Apple has upped the ante on the technological side but not really brought anything new. It's just souped up what was already out there, and along with it, the price, and wrapped it up nicely with some extra touches.
That said, the finesse is appreciable and also desirable because it reduces a lot of pain points. There is a lot to like (pricing aside).
I'm not sure why there was so much sofa sitting footage in the keynote and hope that more options are just as possible.
You can't fight off a Sith sitting on your sofa!
What Zuckerberg has to understand is that my wife was happy with her Quest and itching to upgrade. That got knocked on the head as soon as Meta made a Facebook account a requirement. That was when we abandoned our plans to upgrade. If more people feel the same way we do, Meta has a problem.
Meta has an image problem that goes far deeper than image. Apple has a big head start over them when it comes to trust.
LOL, no he hasn't said a single correct thing. If you think Apple hasn't done anything new you badly need to watch the Keynote.
Enlighten me.
I have seen the entire Vision Pro keynote segment.
Form factor, cameras, Lidar, sensors, gesture and voice control, screens, lenses, materials, specialised chipsets, web and software access...
As a first generation product it soups up all of the above but please don't think that is all 'new'.
Some of it is, for sure, but how much?
I'm not saying Apple hasn't done anything new.
IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together. Of course at a hefty price but I can understand that. It's pretty compelling all the same.
In fact my favourite feature, which isn't really necessary at all, is the visual representation of the user on the outer screen. A screen showing a representation of the user. It has zero impact on the use of the device but nevertheless serves a purpose for people around the user.
"IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together".
Pretty much defines the advantage that Apple has had in so many successful products.
Essentially, Apple gets the high end market, yet again, and will get 80% to 90% of the profits.
We'll see.
There is too much that is not known about the device and all the people given hands on access were not allowed to use much of the key announced features.
That is a bit worrying. If those features are announced so far ahead of release they should be usable in the hands on.
This isn't the same as a hands on for a release device where a final software update is a week or two away.
Also, how are false positives handled (and how well) for gestures?
As things stand, this is in no way comparble to iPhone in terms of industry profit. It won't have the volume for that. It's going to be much smaller scale.
The industry has been moving in the direction that it has for years.
Apple is simply jumping on the same train.
In that sense Apple is not really bringing anything new to the table. It's important not to forget the core functionality here. That is what Zuckerberg is getting at.
If services are going to be a driving factor (enhanced video scenarios etc) then volume will be key.
It's possible that a 'lite' version could be released (minus the bells and whistles) and it would do the same job but that would put it somewhere the Quest et al will be over the next two years so I can see why they wouldn't want to speak about that option at the announcement.
Features trickle down the line but right now there is nowhere for them to trickle down to so there will be no real volume to unit sales when compared even to iPad.
It's clear that competitors will now have to play their cards and try to leverage interest but everything I've seen at industry level on full XR is aimed at ICT usage. It's about having XR everywhere under open formats.
It's not dissimilar to the situation with autonomous cars. They will depend on the infrastructure around them and being able to communicate with it.
That is still being sorted out.
It's the same with XR.
Meta does have a huge amount of research and technology under it's belt. So do other players.
It's going to be a fight for hearts and minds for the next two years and products will have to deliver on what they promise. The proof will be in the pudding.
As I said, we'll see.
Lots of vague verbiage on your part, and yet, Apple is perceived by actual reviewers of the Vision Pro, to have exceeded expectations for the UI, and to have set the bar for hardware high enough to deter incumbents and future competitors from the premium segment of any future market. That gives Apple plenty of room to evolve the next Vision device to a lower price point, and a more performant, more efficient device.
Apple has created yet another computing platform, and that will be near impossible to compete with, so I expect Meta to muddle along with the Quest, but actually throw even more resources into AI, where the rest of the industry still has a perceived advantage over Apple.
None of the technology in the vision pro is actually new. This is all from the isreali company that apple bought that used to partner with Xbox and helped create Face ID im sure. The technology isn’t new, they implementation of how apple has applied the technology to “special computing” is new.
someone is still singing the “ApPLe DiDnT dO iT fIrSt???!!!?!!??” song in 2023? *yawn*
Apple has upped the ante on the technological side but not really brought anything new. It's just souped up what was already out there, and along with it, the price, and wrapped it up nicely with some extra touches.
That said, the finesse is appreciable and also desirable because it reduces a lot of pain points. There is a lot to like (pricing aside).
I'm not sure why there was so much sofa sitting footage in the keynote and hope that more options are just as possible.
You can't fight off a Sith sitting on your sofa!
What Zuckerberg has to understand is that my wife was happy with her Quest and itching to upgrade. That got knocked on the head as soon as Meta made a Facebook account a requirement. That was when we abandoned our plans to upgrade. If more people feel the same way we do, Meta has a problem.
Meta has an image problem that goes far deeper than image. Apple has a big head start over them when it comes to trust.
Wholly missing the point.
Intellectual property, in particular Patents, is all about advancing the Useful Arts. Few if any ever invents anything new -- one is granted patents improving on what has come before.
Relegating the advancement of the Useful Arts to "It's just souped up what was already out there" is just silly.
It isn't missing the point.
The original claim was that nothing was brought to the table that hasn't been explored before. The title of this piece mentions breakthroughs.
Can we argue against that? Not really.
Just look that the speculation at this site over the years and the amount of people who claimed Apple’s system would never resemble the render that AI often used.
Now, if this product had managed to do away with the visor form factor etc, then we could talk about breakthroughs and something that hadn't been explored before.
What we have are a lot of existing ideas that have been souped up as far as they can reasonably go.
Is that bad? Nope. But is it really all that different to what has been under development within the industry for years (be it in released products, concept devices or prototypes)?
Apple has upped the ante on the technological side but not really brought anything new. It's just souped up what was already out there, and along with it, the price, and wrapped it up nicely with some extra touches.
That said, the finesse is appreciable and also desirable because it reduces a lot of pain points. There is a lot to like (pricing aside).
I'm not sure why there was so much sofa sitting footage in the keynote and hope that more options are just as possible.
You can't fight off a Sith sitting on your sofa!
What Zuckerberg has to understand is that my wife was happy with her Quest and itching to upgrade. That got knocked on the head as soon as Meta made a Facebook account a requirement. That was when we abandoned our plans to upgrade. If more people feel the same way we do, Meta has a problem.
Meta has an image problem that goes far deeper than image. Apple has a big head start over them when it comes to trust.
LOL, no he hasn't said a single correct thing. If you think Apple hasn't done anything new you badly need to watch the Keynote.
Enlighten me.
I have seen the entire Vision Pro keynote segment.
Form factor, cameras, Lidar, sensors, gesture and voice control, screens, lenses, materials, specialised chipsets, web and software access...
As a first generation product it soups up all of the above but please don't think that is all 'new'.
Some of it is, for sure, but how much?
I'm not saying Apple hasn't done anything new.
IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together. Of course at a hefty price but I can understand that. It's pretty compelling all the same.
In fact my favourite feature, which isn't really necessary at all, is the visual representation of the user on the outer screen. A screen showing a representation of the user. It has zero impact on the use of the device but nevertheless serves a purpose for people around the user.
"IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together".
Pretty much defines the advantage that Apple has had in so many successful products.
Essentially, Apple gets the high end market, yet again, and will get 80% to 90% of the profits.
We'll see.
There is too much that is not known about the device and all the people given hands on access were not allowed to use much of the key announced features.
That is a bit worrying. If those features are announced so far ahead of release they should be usable in the hands on.
This isn't the same as a hands on for a release device where a final software update is a week or two away.
Also, how are false positives handled (and how well) for gestures?
As things stand, this is in no way comparble to iPhone in terms of industry profit. It won't have the volume for that. It's going to be much smaller scale.
The industry has been moving in the direction that it has for years.
Apple is simply jumping on the same train.
In that sense Apple is not really bringing anything new to the table. It's important not to forget the core functionality here. That is what Zuckerberg is getting at.
If services are going to be a driving factor (enhanced video scenarios etc) then volume will be key.
It's possible that a 'lite' version could be released (minus the bells and whistles) and it would do the same job but that would put it somewhere the Quest et al will be over the next two years so I can see why they wouldn't want to speak about that option at the announcement.
Features trickle down the line but right now there is nowhere for them to trickle down to so there will be no real volume to unit sales when compared even to iPad.
It's clear that competitors will now have to play their cards and try to leverage interest but everything I've seen at industry level on full XR is aimed at ICT usage. It's about having XR everywhere under open formats.
It's not dissimilar to the situation with autonomous cars. They will depend on the infrastructure around them and being able to communicate with it.
That is still being sorted out.
It's the same with XR.
Meta does have a huge amount of research and technology under it's belt. So do other players.
It's going to be a fight for hearts and minds for the next two years and products will have to deliver on what they promise. The proof will be in the pudding.
As I said, we'll see.
Lots of vague verbiage on your part, and yet, Apple is perceived by actual reviewers of the Vision Pro, to have exceeded expectations for the UI, and to have set the bar for hardware high enough to deter incumbents and future competitors from the premium segment of any future market. That gives Apple plenty of room to evolve the next Vision device to a lower price point, and a more performant, more efficient device.
Apple has created yet another computing platform, and that will be near impossible to compete with, so I expect Meta to muddle along with the Quest, but actually throw even more resources into AI, where the rest of the industry still has a perceived advantage over Apple.
Yes. Vague is the name of the game. Hence the 'we'll see'.
The device won't be shipping for a long time.
You yourself can only point to the 'perceptions' of 'reviewers', many of whom have said very clearly:
'Hey, this or that feature was announced but we were told we couldn't use it'.
Yes! Totally vague because they have no idea either. Only what they can perceive from brief hands on.
But! From what you said on economic market performance, we can draw decent conclusions and that is that this product, at this point in time, and for the reasons I stated, has no guarantee of swallowing up the premium pie in the economics predictions you made.
The product showcased should just be called the Apple Vision. They just showcased the Apple Pro Vision. Surely we will see a standard Apple Vision that will be available at the same time for a few less bucks and stripped of a few features.
But! From what you said on economic market performance, we can draw decent conclusions and that is that this product, at this point in time, and for the reasons I stated, has no guarantee of swallowing up the premium pie in the economics predictions you made.
Guarantee? No. Extremely likely? Yes.
Who makes the best selling wearable watches? Who makes the majority of the profits in phones? Who makes the majority of the profits in computers? Who makes the majority of the profits in earphones?
Apple tends to take any product category that they're in to the next level, and their customers know it. Poor Zuck has to try to beg developers to create apps for his MetaVerse. Apple will, on day one, have hundreds of thousands of apps ready and waiting for users to explore. And that will, mostly likely, include "pro" applications like Final Cut and Logic.
If you think Apple did all of that work to just port them to the iPad, then you're completely missing the big picture.
Apple has upped the ante on the technological side but not really brought anything new. It's just souped up what was already out there, and along with it, the price, and wrapped it up nicely with some extra touches.
That said, the finesse is appreciable and also desirable because it reduces a lot of pain points. There is a lot to like (pricing aside).
I'm not sure why there was so much sofa sitting footage in the keynote and hope that more options are just as possible.
You can't fight off a Sith sitting on your sofa!
What Zuckerberg has to understand is that my wife was happy with her Quest and itching to upgrade. That got knocked on the head as soon as Meta made a Facebook account a requirement. That was when we abandoned our plans to upgrade. If more people feel the same way we do, Meta has a problem.
Meta has an image problem that goes far deeper than image. Apple has a big head start over them when it comes to trust.
LOL, no he hasn't said a single correct thing. If you think Apple hasn't done anything new you badly need to watch the Keynote.
Enlighten me.
I have seen the entire Vision Pro keynote segment.
Form factor, cameras, Lidar, sensors, gesture and voice control, screens, lenses, materials, specialised chipsets, web and software access...
As a first generation product it soups up all of the above but please don't think that is all 'new'.
Some of it is, for sure, but how much?
I'm not saying Apple hasn't done anything new.
IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together. Of course at a hefty price but I can understand that. It's pretty compelling all the same.
In fact my favourite feature, which isn't really necessary at all, is the visual representation of the user on the outer screen. A screen showing a representation of the user. It has zero impact on the use of the device but nevertheless serves a purpose for people around the user.
"IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together".
Pretty much defines the advantage that Apple has had in so many successful products.
Essentially, Apple gets the high end market, yet again, and will get 80% to 90% of the profits.
We'll see.
There is too much that is not known about the device and all the people given hands on access were not allowed to use much of the key announced features.
That is a bit worrying. If those features are announced so far ahead of release they should be usable in the hands on.
This isn't the same as a hands on for a release device where a final software update is a week or two away.
Also, how are false positives handled (and how well) for gestures?
As things stand, this is in no way comparble to iPhone in terms of industry profit. It won't have the volume for that. It's going to be much smaller scale.
The industry has been moving in the direction that it has for years.
Apple is simply jumping on the same train.
In that sense Apple is not really bringing anything new to the table. It's important not to forget the core functionality here. That is what Zuckerberg is getting at.
If services are going to be a driving factor (enhanced video scenarios etc) then volume will be key.
It's possible that a 'lite' version could be released (minus the bells and whistles) and it would do the same job but that would put it somewhere the Quest et al will be over the next two years so I can see why they wouldn't want to speak about that option at the announcement.
Features trickle down the line but right now there is nowhere for them to trickle down to so there will be no real volume to unit sales when compared even to iPad.
It's clear that competitors will now have to play their cards and try to leverage interest but everything I've seen at industry level on full XR is aimed at ICT usage. It's about having XR everywhere under open formats.
It's not dissimilar to the situation with autonomous cars. They will depend on the infrastructure around them and being able to communicate with it.
That is still being sorted out.
It's the same with XR.
Meta does have a huge amount of research and technology under it's belt. So do other players.
It's going to be a fight for hearts and minds for the next two years and products will have to deliver on what they promise. The proof will be in the pudding.
As I said, we'll see.
Lots of vague verbiage on your part, and yet, Apple is perceived by actual reviewers of the Vision Pro, to have exceeded expectations for the UI, and to have set the bar for hardware high enough to deter incumbents and future competitors from the premium segment of any future market. That gives Apple plenty of room to evolve the next Vision device to a lower price point, and a more performant, more efficient device.
Apple has created yet another computing platform, and that will be near impossible to compete with, so I expect Meta to muddle along with the Quest, but actually throw even more resources into AI, where the rest of the industry still has a perceived advantage over Apple.
Yes. Vague is the name of the game. Hence the 'we'll see'.
The device won't be shipping for a long time.
You yourself can only point to the 'perceptions' of 'reviewers', many of whom have said very clearly:
'Hey, this or that feature was announced but we were told we couldn't use it'.
Yes! Totally vague because they have no idea either. Only what they can perceive from brief hands on.
But! From what you said on economic market performance, we can draw decent conclusions and that is that this product, at this point in time, and for the reasons I stated, has no guarantee of swallowing up the premium pie in the economics predictions you made.
If "a long time" is 1st quarter of next year", then Meta, et al, have very little time to response to whatever applications are developed between now and then. Do you really think that Meta, et al, have significantly better hardware already in production? Unlikely, as they were slashing prices on their existing gear to spur sales.
Sure, some features announced and unavailable today, though most reviewers had a very good experience via the UI, zero latency with the hardware, and crisp visuals of text and data, and that is what Apple will build on for the delivery.
But! From what you said on economic market performance, we can draw decent conclusions and that is that this product, at this point in time, and for the reasons I stated, has no guarantee of swallowing up the premium pie in the economics predictions you made.
Guarantee? No. Extremely likely? Yes.
Who makes the best selling wearable watches? Who makes the majority of the profits in phones? Who makes the majority of the profits in computers? Who makes the majority of the profits in earphones?
Apple tends to take any product category that they're in to the next level, and their customers know it. Poor Zuck has to try to beg developers to create apps for his MetaVerse. Apple will, on day one, have hundreds of thousands of apps ready and waiting for users to explore. And that will, mostly likely, include "pro" applications like Final Cut and Logic.
If you think Apple did all of that work to just port them to the iPad, then you're completely missing the big picture.
When you say 'best selling' for those products you fail to see one massive consideration: they are all available in multiple configurations/price points.
They can be called best selling precisely because of that.
The Vision Pro will be available (at least as announced) in one, sole configuration whose price will be a massive barrier to adoption.
But! From what you said on economic market performance, we can draw decent conclusions and that is that this product, at this point in time, and for the reasons I stated, has no guarantee of swallowing up the premium pie in the economics predictions you made.
Guarantee? No. Extremely likely? Yes.
Who makes the best selling wearable watches? Who makes the majority of the profits in phones? Who makes the majority of the profits in computers? Who makes the majority of the profits in earphones?
Apple tends to take any product category that they're in to the next level, and their customers know it. Poor Zuck has to try to beg developers to create apps for his MetaVerse. Apple will, on day one, have hundreds of thousands of apps ready and waiting for users to explore. And that will, mostly likely, include "pro" applications like Final Cut and Logic.
If you think Apple did all of that work to just port them to the iPad, then you're completely missing the big picture.
When you say 'best selling' for those products you fail to see one massive consideration: they are all available in multiple configurations/price points.
They can be called best selling precisely because of that.
The Vision Pro will be available (at least as announced) in one, sole configuration whose price will be a massive barrier to adoption.
That changes everything.
I haven't a clue about how many Apple thinks they will ship of the Vision Pro, but the $3500 price point isn't actually a "massive barrier to adoption" for a substantial number of current Apple users worldwide.
iPhone 14 Pro Max can reach over $1600, and the iPad Pro can reach over $2400; that seems like a lot, but I haven't heard of any consternation from consumers and I'm guessing that Apple sells enough of these to continue offering them.
I expect that Apple will have to demonstrate a broader ecosystem of applications, plus games, and media, to spur purchases. If there is "enough" of that at time of initial deliveries, then Apple will have staked out yet another successful platform that will only continue to evolve.
But! From what you said on economic market performance, we can draw decent conclusions and that is that this product, at this point in time, and for the reasons I stated, has no guarantee of swallowing up the premium pie in the economics predictions you made.
Guarantee? No. Extremely likely? Yes.
Who makes the best selling wearable watches? Who makes the majority of the profits in phones? Who makes the majority of the profits in computers? Who makes the majority of the profits in earphones?
Apple tends to take any product category that they're in to the next level, and their customers know it. Poor Zuck has to try to beg developers to create apps for his MetaVerse. Apple will, on day one, have hundreds of thousands of apps ready and waiting for users to explore. And that will, mostly likely, include "pro" applications like Final Cut and Logic.
If you think Apple did all of that work to just port them to the iPad, then you're completely missing the big picture.
When you say 'best selling' for those products you fail to see one massive consideration: they are all available in multiple configurations/price points.
They can be called best selling precisely because of that.
The Vision Pro will be available (at least as announced) in one, sole configuration whose price will be a massive barrier to adoption.
That changes everything.
iPhone began with one model, rather than launch with an entire product line. Obviously, you have to start somewhere. Just like with iPhone, iPad, iPod, and Macintosh, you start with one and refine.
This will be the worst Apple Vision ever produced, and that isn’t a secret. It’s also far better than the other clunky headsets. You can find the YouTuber first thoughts from those that used it. They’ve said the eye tracking is best in class, as is pass thru experience, and they show segments of what they mean and why. The FB clips look pretty janky.
I can’t believe that people are prepared to pay more than £2-3k for a car.
Can you believe that SME charge £10,000 for a turntable? To play vinyl records. I mean, come on. You can buy a turntable that plays at the right speed for about £100 or less.
Why buy an iPhone Pro Max for £1800 when you can get a Samsung top end phone for about a quarter of the price. Who are they kidding?
A Ferrari for £270,000? They won’t sell many of those. It won’t really go much quicker from London to Edinburgh that my 10 year old VW Golf so what exactly is the point?
Those VisionPro headsets - seen it all before, move along, nothing to see. And at $3500 - they will pull it a year after launch with a fraction of the expected sales. You just mark my words. Only an idiot would pay that much for something that you can pretty much already buy at a fraction of the price.
But! From what you said on economic market performance, we can draw decent conclusions and that is that this product, at this point in time, and for the reasons I stated, has no guarantee of swallowing up the premium pie in the economics predictions you made.
Guarantee? No. Extremely likely? Yes.
Who makes the best selling wearable watches? Who makes the majority of the profits in phones? Who makes the majority of the profits in computers? Who makes the majority of the profits in earphones?
Apple tends to take any product category that they're in to the next level, and their customers know it. Poor Zuck has to try to beg developers to create apps for his MetaVerse. Apple will, on day one, have hundreds of thousands of apps ready and waiting for users to explore. And that will, mostly likely, include "pro" applications like Final Cut and Logic.
If you think Apple did all of that work to just port them to the iPad, then you're completely missing the big picture.
When you say 'best selling' for those products you fail to see one massive consideration: they are all available in multiple configurations/price points.
They can be called best selling precisely because of that.
The Vision Pro will be available (at least as announced) in one, sole configuration whose price will be a massive barrier to adoption.
That changes everything.
I haven't a clue about how many Apple thinks they will ship of the Vision Pro, but the $3500 price point isn't actually a "massive barrier to adoption" for a substantial number of current Apple users worldwide.
iPhone 14 Pro Max can reach over $1600, and the iPad Pro can reach over $2400; that seems like a lot, but I haven't heard of any consternation from consumers and I'm guessing that Apple sells enough of these to continue offering them.
I expect that Apple will have to demonstrate a broader ecosystem of applications, plus games, and media, to spur purchases. If there is "enough" of that at time of initial deliveries, then Apple will have staked out yet another successful platform that will only continue to evolve.
Personally, I think it will sell more than other high-priced Apple devices. The Mac Pro, for example.
However, in the context of my reply ("best selling") it remains a gigantic barrier to adoption.
Humongous even.
The vast majority of iPhone users will not even be able to touch it with installments.
But! From what you said on economic market performance, we can draw decent conclusions and that is that this product, at this point in time, and for the reasons I stated, has no guarantee of swallowing up the premium pie in the economics predictions you made.
Guarantee? No. Extremely likely? Yes.
Who makes the best selling wearable watches? Who makes the majority of the profits in phones? Who makes the majority of the profits in computers? Who makes the majority of the profits in earphones?
Apple tends to take any product category that they're in to the next level, and their customers know it. Poor Zuck has to try to beg developers to create apps for his MetaVerse. Apple will, on day one, have hundreds of thousands of apps ready and waiting for users to explore. And that will, mostly likely, include "pro" applications like Final Cut and Logic.
If you think Apple did all of that work to just port them to the iPad, then you're completely missing the big picture.
When you say 'best selling' for those products you fail to see one massive consideration: they are all available in multiple configurations/price points.
They can be called best selling precisely because of that.
The Vision Pro will be available (at least as announced) in one, sole configuration whose price will be a massive barrier to adoption.
That changes everything.
iPhone began with one model, rather than launch with an entire product line. Obviously, you have to start somewhere. Just like with iPhone, iPad, iPod, and Macintosh, you start with one and refine.
This will be the worst Apple Vision ever produced, and that isn’t a secret. It’s also far better than the other clunky headsets. You can find the YouTuber first thoughts from those that used it. They’ve said the eye tracking is best in class, as is pass thru experience, and they show segments of what they mean and why. The FB clips look pretty janky.
The iPhone launched at an expensive price point as a general consumer product within economic reach for many people, especially with carrier plans which subsidised the units.
The immediate response from Apple though was to slash prices. They got that very, very wrong.
This "puppy" (one of Jobs' favourite words) is a completely different proposition.
Down the road (2025 onwards) anything is possible but also from competitors.
Apple has upped the ante on the technological side but not really brought anything new. It's just souped up what was already out there, and along with it, the price, and wrapped it up nicely with some extra touches.
That said, the finesse is appreciable and also desirable because it reduces a lot of pain points. There is a lot to like (pricing aside).
I'm not sure why there was so much sofa sitting footage in the keynote and hope that more options are just as possible.
You can't fight off a Sith sitting on your sofa!
What Zuckerberg has to understand is that my wife was happy with her Quest and itching to upgrade. That got knocked on the head as soon as Meta made a Facebook account a requirement. That was when we abandoned our plans to upgrade. If more people feel the same way we do, Meta has a problem.
Meta has an image problem that goes far deeper than image. Apple has a big head start over them when it comes to trust.
LOL, no he hasn't said a single correct thing. If you think Apple hasn't done anything new you badly need to watch the Keynote.
Enlighten me.
I have seen the entire Vision Pro keynote segment.
Form factor, cameras, Lidar, sensors, gesture and voice control, screens, lenses, materials, specialised chipsets, web and software access...
As a first generation product it soups up all of the above but please don't think that is all 'new'.
Some of it is, for sure, but how much?
I'm not saying Apple hasn't done anything new.
IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together. Of course at a hefty price but I can understand that. It's pretty compelling all the same.
In fact my favourite feature, which isn't really necessary at all, is the visual representation of the user on the outer screen. A screen showing a representation of the user. It has zero impact on the use of the device but nevertheless serves a purpose for people around the user.
"IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together".
Pretty much defines the advantage that Apple has had in so many successful products.
Essentially, Apple gets the high end market, yet again, and will get 80% to 90% of the profits.
We'll see.
There is too much that is not known about the device and all the people given hands on access were not allowed to use much of the key announced features.
That is a bit worrying. If those features are announced so far ahead of release they should be usable in the hands on.
This isn't the same as a hands on for a release device where a final software update is a week or two away.
Also, how are false positives handled (and how well) for gestures?
As things stand, this is in no way comparble to iPhone in terms of industry profit. It won't have the volume for that. It's going to be much smaller scale.
The industry has been moving in the direction that it has for years.
Apple is simply jumping on the same train.
In that sense Apple is not really bringing anything new to the table. It's important not to forget the core functionality here. That is what Zuckerberg is getting at.
If services are going to be a driving factor (enhanced video scenarios etc) then volume will be key.
It's possible that a 'lite' version could be released (minus the bells and whistles) and it would do the same job but that would put it somewhere the Quest et al will be over the next two years so I can see why they wouldn't want to speak about that option at the announcement.
Features trickle down the line but right now there is nowhere for them to trickle down to so there will be no real volume to unit sales when compared even to iPad.
It's clear that competitors will now have to play their cards and try to leverage interest but everything I've seen at industry level on full XR is aimed at ICT usage. It's about having XR everywhere under open formats.
It's not dissimilar to the situation with autonomous cars. They will depend on the infrastructure around them and being able to communicate with it.
That is still being sorted out.
It's the same with XR.
Meta does have a huge amount of research and technology under it's belt. So do other players.
It's going to be a fight for hearts and minds for the next two years and products will have to deliver on what they promise. The proof will be in the pudding.
As I said, we'll see.
Lots of vague verbiage on your part, and yet, Apple is perceived by actual reviewers of the Vision Pro, to have exceeded expectations for the UI, and to have set the bar for hardware high enough to deter incumbents and future competitors from the premium segment of any future market. That gives Apple plenty of room to evolve the next Vision device to a lower price point, and a more performant, more efficient device.
Apple has created yet another computing platform, and that will be near impossible to compete with, so I expect Meta to muddle along with the Quest, but actually throw even more resources into AI, where the rest of the industry still has a perceived advantage over Apple.
Yes. Vague is the name of the game. Hence the 'we'll see'.
The device won't be shipping for a long time.
You yourself can only point to the 'perceptions' of 'reviewers', many of whom have said very clearly:
'Hey, this or that feature was announced but we were told we couldn't use it'.
Yes! Totally vague because they have no idea either. Only what they can perceive from brief hands on.
But! From what you said on economic market performance, we can draw decent conclusions and that is that this product, at this point in time, and for the reasons I stated, has no guarantee of swallowing up the premium pie in the economics predictions you made.
If "a long time" is 1st quarter of next year", then Meta, et al, have very little time to response to whatever applications are developed between now and then. Do you really think that Meta, et al, have significantly better hardware already in production? Unlikely, as they were slashing prices on their existing gear to spur sales.
Sure, some features announced and unavailable today, though most reviewers had a very good experience via the UI, zero latency with the hardware, and crisp visuals of text and data, and that is what Apple will build on for the delivery.
I don't know what competitors might or might not have.
Until Monday we didn't know what Apple had.
I do know where the industry as a whole is headed, though.
In technology terms, the VP is a long way off and that is assuming they actually ship on schedule. A lot can happen between now and then.
It does beg one question though. If they fall behind schedule, will they release 'ready or not' (a la Mac OS X) or delay the launch?
When you say 'best selling' for those products you fail to see one massive consideration: they are all available in multiple configurations/price points.
They can be called best selling precisely because of that.
The Vision Pro will be available (at least as announced) in one, sole configuration whose price will be a massive barrier to adoption.
That changes everything.
You totally missed the point. None of them were best-selling when they launched. But Apple does what Apple does, and they are now.
When you say 'best selling' for those products you fail to see one massive consideration: they are all available in multiple configurations/price points.
They can be called best selling precisely because of that.
The Vision Pro will be available (at least as announced) in one, sole configuration whose price will be a massive barrier to adoption.
That changes everything.
You totally missed the point. None of them were best-selling when they launched. But Apple does what Apple does, and they are now.
Nothing is best selling at launch.
So you expect a full range of VPs at some point? Some point well into the future.
At most, I think we'll see two.
'Best selling' still leaves them with low marketshare so that means the same thing could happen with the Vision Pro (and Vision SE or whatever it might be called if such a device comes to market).
Comments
Apple has created yet another computing platform, and that will be near impossible to compete with, so I expect Meta to muddle along with the Quest, but actually throw even more resources into AI, where the rest of the industry still has a perceived advantage over Apple.
The original claim was that nothing was brought to the table that hasn't been explored before. The title of this piece mentions breakthroughs.
Can we argue against that? Not really.
Just look that the speculation at this site over the years and the amount of people who claimed Apple’s system would never resemble the render that AI often used.
Now, if this product had managed to do away with the visor form factor etc, then we could talk about breakthroughs and something that hadn't been explored before.
What we have are a lot of existing ideas that have been souped up as far as they can reasonably go.
Is that bad? Nope. But is it really all that different to what has been under development within the industry for years (be it in released products, concept devices or prototypes)?
No one is 'relegating' anything.
The device won't be shipping for a long time.
You yourself can only point to the 'perceptions' of 'reviewers', many of whom have said very clearly:
'Hey, this or that feature was announced but we were told we couldn't use it'.
Yes! Totally vague because they have no idea either. Only what they can perceive from brief hands on.
But! From what you said on economic market performance, we can draw decent conclusions and that is that this product, at this point in time, and for the reasons I stated, has no guarantee of swallowing up the premium pie in the economics predictions you made.
Who makes the best selling wearable watches? Who makes the majority of the profits in phones? Who makes the majority of the profits in computers? Who makes the majority of the profits in earphones?
Apple tends to take any product category that they're in to the next level, and their customers know it. Poor Zuck has to try to beg developers to create apps for his MetaVerse. Apple will, on day one, have hundreds of thousands of apps ready and waiting for users to explore. And that will, mostly likely, include "pro" applications like Final Cut and Logic.
Sure, some features announced and unavailable today, though most reviewers had a very good experience via the UI, zero latency with the hardware, and crisp visuals of text and data, and that is what Apple will build on for the delivery.
They can be called best selling precisely because of that.
The Vision Pro will be available (at least as announced) in one, sole configuration whose price will be a massive barrier to adoption.
That changes everything.
iPhone 14 Pro Max can reach over $1600, and the iPad Pro can reach over $2400; that seems like a lot, but I haven't heard of any consternation from consumers and I'm guessing that Apple sells enough of these to continue offering them.
I expect that Apple will have to demonstrate a broader ecosystem of applications, plus games, and media, to spur purchases. If there is "enough" of that at time of initial deliveries, then Apple will have staked out yet another successful platform that will only continue to evolve.
This will be the worst Apple Vision ever produced, and that isn’t a secret. It’s also far better than the other clunky headsets. You can find the YouTuber first thoughts from those that used it. They’ve said the eye tracking is best in class, as is pass thru experience, and they show segments of what they mean and why. The FB clips look pretty janky.
https://youtu.be/OFvXuyITwBI
Can you believe that SME charge £10,000 for a turntable? To play vinyl records. I mean, come on. You can buy a turntable that plays at the right speed for about £100 or less.
Why buy an iPhone Pro Max for £1800 when you can get a Samsung top end phone for about a quarter of the price. Who are they kidding?
A Ferrari for £270,000? They won’t sell many of those. It won’t really go much quicker from London to Edinburgh that my 10 year old VW Golf so what exactly is the point?
Those VisionPro headsets - seen it all before, move along, nothing to see. And at $3500 - they will pull it a year after launch with a fraction of the expected sales. You just mark my words. Only an idiot would pay that much for something that you can pretty much already buy at a fraction of the price.
And no keyboard either! Some ‘spatial computer’.
However, in the context of my reply ("best selling") it remains a gigantic barrier to adoption.
Humongous even.
The vast majority of iPhone users will not even be able to touch it with installments.
The iPhone launched at an expensive price point as a general consumer product within economic reach for many people, especially with carrier plans which subsidised the units.
The immediate response from Apple though was to slash prices. They got that very, very wrong.
This "puppy" (one of Jobs' favourite words) is a completely different proposition.
Down the road (2025 onwards) anything is possible but also from competitors.
Until Monday we didn't know what Apple had.
I do know where the industry as a whole is headed, though.
In technology terms, the VP is a long way off and that is assuming they actually ship on schedule. A lot can happen between now and then.
It does beg one question though. If they fall behind schedule, will they release 'ready or not' (a la Mac OS X) or delay the launch?
So you expect a full range of VPs at some point? Some point well into the future.
At most, I think we'll see two.
'Best selling' still leaves them with low marketshare so that means the same thing could happen with the Vision Pro (and Vision SE or whatever it might be called if such a device comes to market).