That's not entirely true. Huawei and Samsung can do it... after they get ahold of Apple's designs and tech specs.
If there's one certainty in life is that iKnockoff companies like Samsung, Xiaomi, and Huawei bought the VisionPro and reverse-engineering it. Without Apple's top-quality software to go with it, they will fail.
Software is just as easy (if not easier) to reverse engineer/clone as hardware. And lawsuits tend to favour the cloners
If that is so where is that OS that actually works well from East Asia? Samsung is having trouble with that and so is Japan and China. It is very hard which is why Apple has a bunch of freeloaders from around the world pursuing their Appstore (ecosystems) for free rides.
That's not entirely true. Huawei and Samsung can do it... after they get ahold of Apple's designs and tech specs.
If there's one certainty in life is that iKnockoff companies like Samsung, Xiaomi, and Huawei bought the VisionPro and reverse-engineering it. Without Apple's top-quality software to go with it, they will fail.
Samsung already took their iteration of a VR/XR headset and sent it back to the lab for more tweaks when Vision Pro was announced at WWDC 2023. Like original Android, once they saw what Apple had designed, Samsung knew theirs was inferior. Given 18 months and a late 2024 intro, Samsung gets a 2nd generation Qualcomm VR chip, more time to make better displays, and Google has more time to build a better XR-OS, if they can.
Now that Samsung can get their hands on a few Vision Pro’s and send them back to Korea for study and reverse engineering, Samsung will wonder how to do it better, and cheaper while being profitable. It can get to any two of the three choices. And the early projections are Samsung only plans a limited run of 50K units for the whole year, probably to gauge the Android VR market for a likely $2K to $2.5K or more device. Otherwise, it won’t ever be profitable unless they want to subsidize it and somehow make it up on content like consoles do.
Dead in the water without a working OS (with desktop class M2 SOC with a secret weapon the R1 SOC) the only thing they can build is a facsimile. Like Android tablets or ChromeBooks.
Samsung and Google are dead in the water right now when it comes to LiDAR, all that work by Apple over the last five years is paying off Samsung/Google will need to double back and follow Apple even more and since Google is 4 to 5 years behind with theTensor do they even have LiDAR in their smartphone? No they don't they (Google) tried a solution that didn't work which means they are going to backtrack on it, if they are going catch up to Apple, and the 12 Pro (four years old) and every iPhone after has LiDAR, and so do all the iPad Pro’s older than 4 years, and guess what the Apple Vision has built in to it, that's right LIDAR.
That's not entirely true. Huawei and Samsung can do it... after they get ahold of Apple's designs and tech specs.
If there's one certainty in life is that iKnockoff companies like Samsung, Xiaomi, and Huawei bought the VisionPro and reverse-engineering it. Without Apple's top-quality software to go with it, they will fail.
Knock off? Seriously?
Are you really that out of touch with reality?
Apple has been implementing technologies brought to market by those two companies for years now. Lots of hardware.
In the case of Huawei alone, it was once rumoured that Apple was licencing almost 800 of its patents.
What would a phone be without cellular and Wi-Fi? How much has Apple brought to market when compared to Huawei and Samsung?
Are you even aware that both those companies have years of experience with VR/AR/XR? And smart glasses too.
That Huawei (and very likely Samsung) is actively remedying some of the bigger, non-front facing issues involved? That Apple is a very latecomer to this.
Don't confuse lack of a product with lack of ideas. There is little to nothing truly new (in terms of ideas) in the VP.
It remains a visor setup with all the current traits of the industry. There will be variations here and there but basically it follows the trail opened by others.
Ideas need to be transformed into products but the number one reason a souped up visor (like VP) hasn't come to market until now, is cost.
Everyone loves to be wary of Meta (and with good reason) but the sneak peek into its projects shows where everyone wants to go.
The options being developed are extremely expensive so companies reduce their goals in order to produce an 'affordable' product and reach a wider market. After all, surely, putting devices out there is what counts. Advancing the industry.
Real-time OS, dedicated chipsets, improved optics, eye tracking, gestures etc.
None of those ideas are in some way Apple exclusive.
But let's look at just one of the major (but logical) tradeoffs of the VP: The battery and charging.
Did you know that Huawei cracked that problem years ago but simply hasn't brought it to market yet? At least externally (I believe it's in use internally).
It would actually be perfect for the VP too.
A ceiling mounted laser setup to continuously charge multiple devices simultaneously. Think about that for a moment.
Now, wouldn't that be good?
I say perfect for the VP because the solution requires a line of sight connection. Hardly an issue for a head mounted device. Or a shelf or table mounted device. Think HomePod etc.
Of course, cost, (even for Apple) is an issue and no doubt lots of tradeoffs were made along the way for the VP. Those tradeoffs are universal and largely offset by how expensive you want the finished device to be. Some are outright impossible today for other reasons.
That's the reality of business.
I'm very glad they ran with it. It's better out than in a lab, once it reaches a practical usage point. People who get one will enjoy a visually superior experience at the very least.
Does a controller mean less of an experience? Not at all. Tradeoffs again. The VP won't recognise anything above the headset and will have issues with low light. Tradeoffs again. Controllers don't have those issues and are cheaper. They have their own issues but that is how things go.
But don't confuse business with 'knocking something off' because, if anything, Apple has spent the last few years knocking those companies off and Android in general!
At least by the wholly general use of knock off that you are trying to use.
In terms of what is used, and how, you can be sure some things will work out better than others and everyone in the industry will take a look at what others are doing and try to implement the best solutions.
That's how things work
Do you think Apple went into this without doing exactly that? It would be crazy if they hadn't.
Apple will have a whole room of VR headsets from competitors.
Apple has spent years now implementing features from competitors in lots of areas.
In terms of software, what do you actually know about the competition? How are you reaching your 'knock off' conclusions if you don't know about other solutions?
If we talk about almost all of the major features announced for iOS over the last few years, how many already existed elsewhere?
The 'multi device' aspect of sharing cameras, audio etc isn't new. Far from it. Is Apple knocking off Huawei? Blatantly?
Will we see an Apple kernel in Fintech any time soon?
Bugs? Didn't Apple recently have to put a massive focus on improving the quality of its systems?
Quality you say?
'HomeOS' is now rumoured.
Do you know that competitors already have fully integrated 'HomeOS' systems that extend far, far beyond anything Apple/Matter/Thread etc are bringing to market (or are about to bring to market)?
FTTR included. Mesh systems. Distributed security. Distributed file systems. Distributed authentication. Integration across the board on systems that were built, from the ground up for the task. It's all been announced or implemented already. And built deep into the very design of the system.
What about the interconnect and the network stack to support it?
Is Apple providing a system-wide Nearlink equivalent?
With cars too, and not just a CarPlay 'skin' on the infotainment system of the car but a full car OS with deep integration into the vehicle.
Integration that allows cars to create ad-hoc networks among them for communication. That can seamlessly connect with the 'HomeOS', placing video calls with the living room TV, controlling all aspects of that 'HomeOS'.
AFAIK Apple isn't even in the running here.
Development of roadside technology to communicate with vehicles AND the wireless side of making that communication happen?
No.
Where is all that from Apple?
'Knock-offs' you say?
I think you need to rethink that. Carefully and deeply.
Still waiting for a new class of consumer product from Huawei...
Meanwhile, Apple add's Vision Pro to its trophy case, all because they had the skillset accumulated over decades, patience, money, and simply decided to accomplish it.
That's not entirely true. Huawei and Samsung can do it... after they get ahold of Apple's designs and tech specs.
If there's one certainty in life is that iKnockoff companies like Samsung, Xiaomi, and Huawei bought the VisionPro and reverse-engineering it. Without Apple's top-quality software to go with it, they will fail.
Knock off? Seriously?
Are you really that out of touch with reality?
Apple has been implementing technologies brought to market by those two companies for years now. Lots of hardware.
In the case of Huawei alone, it was once rumoured that Apple was licencing almost 800 of its patents.
What would a phone be without cellular and Wi-Fi? How much has Apple brought to market when compared to Huawei and Samsung?
Are you even aware that both those companies have years of experience with VR/AR/XR? And smart glasses too.
That Huawei (and very likely Samsung) is actively remedying some of the bigger, non-front facing issues involved? That Apple is a very latecomer to this.
Don't confuse lack of a product with lack of ideas. There is little to nothing truly new (in terms of ideas) in the VP.
It remains a visor setup with all the current traits of the industry. There will be variations here and there but basically it follows the trail opened by others.
Ideas need to be transformed into products but the number one reason a souped up visor (like VP) hasn't come to market until now, is cost.
Everyone loves to be wary of Meta (and with good reason) but the sneak peek into its projects shows where everyone wants to go.
The options being developed are extremely expensive so companies reduce their goals in order to produce an 'affordable' product and reach a wider market. After all, surely, putting devices out there is what counts. Advancing the industry.
Real-time OS, dedicated chipsets, improved optics, eye tracking, gestures etc.
None of those ideas are in some way Apple exclusive.
But let's look at just one of the major (but logical) tradeoffs of the VP: The battery and charging.
Did you know that Huawei cracked that problem years ago but simply hasn't brought it to market yet? At least externally (I believe it's in use internally).
It would actually be perfect for the VP too.
A ceiling mounted laser setup to continuously charge multiple devices simultaneously. Think about that for a moment.
Now, wouldn't that be good?
I say perfect for the VP because the solution requires a line of sight connection. Hardly an issue for a head mounted device. Or a shelf or table mounted device. Think HomePod etc.
Of course, cost, (even for Apple) is an issue and no doubt lots of tradeoffs were made along the way for the VP. Those tradeoffs are universal and largely offset by how expensive you want the finished device to be. Some are outright impossible today for other reasons.
That's the reality of business.
I'm very glad they ran with it. It's better out than in a lab, once it reaches a practical usage point. People who get one will enjoy a visually superior experience at the very least.
Does a controller mean less of an experience? Not at all. Tradeoffs again. The VP won't recognise anything above the headset and will have issues with low light. Tradeoffs again. Controllers don't have those issues and are cheaper. They have their own issues but that is how things go.
But don't confuse business with 'knocking something off' because, if anything, Apple has spent the last few years knocking those companies off and Android in general!
At least by the wholly general use of knock off that you are trying to use.
In terms of what is used, and how, you can be sure some things will work out better than others and everyone in the industry will take a look at what others are doing and try to implement the best solutions.
That's how things work
Do you think Apple went into this without doing exactly that? It would be crazy if they hadn't.
Apple will have a whole room of VR headsets from competitors.
Apple has spent years now implementing features from competitors in lots of areas.
In terms of software, what do you actually know about the competition? How are you reaching your 'knock off' conclusions if you don't know about other solutions?
If we talk about almost all of the major features announced for iOS over the last few years, how many already existed elsewhere?
The 'multi device' aspect of sharing cameras, audio etc isn't new. Far from it. Is Apple knocking off Huawei? Blatantly?
Will we see an Apple kernel in Fintech any time soon?
Bugs? Didn't Apple recently have to put a massive focus on improving the quality of its systems?
Quality you say?
'HomeOS' is now rumoured.
Do you know that competitors already have fully integrated 'HomeOS' systems that extend far, far beyond anything Apple/Matter/Thread etc are bringing to market (or are about to bring to market)?
FTTR included. Mesh systems. Distributed security. Distributed file systems. Distributed authentication. Integration across the board on systems that were built, from the ground up for the task. It's all been announced or implemented already. And built deep into the very design of the system.
What about the interconnect and the network stack to support it?
Is Apple providing a system-wide Nearlink equivalent?
With cars too, and not just a CarPlay 'skin' on the infotainment system of the car but a full car OS with deep integration into the vehicle.
Integration that allows cars to create ad-hoc networks among them for communication. That can seamlessly connect with the 'HomeOS', placing video calls with the living room TV, controlling all aspects of that 'HomeOS'.
AFAIK Apple isn't even in the running here.
Development of roadside technology to communicate with vehicles AND the wireless side of making that communication happen?
No.
Where is all that from Apple?
'Knock-offs' you say?
I think you need to rethink that. Carefully and deeply.
Still waiting for a new class of consumer product from Huawei...
Meanwhile, Apple add's Vision Pro to its trophy case, all because they had the skillset accumulated over decades, patience, money, and simply decided to accomplish it.
Like I said, Huawei has a range of VR visors and also smart glasses. For years now. Some for industry. Some for consumers. Very niche because mostly that's what visors are. Yes, even the Vision Pro.
I wonder what would constitute a 'new class' of consumer product for you?
Network sensing? Like I mentioned the other day? Lots of companies are working on that but it will require 6G.
The Vision Pro is not a 'new class' of product in that sense and has been on the market for just over a day.
It builds on what has been around for years now and is a fine example of what can be done when you soup things up.
If you're defining 'new class' as simply a new twist on something that already exists then lots of companies are bringing new classes of products to market.
For me, success or failure on a commercial level is irrelevant in this case. It's important that it's out there, just like the Quest and everyone else.
Just as the Vision Pro builds on previous VR developments, future visors will build on this. And so on.
'Skillset' has nothing to do with anything. That isn't an Apple exclusive element. Skillsets abound all over the place. And the VP heavily depends of the skillsets at Zeiss and Sony!
Next you will be telling me the missing 5G modem is just a case of 'patience'. Ditto the Apple car. Ditto an Apple IoT platform. Folding devices. Two-way voice satellite communication. 'HomeOS' or whatever.
Come on! If the skillsets are there...
Do you think the XR market will die off? That is very unlikely given that it's been around for this long.
Industry knows where it wants to go.
There are still essential parts of the puzzle that need to come to market, and they will, at some point, and those parts will come from the wider industry not only Apple.
We already know this because a lot of them are already in the pipe.
Let me be honest with you. After the VP announcement there was an air of 'disappointment' in the Apple world. Please go back and read some of the first impressions on the news. That was palpable back then.
Personally, I was in favour from that first presentation but it was very clear some (many?) people were expecting even more.
Some just saw it as another visor. Some still say there is no 'killer app'.
Most reviews I seen fall back onto the basic concept: 'It's a VR/AR/XR visor'.
It's because there is no getting away from that.
The reality is here now and the same old issues remain. Bulk, weight and comfort. Battery life, charging and fatigue etc.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's important to be realistic.
Brownlee took less than two minutes to declare: 'At its core it's a really, really, really high end virtual reality headset'. He added: 'Apple probably won't like me saying that. They prefer to call it spatial computing'.
I'm paraphrasing here but that was the essence. He then goes on to explain what makes it special etc.
That's reality. Is it an issue? Of course not! It's a big step up but a step nevertheless.
On image quality and fluidity (in most situations) it's a big win. Two huge areas. It comes with a whopping price to match but that's precisely how the industry works.
Yet for all the talk, it will remain a niche product for the foreseeable future if only due to its price.
That in no way is a bad thing. It's completely normal.
Comments
If that is so where is that OS that actually works well from East Asia? Samsung is having trouble with that and so is Japan and China. It is very hard which is why Apple has a bunch of freeloaders from around the world pursuing their Appstore (ecosystems) for free rides.
Dead in the water without a working OS (with desktop class M2 SOC with a secret weapon the R1 SOC) the only thing they can build is a facsimile. Like Android tablets or ChromeBooks.
Samsung and Google are dead in the water right now when it comes to LiDAR, all that work by Apple over the last five years is paying off Samsung/Google will need to double back and follow Apple even more and since Google is 4 to 5 years behind with theTensor do they even have LiDAR in their smartphone? No they don't they (Google) tried a solution that didn't work which means they are going to backtrack on it, if they are going catch up to Apple, and the 12 Pro (four years old) and every iPhone after has LiDAR, and so do all the iPad Pro’s older than 4 years, and guess what the Apple Vision has built in to it, that's right LIDAR.
https://www.reddit.com/r/VisionPro/comments/1ahhdnj/vision_pros_spatial_understanding_is_insane/ Apple pathway in ML/AI seems to be on a different more practical path and notice the Meta trolls in the comments saying me too and they are particularly hurt by Apples long range execution.
Meanwhile, Apple add's Vision Pro to its trophy case, all because they had the skillset accumulated over decades, patience, money, and simply decided to accomplish it.
I wonder what would constitute a 'new class' of consumer product for you?
Network sensing? Like I mentioned the other day? Lots of companies are working on that but it will require 6G.
The Vision Pro is not a 'new class' of product in that sense and has been on the market for just over a day.
It builds on what has been around for years now and is a fine example of what can be done when you soup things up.
If you're defining 'new class' as simply a new twist on something that already exists then lots of companies are bringing new classes of products to market.
For me, success or failure on a commercial level is irrelevant in this case. It's important that it's out there, just like the Quest and everyone else.
Just as the Vision Pro builds on previous VR developments, future visors will build on this. And so on.
'Skillset' has nothing to do with anything. That isn't an Apple exclusive element. Skillsets abound all over the place. And the VP heavily depends of the skillsets at Zeiss and Sony!
Next you will be telling me the missing 5G modem is just a case of 'patience'. Ditto the Apple car. Ditto an Apple IoT platform. Folding devices. Two-way voice satellite communication. 'HomeOS' or whatever.
Come on! If the skillsets are there...
Do you think the XR market will die off? That is very unlikely given that it's been around for this long.
Industry knows where it wants to go.
There are still essential parts of the puzzle that need to come to market, and they will, at some point, and those parts will come from the wider industry not only Apple.
We already know this because a lot of them are already in the pipe.
Let me be honest with you. After the VP announcement there was an air of 'disappointment' in the Apple world. Please go back and read some of the first impressions on the news. That was palpable back then.
Personally, I was in favour from that first presentation but it was very clear some (many?) people were expecting even more.
Some just saw it as another visor. Some still say there is no 'killer app'.
Most reviews I seen fall back onto the basic concept: 'It's a VR/AR/XR visor'.
It's because there is no getting away from that.
The reality is here now and the same old issues remain. Bulk, weight and comfort. Battery life, charging and fatigue etc.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's important to be realistic.
Brownlee took less than two minutes to declare: 'At its core it's a really, really, really high end virtual reality headset'. He added: 'Apple probably won't like me saying that. They prefer to call it spatial computing'.
I'm paraphrasing here but that was the essence. He then goes on to explain what makes it special etc.
That's reality. Is it an issue? Of course not! It's a big step up but a step nevertheless.
On image quality and fluidity (in most situations) it's a big win. Two huge areas. It comes with a whopping price to match but that's precisely how the industry works.
Yet for all the talk, it will remain a niche product for the foreseeable future if only due to its price.
That in no way is a bad thing. It's completely normal.