no way, first theres nothing pro on the device, okay, only the name, maybe you can use it as a external huge monitor, and dont know if the mac users will gonna buy it, and the most important thing, the price, you cant start from 3499, no matter if is "new technology", like apple said, its a new way in computing, period, of course ill buy it, but only when it has a real price
I like my Android, but I also prefer using a Mac. I always point out that it usually takes Apple to really push technology forward even if it's not something they invented. One thing that will be exciting is the VisionPro will push a lot more innovation and quality in the midrange and show the market how people want to use VR/AR devices.
To appreciate the vision pro, it makes no sense to revisit the first Mac. Rather revisit the oculus or the quest. The only differences are Apple is housing the compute in the device and the VP is higher quality all around. But it’s in no way some fundamentally different thing.
It is as different as the original iPhone was to the Blackberry, Nokia, Sony, Windows Phone, Palm anything from Motorola.
Except it’s not.
The only appreciable difference Is that it has its own compute model, elongating the need for a teh there’s cpu - though it moves backward with a tethered battery.
It has better specs, but doesn’t really do anything differently.
The iPhone was totally different than anything else. The VP is just a nicer headset.
OMG, so good to read DED again. I started working with Apple in 1977 and lived through everything written here. I am so glad I had faith and bought a shit load of AAPL.
The Vision Pro definitely has the potential become a new computing axis as it seems to have nailed the UI paradigm for a goggles computer. That is the most exciting part. The hardware isn't as important as getting the UI mechanisms of hand and eye tracking input done well. The hardware will evolve, but if people can't use it for computing, it won't have much market penetration. Hence, the fundamentals have to be there to even make a dent.
People have to use it for computing just like they use a Mac for computing. That's what is so frustrating about iPadOS. They are purposely choosing to limit the device and not letting users use an iPad as they want. Apple really does think the iPad as more iPhone than Mac, when it really should be like a Mac in functionality. So, at minimum, visionOS and its hardware has to let users compute like they do on a Mac, with its own pluses and minuses, and it has to have some big pluses over a Mac.
People have to be able to read text like they do on a Mac, they have to have unlimited multitasking, they have to have access to their current toolsets (apps, terminal/Unix, VMs) while enabling all the new use cases.
So, be on the lookout for how to operate things with hand and eye tracking. Scrolling long lists. Drawing. Managing windows. Menu, button/object/text selection, text input.
To appreciate the vision pro, it makes no sense to revisit the first Mac. Rather revisit the oculus or the quest. The only differences are Apple is housing the compute in the device and the VP is higher quality all around. But it’s in no way some fundamentally different thing.
It is as different as the original iPhone was to the Blackberry, Nokia, Sony, Windows Phone, Palm anything from Motorola.
Except it’s not.
The only appreciable difference Is that it has its own compute model, elongating the need for a teh there’s cpu - though it moves backward with a tethered battery.
It has better specs, but doesn’t really do anything differently.
The iPhone was totally different than anything else. The VP is just a nicer headset.
Dan is on point. The iPhone detractors also made claims that it wasn't good enough to compete with the Blackberry with a full qwerty keyboard and all the benefits it came with were pointless to users, like the (then considered) gigantic display with multi-touch input. AVP is following that same path as Meta doesn't have the same eye and hand tracking to make it nearly as functional or useful.
I can't imagine AVP having as profound of an industry impact as the original iPhone in the cell phone market (not just the smartphone market) because I can't see the unit sales and adoption rates growing nearly as fast, but it seems clear to me that AVP is already the leader in how VR/AR/XR should work going forward. Even before an actual release Apple is once again the company that is the leader in a specific space.
To appreciate the vision pro, it makes no sense to revisit the first Mac. Rather revisit the oculus or the quest. The only differences are Apple is housing the compute in the device and the VP is higher quality all around. But it’s in no way some fundamentally different thing.
It is as different as the original iPhone was to the Blackberry, Nokia, Sony, Windows Phone, Palm anything from Motorola.
Except it’s not.
The only appreciable difference Is that it has its own compute model, elongating the need for a teh there’s cpu - though it moves backward with a tethered battery.
It has better specs, but doesn’t really do anything differently.
The iPhone was totally different than anything else. The VP is just a nicer headset.
Dan is on point. The iPhone detractors also made claims that it wasn't good enough to compete with the Blackberry with a full qwerty keyboard and all the benefits it came with were pointless to users, like the (then considered) gigantic display with multi-touch input. AVP is following that same path as Meta doesn't have the same eye and hand tracking to make it nearly as functional or useful.
I can't imagine AVP having as profound of an industry impact as the original iPhone in the cell phone market (not just the smartphone market) because I can't see the unit sales and adoption rates growing nearly as fast, but it seems clear to me that AVP is already the leader in how VR/AR/XR should work going forward. Even before an actual release Apple is once again the company that is the leader in a specific space.
This isn’t that. With iPhone, everyone had their “aha!” Inan instant.
With this, Apple’s management staff, the news media, and various folks who’ve demo’d the VP didn’t think too much of it other than it’s neat for a bit. Cook and the developers hoping to make money off the new platform are the ones pushing and hyping.
Look. It’s a great headset. But it’s just a headset. Nothing particularly new or innovative. Just a higher spec’s headset with apples great ui/UX. It’s an iterative product that doesn’t stray far from the competition from companies such as meta.
Where the iPhone redefined what a phone could be and do, the vp takes a familiar formula and adds nicer looking pixels and more horsepower.
Let’s keep it real here. As much as it’s cool that apple entering the headset space, pretending it’s some great paradigm shift is just silly. It’s a cool headset of much higher quality than the other guys and has a nicer UI and convenient UX.
But it’s… a headset… and I didn’t do much different than what meta does.
By the time Apple bakes this into a pair of shades, we will be onto something special. It’s just not it yet.
To appreciate the vision pro, it makes no sense to revisit the first Mac. Rather revisit the oculus or the quest. The only differences are Apple is housing the compute in the device and the VP is higher quality all around. But it’s in no way some fundamentally different thing.
It is as different as the original iPhone was to the Blackberry, Nokia, Sony, Windows Phone, Palm anything from Motorola.
Except it’s not.
The only appreciable difference Is that it has its own compute model, elongating the need for a teh there’s cpu - though it moves backward with a tethered battery.
It has better specs, but doesn’t really do anything differently.
The iPhone was totally different than anything else. The VP is just a nicer headset.
Dan is on point. The iPhone detractors also made claims that it wasn't good enough to compete with the Blackberry with a full qwerty keyboard and all the benefits it came with were pointless to users, like the (then considered) gigantic display with multi-touch input. AVP is following that same path as Meta doesn't have the same eye and hand tracking to make it nearly as functional or useful.
I can't imagine AVP having as profound of an industry impact as the original iPhone in the cell phone market (not just the smartphone market) because I can't see the unit sales and adoption rates growing nearly as fast, but it seems clear to me that AVP is already the leader in how VR/AR/XR should work going forward. Even before an actual release Apple is once again the company that is the leader in a specific space.
This isn’t that. With iPhone, everyone had their “aha!” Inan instant.
With this, Apple’s management staff, the news media, and various folks who’ve demo’d the VP didn’t think too much of it other than it’s neat for a bit. Cook and the developers hoping to make money off the new platform are the ones pushing and hyping.
Look. It’s a great headset. But it’s just a headset. Nothing particularly new or innovative. Just a higher spec’s headset with apples great ui/UX. It’s an iterative product that doesn’t stray far from the competition from companies such as meta.
Where the iPhone redefined what a phone could be and do, the vp takes a familiar formula and adds nicer looking pixels and more horsepower.
Let’s keep it real here. As much as it’s cool that apple entering the headset space, pretending it’s some great paradigm shift is just silly. It’s a cool headset of much higher quality than the other guys and has a nicer UI and convenient UX.
But it’s… a headset… and I didn’t do much different than what meta does.
By the time Apple bakes this into a pair of shades, we will be onto something special. It’s just not it yet.
This is the Motorola ROKR before the iPhone.
1) I guess you u really don't remember how the iPhone was perceived by a great number of people.
2) All the things you are describing that are great about the iPhone are exactly what AVP has already done for VR/AR/XR in its first debut. AVP has already shifted the paradigm of what VR/AR/XR should look, feel, and work, just as the original iPhone did. Again, it won't sell in the same numbers or have the same growth as the iPhone, but it's not meant to be.
3) How exactly do you envision AVP to be "a pair of shades" while also being VR? This isn't a simple AR setup. Not going to happen like that. Weight is already an issue.
4) It's weird that you keep saying how AVP is basically just a piece of shit like Meta, but then make a comment about it evolving into "a pair of shades" without any thought into how hat would be accomplished or how that remove the VR aspects. It's clear to me now that you're really not thinking about the technology at all.
To appreciate the vision pro, it makes no sense to revisit the first Mac. Rather revisit the oculus or the quest. The only differences are Apple is housing the compute in the device and the VP is higher quality all around. But it’s in no way some fundamentally different thing.
It is as different as the original iPhone was to the Blackberry, Nokia, Sony, Windows Phone, Palm anything from Motorola.
And just like back then, people had too much pride and/or vested interest to see the difference.
That said, I do see it as a much more limited market than that of a mobile computer/phone/music player. It's a great replacement for various home entertainment systems (makes me think of it as the Apple television which never came to be), and that is quite a large market, but it's certainly not a "carry and use everywhere" device.
To appreciate the vision pro, it makes no sense to revisit the first Mac. Rather revisit the oculus or the quest. The only differences are Apple is housing the compute in the device and the VP is higher quality all around. But it’s in no way some fundamentally different thing.
It is as different as the original iPhone was to the Blackberry, Nokia, Sony, Windows Phone, Palm anything from Motorola.
Except it’s not.
The only appreciable difference Is that it has its own compute model, elongating the need for a teh there’s cpu - though it moves backward with a tethered battery.
It has better specs, but doesn’t really do anything differently.
The iPhone was totally different than anything else. The VP is just a nicer headset.
It was, but it's revisionist history to not recall the fact that a lot of people in the industry were downplaying it and even saying it was no different than some of the other smartphones at the time. IIRC, Nokia already had a phone with a touchscreen (edit: they did, but it was the LG Prada I was thinking of).
Honestly, if you sit there and break it down to specs, you're missing the big picture. Apple always does bottom-to-top integration in a way no one else can: the raw hardware specs on the iPhone weren't really all that great, but damn did they optimize the responsiveness of the touch so that it felt buttery smooth. And they always solve things in a way which, once you see them, it just seems obvious (but yet no one else really saw it). Like all the touch gestures on the iPhone - just seems natural and intuitive today, but I don't remember any touch devices before the iPhone which did it (or did it as well, if they did).
Comments
I'm excited about it.
People have to use it for computing just like they use a Mac for computing. That's what is so frustrating about iPadOS. They are purposely choosing to limit the device and not letting users use an iPad as they want. Apple really does think the iPad as more iPhone than Mac, when it really should be like a Mac in functionality. So, at minimum, visionOS and its hardware has to let users compute like they do on a Mac, with its own pluses and minuses, and it has to have some big pluses over a Mac.
People have to be able to read text like they do on a Mac, they have to have unlimited multitasking, they have to have access to their current toolsets (apps, terminal/Unix, VMs) while enabling all the new use cases.
So, be on the lookout for how to operate things with hand and eye tracking. Scrolling long lists. Drawing. Managing windows. Menu, button/object/text selection, text input.
I can't imagine AVP having as profound of an industry impact as the original iPhone in the cell phone market (not just the smartphone market) because I can't see the unit sales and adoption rates growing nearly as fast, but it seems clear to me that AVP is already the leader in how VR/AR/XR should work going forward. Even before an actual release Apple is once again the company that is the leader in a specific space.
2) All the things you are describing that are great about the iPhone are exactly what AVP has already done for VR/AR/XR in its first debut. AVP has already shifted the paradigm of what VR/AR/XR should look, feel, and work, just as the original iPhone did. Again, it won't sell in the same numbers or have the same growth as the iPhone, but it's not meant to be.
3) How exactly do you envision AVP to be "a pair of shades" while also being VR? This isn't a simple AR setup. Not going to happen like that. Weight is already an issue.
4) It's weird that you keep saying how AVP is basically just a piece of shit like Meta, but then make a comment about it evolving into "a pair of shades" without any thought into how hat would be accomplished or how that remove the VR aspects. It's clear to me now that you're really not thinking about the technology at all.
That said, I do see it as a much more limited market than that of a mobile computer/phone/music player. It's a great replacement for various home entertainment systems (makes me think of it as the Apple television which never came to be), and that is quite a large market, but it's certainly not a "carry and use everywhere" device.
Honestly, if you sit there and break it down to specs, you're missing the big picture. Apple always does bottom-to-top integration in a way no one else can: the raw hardware specs on the iPhone weren't really all that great, but damn did they optimize the responsiveness of the touch so that it felt buttery smooth. And they always solve things in a way which, once you see them, it just seems obvious (but yet no one else really saw it). Like all the touch gestures on the iPhone - just seems natural and intuitive today, but I don't remember any touch devices before the iPhone which did it (or did it as well, if they did).