Apple Vision Pro is not the iPhone, and faces an incredibly steep uphill climb

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 60
    thttht Posts: 5,507member
    I can imagine a future generation VP using the iPhone that is already in your pocket as the computer that runs the headset rather than having an entire computer in the headset. It would save money on the cost of the VP and it would make it possible to easily switch to your own computer on a headset. Not unlike what we are currently doing with CarPlay. Rent a car and use your own phone for CarPlay and it's all the comforts of your own car. The iPhone is already so much more capable than the tasks it's given.
    Yeah, you may be closer than you think. ;)

    I’ve seen a lot of Apple patents that basically slot an iPhone into a headset. A much more advanced Google cardboard. So, a lot of thought has been going into this at Apple. 

    The issue is still pixels per degree, and an iPhone will need to at least double its PPI, to something like 1000 PPI, to at least get reasonable PPD for about 15 PPD. The VP is at 40+ PPD.

    If so, a low end Apple spatial computing headset could just be a 2028 iPhone and a $1000 headset accessory. If Apple has these intentions, they’ll have an iPhone at basically 6K resolutions. I’m assuming eye tracking and peripheral camera hardware is in the accessory. 

    Now that I’ve written it out, probably not. 

    Edit: One too many zeros...
    edited January 24 Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 60
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,869administrator
    tht said:
    I can imagine a future generation VP using the iPhone that is already in your pocket as the computer that runs the headset rather than having an entire computer in the headset. It would save money on the cost of the VP and it would make it possible to easily switch to your own computer on a headset. Not unlike what we are currently doing with CarPlay. Rent a car and use your own phone for CarPlay and it's all the comforts of your own car. The iPhone is already so much more capable than the tasks it's given.
    Yeah, you may be closer than you think. ;)

    I’ve seen a lot of Apple patents that basically slot an iPhone into a headset. A much more advanced Google cardboard. So, a lot of thought has been going into this at Apple. 

    The issue is still pixels per degree, and an iPhone will need to at least double its PPI, to something like 10000 PPI, to at least get reasonable PPD for about 15 PPD. The VP is at 40+ PPD.

    If so, a low end Apple spatial computing headset could just be a 2028 iPhone and a $1000 headset accessory. If Apple has these intentions, they’ll have an iPhone at basically 6K resolutions. I’m assuming eye tracking and peripheral camera hardware is in the accessory. 

    Now that I’ve written it out, probably not. 
    The crux of the issue are the screens and the eye sensors. The M2, RAM, and storage are afterthoughts cost-wise, relatively speaking.
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 60
    My view is that.  the Apple Vision Pro, is meant for tech enthusiasts and businesses.
    Apple is not expecting a grandma, or standard human adult to buy. one right now.

    They will gather usage data, and what hardware features are essencial and what is not.

    Them they will launch a second model, weighting less, for half or even less the 3500 price.

    A lot more apps will be available, a lot more people will have used one that a friend/relative bought.

    Success will ensue. As always.




    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 60
    AVP should not be compared to the iPhone. It is a spatial computer; therefore, a better comparison would be MacBooks or iPads. I can see AVP achieving Mac/iPad revenues, and maybe more, in the next few years. 
    edited January 24 Bart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 60
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 1,070member
    Again with only two options: runaway success or complete failure. I get it, not as sexy as three or even four options. 

    Maybe we should start examining our mindset when it comes to every way we think about things instead of bouncing from one extreme to another and apply it to all aspects of our lives, not just technology. We would be a much happier (and dare I say, less reactive) society. 
    stolinskiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 60
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,869administrator
    mac_dog said:
    Again with only two options: runaway success or complete failure. I get it, not as sexy as three or even four options. 

    Maybe we should start examining our mindset when it comes to every way we think about things instead of bouncing from one extreme to another and apply it to all aspects of our lives, not just technology. We would be a much happier (and dare I say, less reactive) society. 
    This piece in no way implies a binary success or failure condition for Apple Vision Pro.
    dewmemuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 60
    thttht Posts: 5,507member
    tht said:
    I can imagine a future generation VP using the iPhone that is already in your pocket as the computer that runs the headset rather than having an entire computer in the headset. It would save money on the cost of the VP and it would make it possible to easily switch to your own computer on a headset. Not unlike what we are currently doing with CarPlay. Rent a car and use your own phone for CarPlay and it's all the comforts of your own car. The iPhone is already so much more capable than the tasks it's given.
    Yeah, you may be closer than you think. ;)

    I’ve seen a lot of Apple patents that basically slot an iPhone into a headset. A much more advanced Google cardboard. So, a lot of thought has been going into this at Apple. 

    The issue is still pixels per degree, and an iPhone will need to at least double its PPI, to something like 10000 PPI, to at least get reasonable PPD for about 15 PPD. The VP is at 40+ PPD.

    If so, a low end Apple spatial computing headset could just be a 2028 iPhone and a $1000 headset accessory. If Apple has these intentions, they’ll have an iPhone at basically 6K resolutions. I’m assuming eye tracking and peripheral camera hardware is in the accessory. 

    Now that I’ve written it out, probably not. 
    The crux of the issue are the screens and the eye sensors. The M2, RAM, and storage are afterthoughts cost-wise, relatively speaking.
    The eye tracking sensors could be part of the accessory, as would be other non-phone sensors and cameras. It would have the lens too and battery. The phone would provide the display, main cameras, even LiDAR and IR, and the compute.

    It this scenario, Apple could have a lens that compresses the field of view instead of magnifying it, and perhaps, seeing the pixels won't be as bad as perceived.

    The A18 is going to be as about performant as the M2 and they can put the R1 ASICs in there if need be.

    Still, it's too much of a contraption for Apple. Not their thing. If they can do this and have it perform well, they can just do it as an integrated device, which would be better. They need to go up in PPI and PPD still, so probably not.
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 60
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,046member
    I would disagree that Apple knew what they had when they launched iPhone. In fact, the device launched without its central killer app, and Steve Jobs himself was opposed to ever including it. That is, there was no App Store. The App Store is ultimately the thing that put an iPhone in everyone's pocket, and that revolutionized the entire personal computing industry while creating a billion-dollar market for software development that simply did not exist before. That is not hyperbole.

    Additionally, iPhone was launched without GPS and it came with a camera that was sub-par even for its time. In fact, Apple later willingly took the PR hit when they dumped google maps and introduced the half-baked Apple maps, specifically because they realized late just how core to iPhone's functionality GPS-based locations services would be. The crappy camera evolved into something that has virtually eliminated the market and utility for consumer-grade standalone cameras, while exponentially increasing the sheer volume of photographs and videos taken by people around the world. None of this was apparent at the iPhone launch just 17 years ago.

    Similar things could be noted about the original release of Apple Watch. Both devices were released in a form that provided fodder for skeptics to question the utility of the device as well as the wisdom of releasing it. Enthusiasts saw potential, even if they didn't know exactly what that potential could mean. Undoubtedly Apple had an internal roadmap for the future of the devices, but it's also pretty clear that they didn't know entirely what they had.

    So sure, the Vision Pro could end up as a dud. I haven't bought one yet.  Time and again, however, the greater wisdom has been to place your bets with Apple at this point in a new product release.
    edited January 24 Cesar Battistini MazieroAlex1Nradarthekategold44watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 60
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,370member
    Is there a "killer app" that makes or breaks the iPhone? Mac? Apple Watch?  I am now aware of one and is why I ask.  The Mac especially exists because it can run a diverse selection of apps in a way that differentiates itself from the likes of Windows or Linux.  

    Perhaps the article is proposing a "killer EXPERIENCE" that no one yet knows about?  And yet, based on what I've read and seen, the killer experience would appear to be spacial video and anything related to that.  It is an experience that cannot be replicated by any other Apple device.  That, to me, is the appeal of Vision Pro.  And that is why I cannot fathom any one "app" bringing something new and groundbreaking to Vision Pro, anymore than a single app on Apple Watch makes it "suddenly attractive" to would-be buyers. 

    I myself don't own an Apple Watch, not because it's not great and not because I wouldn't like it.  I simply don't like to wear things on my wrist.  No app in the world is going to change that.  And such is a fact that pertains to me alone.  I don't hate Apple Watch at all, and I hope it sells well.  But I just don't like things on my wrist.  I suspect I may feel the same with a heavy thing on my face too, but I cannot cast judgment on that until I try it.  
    Alex1Nthtstolinskimuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 60
    XedXed Posts: 2,626member
    iPhone was not a success from the beginning on. iPhone needed more than 3 years to break into the mass market.
    The iPhone was absolutely a success right away, and right from the moment it was announced by Jobs. Sales are a different metric, and Apple sold all the units they could. So much so that they stopped production of the original iPhone many months ahead of the iPhone 3G which left a vacuum which allowed many to sell their used iPhone for considerably more than what they bought it for.
    macxpressgrandact73watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 60
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,840member

    Xed said:
    iPhone was not a success from the beginning on. iPhone needed more than 3 years to break into the mass market.
    The iPhone was absolutely a success right away, and right from the moment it was announced by Jobs. Sales are a different metric, and Apple sold all the units they could. So much so that they stopped production of the original iPhone many months ahead of the iPhone 3G which left a vacuum which allowed many to sell their used iPhone for considerably more than what they bought it for.
    True, success can be measured in many ways. I remember when iPhone was first announced all Apple wanted to achieve was 1% marketshare. So to Apple, it was a success. Today, every Apple product seems to need to sell as well as the iPhone or else it's a failure (even when it's not). Everyone just needs to give this product time. It will not be as successful as today's iPhone and it may never get there and that's okay. It doesn't mean it's a failure of a product. 

    When your competition is basically copying every little thing you do then you're doing something right and that's the case today with Apple and its products. I don't see this being any different with AVP going forward. 

    Again, everyone needs to give this product a good 2-3yrs to mature a little more and let Apple work things out. There's gonna be some stumbling and fumbling along the way. It's all part of learning and making the product better. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 60
    We get it. Apple Insider is skeptical of the Vision Pro. Not a bad position to hold. But do we need all of these posts saying the same thing?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 60
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,857moderator
    chadbag said:
    In terms of non niche, Apple sized markets, the Vision Pro struggles because no one needs this sort of thing and it doesn’t solve anyone’s day to day problems.  And even in 5 years I doubt it will.   

     This is tech for tech sake and the vision of people who don’t live in reality. 

    Car manufacturers are putting physical buttons and stalks back in cars after going all touch screen.  Why?  Because the touch screen didn’t make driving easier or safer or anything.  Vision Pro doesn’t make life easier or safer or anything. And probably won’t.  

    Let Meta burn its cash on such fanciful stuff.  

    Sure do research as these things have great vertical market applicability.   But as a general consumer level device at Apple sized markets there isn’t a compelling case and won’t be.   At least for a long long time. 
    Must Apple only serve consumer needs in Apple-sized markets?  Not everything must be directed at moving the stock price. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 60
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,869administrator
    mjoakes said:
    We get it. Apple Insider is skeptical of the Vision Pro. Not a bad position to hold. But do we need all of these posts saying the same thing?
    "All of these posts"

    What other opinion piece that we've published is skeptical of Apple Vision Pro? And, this one isn't really that skeptical -- it just says that it's not going to be revolutionary out of the gate and not for a while, if ever. "Revolutionary" will depend on what the developers will into being, and what the market decides it wants to use it for.

    That's fine, though. Like Radarthekat says above this post, not everything has to have a giant market. 
    edited January 24 radarthekatgrandact73watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 60
    XedXed Posts: 2,626member
    macxpress said:

    Xed said:
    iPhone was not a success from the beginning on. iPhone needed more than 3 years to break into the mass market.
    The iPhone was absolutely a success right away, and right from the moment it was announced by Jobs. Sales are a different metric, and Apple sold all the units they could. So much so that they stopped production of the original iPhone many months ahead of the iPhone 3G which left a vacuum which allowed many to sell their used iPhone for considerably more than what they bought it for.
    True, success can be measured in many ways. I remember when iPhone was first announced all Apple wanted to achieve was 1% marketshare. So to Apple, it was a success. Today, every Apple product seems to need to sell as well as the iPhone or else it's a failure (even when it's not). Everyone just needs to give this product time. It will not be as successful as today's iPhone and it may never get there and that's okay. It doesn't mean it's a failure of a product. 

    When your competition is basically copying every little thing you do then you're doing something right and that's the case today with Apple and its products. I don't see this being any different with AVP going forward. 

    Again, everyone needs to give this product a good 2-3yrs to mature a little more and let Apple work things out. There's gonna be some stumbling and fumbling along the way. It's all part of learning and making the product better. 
    1% the first year. As I recall they did that. They had at least one of Blackberry's co-CEOs thinking the UI wasn't a "real" demo because he didn't think a mobile system could respond like that and Steve Balmer lambasting what he called an expensive (can't remember the value), fully subsidized phone. We also had Google change their entire direction to mimic the iPhone instead of Blackberry and Nokia, and an entire change to Apple's epic paradigm shift in how a mobile phone should look, function, and work. Of the many major successes Apple has had I look at the iPhone and how it changed the industry as being one of its most prolific and widespread.. and I feel that occurred as soon as Steve Jobs brought it out. 

    PS: The comedic biopic Blackberry (2023) was very enjoyable.
    Bart Ymacxpresswatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 60
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 2,004member
    chadbag said:
    In terms of non niche, Apple sized markets, the Vision Pro struggles because no one needs this sort of thing and it doesn’t solve anyone’s day to day problems.  And even in 5 years I doubt it will.   

     This is tech for tech sake and the vision of people who don’t live in reality. 

    Car manufacturers are putting physical buttons and stalks back in cars after going all touch screen.  Why?  Because the touch screen didn’t make driving easier or safer or anything.  Vision Pro doesn’t make life easier or safer or anything. And probably won’t.  

    Let Meta burn its cash on such fanciful stuff.  

    Sure do research as these things have great vertical market applicability.   But as a general consumer level device at Apple sized markets there isn’t a compelling case and won’t be.   At least for a long long time. 
    Must Apple only serve consumer needs in Apple-sized markets?  Not everything must be directed at moving the stock price. 
    Ask Apple.  They’ve discontinued successful products that smaller companies would have loved to have the share of because their sales weren’t Apple sized.  (Those are my words).  

    I’d hope they wouldn’t make business decisions based on moving share prices but rather on delighting the customer in a profitable way.  But what they term as profitable enough is different than what many would be happy with.  

    AVP can be very successful in vertical markets.  I don’t ever see this sort of thing becoming mainstream like the iPhone or Mac as it doesn’t fulfill a need for the average person.  Until maybe it gets to be implantable.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 60
    Anybody believe this version of the VP is forever?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 60
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,899member
    As others have sort of said, this seems to be a transition product. Or a product attempting to plant a seed for future products. I don't know for sure, but it doesn't seem intended in any way to be a mass market device. This sort of tech has no appeal for me, but who knows, even at age 66 I might change that position if I see a reason to do so.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 60
    XedXed Posts: 2,626member
    Anybody believe this version of the VP is forever?
    Yes. Even after all life on this planet is long gone and our sun has died out and there is nothing remaining to remember anything of brief existence as a species, this will forever be the first version of the Apple Vision Pro.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 60
    It’s funny, because the same time I saw this article, I noticed some video Prosser posted on YouTube, saying how Apple Vision Pro is the beginning of the end of the iPhone.

    The way I look at it is this, it’s an amazing device. Far outside my price range and it’s something I’m hesitant in using because I’ve never had a VR type experience that didn’t result in my head feeling like that scene in Scanners. That said, I’m excited for what this tech means for the other devices, Apple is amazing about integration and advancements don’t stay limited to one device. It has me excited for the future of the Mac, the iPhone and the iPad 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.