps be the most telling on how afraid the rest of the market is.
As far as the absolute measure of success goes, Apple can wait effectively forever. It doesn't need to be profitable out of the gate, as the company has a stack of money that would make the most covetous dragon jealous to weather the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with little or no impact to the company as a whole."
But this is the kind of coverage Vision Pro should be receiving. I still have that magazine, the only Byte magazine I saved.
IMHO the iPhone was a success from the very beginning--even before it was in customer hands. Google recognized it, too.
Agree. in 2008, the iPhone was already the fourth best selling mobile device in the country, as people continued to replace their mobile phones with this innovative disruptive device.
People need mobile devices, but who needs the Vision Pro and why? Time will tell.
Yeah. It launched into a market that already had successes and very clear use cases for the everyman. AVP is launching into a market that doesn't.
you're not thinking long term.
This Apple's 3rd new computing platform that changed the way people use computers
Macintosh iPhone Vision Pro
Macintosh in 1984. There were barely any apps, but it redefined how computers worked. At my job (NASA), we started buying them a day after release and for the next year or two we bought 1 of every app that came out to see what we could use it for. That's how few apps there were. It had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work and cost $2499 ($7238 in today's dollars).
40 years later, all computers work like that Macintosh.
iPhone in 2007 - here weren't any apps other than the ones Apple built. There was no 3rd party App Store for a full year after release. Again had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work. Redefined how mobile computing worked. Today all phones and tablets work like that first iPhone. The pointing device from the Mac was replace by your finger.
Vision Pro - At release it's already well ahead in apps of where Macintosh and iPhone were. Like Macintosh, it's the minimum hardware required to implement a new way to use computes. Augmented reality. To nail augmented reality, it has to look like reality. The pointing device is now your eyes. Like Macintosh, the first release is expensive. And the first release is heavy. But something went seriously wrong if 5 to 10 years from now devices that descend from or are inspired by Vision Pro aren't the dominate computing platform.
Imagine a future model that isn't much bigger or heavier than sunglasses, shows your eyes while you use it, has all day battery life, had robust AI, has fully shared experiences with other people if they're in the room with you or not, and runs every app you need. What do you even need a phone for with a device like that? What do you need a computer for?
I absolutely am thinking long term. From the article:
No matter how many units are available, sold, or coming in early 2024, no matter how loud Apple yells that the Apple Vision Pro is a success now, no matter if the stock analysts predict doom or triumph now, the whole-year 2024 is only the start of the saga and climb. I agree with the sentiment that Apple Vision Pro is right now in essence a paid developer kit unleashed on the world.
From the start, developers are the crank or starter motor that starts the big engine, and users are the fuel that makes the product run. Apple hopes the killer app will pop out, as it has before, but nothing is guaranteed.
This is a story told in the fullness of time. This is a story told in the non-Pro Apple Vision, and whatever the "Apple Glass" ultimately turns out to be. This is also a story about how the rest of the world reacts to the hardware, and what competing vendors do in response to the gear. Meta's, HTC's, and others' responses and timelines will perhaps be the most telling on how afraid the rest of the market is.
As far as the absolute measure of success goes, Apple can wait effectively forever. It doesn't need to be profitable out of the gate, as the company has a stack of money that would make the most covetous dragon jealous to weather the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with little or no impact to the company as a whole."
I do hope we see an AR-only product down the road, but I do wonder what that might look like since Google Glass was panned so heavily — and rightly so — for being creepy. I feel like the only way around that is to remove the external cameras from an AR-only device so that surreptitious video recording can't occur; or, does Apple's credibility with personal security over Google, plus 11+ years of putting high-performance cameras in everyone's pockets changed how we feel about such products as a society?
One of the main things that made Google Glass “creepy” was the perception that it was on some level trying to “hide” what it was and the fact that it could record whomever the wearer may be lecherously gazing at. People didn’t necessarily know when it was recording, so they assumed it was ALWAYS recording. This was also when the idea of a head-mounted camera was pretty fresh and people weren’t accustomed to it. It was a perfect storm of creepiness.
One thing the Vision Pro ain’t is subtle. A pair of crazy oversized ski goggles with wire leading to some pocket or belt somewhere…. I doubt we see very many people in restaurants or shopping while wearing them.
I don’t think it has much to do with Apple’s Personal Security reputation; you can still record everything with your iPhone. But by the time an extremely low profile stylish Vision platform is available, people will be conditioned to the cameras and won’t have such a negative reaction. More likely Apple will fork the line into #1 - The hardcore AR/VR line that is studded with external cameras and #2 - a feather-weight AR-only device that looks like a fashionable pair of glasses, but have only passive lenses and eye-tracking, with overlay imaging for AR-only.
As I've said before, it's confirmed, Netflix is not allowing their iPad app on to the VisionPro. They Don't want a bit of more distribution? What are they so afraid of? Perhaps they are upset by AppleTV+?
Perhaps they have made a deal with another headset maker. Does anyone know? This showed up in PopMech: "To use Netflix VR: Launch the Netflix VR app > Select Headset and either click on Daydream View for smartphones that are compatible with Android's Daydream software, Google Cardboard, or Scan QR code for other devices..."
To me they are allowing AppleTV+ to go unchallenged in the immersive content/movie portion of the AVP.
Oh, by the by, visionOS the massive innovation that is even more important than the AppleVisionPro!
As I've said before, it's confirmed, Netflix is not allowing their iPad app on to the VisionPro. They Don't want a bit of more distribution?
It's been pointed out elsewhere that Netflix was quick to create —which they didn't even have to do for a solid iPad app experience over the Safari browser experience — an app for Nvidia Shield and some shitty Facebook service whose name I've already forgotten.
Comments
2) How exactly do you see if evolving into an "all day' device? It's a VR headset with AR only being possible because of the cameras on it. There is no see-through lenses which means it can't be adopted for driving or many other tasks people tend to do throughout the day. I've ordered one and yet fully expect my Watch, iPhone, and Mac to not sit ideal during the day.
This Apple's 3rd new computing platform that changed the way people use computers
Macintosh
iPhone
Vision Pro
Macintosh in 1984. There were barely any apps, but it redefined how computers worked. At my job (NASA), we started buying them a day after release and for the next year or two we bought 1 of every app that came out to see what we could use it for. That's how few apps there were. It had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work and cost $2499 ($7238 in today's dollars).
40 years later, all computers work like that Macintosh.
iPhone in 2007 - here weren't any apps other than the ones Apple built. There was no 3rd party App Store for a full year after release. Again had the minimum hardware necessary to make that user interface work. Redefined how mobile computing worked. Today all phones and tablets work like that first iPhone. The pointing device from the Mac was replace by your finger.
Vision Pro - At release it's already well ahead in apps of where Macintosh and iPhone were. Like Macintosh, it's the minimum hardware required to implement a new way to use computes. Augmented reality. To nail augmented reality, it has to look like reality. The pointing device is now your eyes. Like Macintosh, the first release is expensive. And the first release is heavy. But something went seriously wrong if 5 to 10 years from now devices that descend from or are inspired by Vision Pro aren't the dominate computing platform.
Imagine a future model that isn't much bigger or heavier than sunglasses, shows your eyes while you use it, has all day battery life, had robust AI, has fully shared experiences with other people if they're in the room with you or not, and runs every app you need. What do you even need a phone for with a device like that? What do you need a computer for?
2) Google, Spotify, and Netflix want this to be like the original iPhone as they are forcing users to use the web apps.
But I don't think it faces an incredibly steep uphill climb. An incredibly steep uphill climb implies that with considerable effort, you can quickly move up. I don't think that's the case here. Instead, I think this is a long, gradual incline. With sustained moderate effort, the AVP will eventually move up.
Actually, it was the iPad was "an incredibly steep uphill climb." The iPad took off like crazy and Apple had to work really hard to meet demand. Demand took off so fast, people thought it would be the end of the Mac. (but it turned out people just wanted a big screen iPhone).
https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1984-02
I mean, who imagined we would have a mobile device called iPhone that would be 1000 times faster and a magnitude smaller than a Mac, unplugged, just 3 decades ago?
2) phone cameras aren’t usually pointing at users when you’re looking at someone, which is a big reason Google Glass was creepy 11 years ago.
3) You can’t compare the light on Mac to one that could be on someone else’s glasses. On a Mac that you own the light is on if the camera is in use. This is so you know when it’s in use, not others. What you’re suggesting is that a light is on when other people are looking at you and recording you with AR glasses, which sounds great until you realize that one could easily mask that light without the target having any idea that it’s on.
It does not now. Borrowing somewhat from the same era, Apple is no longer the pirates, it is the Navy.
One thing the Vision Pro ain’t is subtle. A pair of crazy oversized ski goggles with wire leading to some pocket or belt somewhere…. I doubt we see very many people in restaurants or shopping while wearing them.
I don’t think it has much to do with Apple’s Personal Security reputation; you can still record everything with your iPhone. But by the time an extremely low profile stylish Vision platform is available, people will be conditioned to the cameras and won’t have such a negative reaction. More likely Apple will fork the line into #1 - The hardcore AR/VR line that is studded with external cameras and #2 - a feather-weight AR-only device that looks like a fashionable pair of glasses, but have only passive lenses and eye-tracking, with overlay imaging for AR-only.