I know nothing about this so maybe this is a dumb question but recently I've seen video of someone wearing one of these courtside at an NBA game and someone else wearing it at a U2 concert at The Sphere. Why the **** would you wear this in either of those situations?
Apple Vision Pro
34,996 Views |
392 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by TCTTS
Know Your Enemy said:
I know nothing about this so maybe this is a dumb question but recently I've seen video of someone wearing one of these courtside at an NBA game and someone else wearing it at a U2 concert at The Sphere. Why the **** would you wear this in either of those situations?
Honestly at this point I think people are just using it as a status symbol.
Maybe recording?
Yeah probably taking some spatial videos, along with showing off
Basically, something along these lines is what I'm waiting for...
And the animated version just for fun... pic.twitter.com/aPGoZoa0aG
— DailyTekk (@DailyTekk) February 8, 2024
TCTTS said:Sea Speed said:
You gonna run a race with that thing on your face?
We're talking about when it's way lighter, way down the line.
After thinking about it, that may not be as likely as you think. Look at iPhone weight by screen size. Sure, phones have gotten smaller and lighter from the suitcases and bricks they used to be, but iPhones have not really gotten lighter over the last 10 years when controlling for size (they haven't gotten appreciably less dense), despite advances in manufacturing or additional features. We're basically on the flat part of the exponential curve where you've approached the limit and stop getting appreciably cost to it with increases in x. The last time there was an appreciable change was between the iPhone 4 and 5 when the screen to weight ratio went from .73 inches/once to 1.01 inches/one, but after that two ratio just sort of fluctuates around 1. It was .95 for the iPhone X, .99 for the iPhone 13, and it's 1.005 for the iPhone 14. So in the last 10 years, iPhones have stopped getting lighter.
I also wouldn't call them the equivalent of a suitcase or brick phone because those were novel products. Headsets are really just small wearable computers, and the technologies behind them are all pretty mature.
They could get lighter with smaller form factors, and very tiny phones could easily be made, but no one wants a small screen. The form factor pushes the overall weight, and the form factor can only get so small because of its use case and ergonomics. Headsets, and even the vision pro, face the same issue. You can't really shrink the form factor much because it's being driven not necessarily by what you can manufacture, but by the wants of the user.
You have to have a wide headset to achieve a realistic FOV. It really needs to be above 100*, and that pushes the overall width based on the physics of the human eye and how it can move. You can't shrink it substantially by moving closer because headsets are already so close that they have to use lenses to move the image far enough away from your eye to be able to focus on it. The lenses are governed by the physics of optics and can't really get thinner without making a bunch of undesirable tradeoffs.
For low latency, you need the processing layer between the cameras and sensors and the screens. Otherwise you're introducing delay because the signals have to travel farther. Unless you're going to reduce functionality, the cameras will have to stay.
So the size pretty much is what it is. It could maybe get a little thinner, but a lot of what is driving the thickness is the physics of how to bend light into the eye to replicate the view of the outside world in a way that the eyes can focus on it. That means it would need to be made less dense to achieve a lighter headset, but when you look at all of the hardware, you run into the phone problem. We're at a point where even if you're cramming more transistors onto a chip or pixels onto a CMOS or screen, you're not shaving very much weight because they're already so small and light. The bulk of the weight is in the device housing since they've already moved to a separate battery design. Unless Apple wants to move to plastic, I think these stay relatively heavy.
Somewhere between what it is now and the example I posted above would ultimately be fine with me. Personally, I also wouldn't care if they moved to plastic, as I would never try to make any kind of a fashion statement with these things, and would use them almost exclusively at home, save for however many flights I take per year.
That said, you're assuming technology progresses at roughly the same rate it has in the past, and you might very well be right. But AI is almost assuredly going to result in massive leaps in technology over the next 10-15 years. Once we hit AGI, all bets are off, and most everyone seems to think that's coming by 2030, if not in the next two to three years. And sure, it'll still likely be years after that until we see any kind of big leaps in consumer products. But I think, eventually, they're going to find a way to get these things down to a glorified pair of sunglasses (again, on par with the size/look of what I posted above), via tech we haven't even thought up yet.
That said, you're assuming technology progresses at roughly the same rate it has in the past, and you might very well be right. But AI is almost assuredly going to result in massive leaps in technology over the next 10-15 years. Once we hit AGI, all bets are off, and most everyone seems to think that's coming by 2030, if not in the next two to three years. And sure, it'll still likely be years after that until we see any kind of big leaps in consumer products. But I think, eventually, they're going to find a way to get these things down to a glorified pair of sunglasses (again, on par with the size/look of what I posted above), via tech we haven't even thought up yet.
Letterman freaking out over Vision Pro 😆 pic.twitter.com/kcVaGxCiw3
— Haldun (@haltor) February 8, 2024
Is the weight and thickness of a phone the primary concern of the consumer? You're assuming that phones haven't gotten thinner and lighter because they can't rather than people don't particularly care about that. I've seen more people beg for thicker phones with bigger batteries than I've seen dying to have a thinner phone.
Phones haven't gotten thinner or lighter relative to screen size, because very few people actually care about that. They'd rather have longer battery life, a better camera, a faster processor and the current size is large enough to be rigid and capable of housing new components as they're improved, but small enough not to be cumbersome.
Compare that to this device and what do you hear? It looks awesome and I'd buy one if it weren't so bulky and heavy. Is their primary concern the speed of the processor? No. Is it the quality of the video? No. Is it the fact there's a tether? No. It's that it's big and bulky. So where do you think the R&D is going to go?
And for the record the iPod was not revolutionary, iTunes (Napster for filthy pirates) was. The iPod was just the vehicle of delivery.
The iPhone wasn't revolutionary, the App Store and 3G was. The iPhone without the App Store was an expensive and fancy Blackberry that couldn't copy and paste or load web pages properly or quickly.
The iPad has never been and never will be revolutionary. It has never engendered excitement and the vast majority of them have lived and died primarily as a device to stream video and occasionally surf the web. The Apple Watch will be far more revolutionary long term than the iPad.
In terms of durable transformative technologies I wouldn't be surprised if the Vision Pro (or a similar device by another device maker) doesn't leap frog the iPhone/smartphone for supremacy, and that for a device that will persist into the future as impactful on society I'd say the Apple Watch has a pretty decent chance at surpassing the iPhone/smartphone as well.
Phones haven't gotten thinner or lighter relative to screen size, because very few people actually care about that. They'd rather have longer battery life, a better camera, a faster processor and the current size is large enough to be rigid and capable of housing new components as they're improved, but small enough not to be cumbersome.
Compare that to this device and what do you hear? It looks awesome and I'd buy one if it weren't so bulky and heavy. Is their primary concern the speed of the processor? No. Is it the quality of the video? No. Is it the fact there's a tether? No. It's that it's big and bulky. So where do you think the R&D is going to go?
And for the record the iPod was not revolutionary, iTunes (Napster for filthy pirates) was. The iPod was just the vehicle of delivery.
The iPhone wasn't revolutionary, the App Store and 3G was. The iPhone without the App Store was an expensive and fancy Blackberry that couldn't copy and paste or load web pages properly or quickly.
The iPad has never been and never will be revolutionary. It has never engendered excitement and the vast majority of them have lived and died primarily as a device to stream video and occasionally surf the web. The Apple Watch will be far more revolutionary long term than the iPad.
In terms of durable transformative technologies I wouldn't be surprised if the Vision Pro (or a similar device by another device maker) doesn't leap frog the iPhone/smartphone for supremacy, and that for a device that will persist into the future as impactful on society I'd say the Apple Watch has a pretty decent chance at surpassing the iPhone/smartphone as well.
We've also seen paper thin phone screen prototypes, it's kind of silly to think the tech won't evolve with more resources directed at a specific outcome.
And you actually incidentally touched on what could be the biggest success factor for the Vision Pro: the AppStore. You can buy a unit, connect it to wifi, and be instantly be up and running by adding apps in a way you're already totally familiar with.
And you actually incidentally touched on what could be the biggest success factor for the Vision Pro: the AppStore. You can buy a unit, connect it to wifi, and be instantly be up and running by adding apps in a way you're already totally familiar with.
tk for tu juan said:
Wireless transmission of "4k" video from a base unit to TV was shown by LG and Samsung at CES. Take VisionOS and R1 chip, put it in a Mac Mini (M2 chip or coming M3 version) form factor or smaller, and transmit one or two data streams to each display in a smaller, lighter headunit. No battery when at home, free to walk around with no wires, and most of the weight relocated to a base unit.
But why? The entire point of the architecture is to reduce latency between the cameras and the screens to produce a digital passthrough at a rate that is fast enough to be imperceptible and not cause motion sickness. You're creating a huge loop from cameras to wireless to base station wireless to processor to wireless to headset wireless to screen. I can't imagine that process being fast enough or reliable enough to get the necessary <20ms latency.
Rule number one for buying technology, always wait and buy the Second Gen.TCTTS said:
Basically, something along these lines is what I'm waiting for...And the animated version just for fun... pic.twitter.com/aPGoZoa0aG
— DailyTekk (@DailyTekk) February 8, 2024
Alright I changed my mind. Maybe I need one of these after all:
Possibly the best bathroom break your money can buy you👇🏾
— Agent (@MrAgentGPT) February 8, 2024
#AppleVisionPro pic.twitter.com/rP6RxzqX4C
Fixing cars will never be the same 🤯 pic.twitter.com/l1JYe5kale
— Min Choi (@minchoi) February 10, 2024
Then they better come out with an Apple torque wrench so I can click on the required torque in the manual and it automatically sets itself before tightening the bolt/nut.
Learning piano on Apple Vision Pro is next level pic.twitter.com/SlBNGA9iSY
— Historic Vids (@historyinmemes) February 11, 2024
This obviously serves no practical purpose, but man is it a cool effect...
There's an Apple Vision Pro app that let's you see the Matrix! pic.twitter.com/gxB55o2VNT
— Mike VRO (@vr_oasis) March 3, 2024
Reports from MacRumors and others that Apple is killing the Vision Pro line and focusing completely on a much cheaper, lighter version with fewer features. As predicted, the demand was not there to support a headset at this price point, and they're not able to substantially reduce the price and weight without cutting hardware. Supposedly they want to keep the microOLED panels, but that may prove difficult as they're the most expensive parts and make up almost 1/3 of the (rumored) desired price point of about $1600.
They've also cut production of the current Pro in half and cancelled orders for a lot of components. US demand cratered shortly after launch, and international demand is not expected to be very high.
They've also cut production of the current Pro in half and cancelled orders for a lot of components. US demand cratered shortly after launch, and international demand is not expected to be very high.
One slight correction... they're not "killing" the Vision Pro line. Its development has simply been pushed back to 2026. That said, I'm certainly interested to see how much lighter/cheaper the new non-Pro version ends up being...
Prior to the Vision Pro release, Apple shifted resources to the cheaper one, as I wrote earlier this year. Months ago, the Vision Pro 2 was postponed until the end of 2026 at the earliest so engineers could focus on low-end. Nothing has changed. https://t.co/rSU0xDZFvf
— Mark Gurman (@markgurman) June 19, 2024
Maybe. A lot of others saying they've been pulling engineers and resources and are delaying it indefinitely.
Gurman is about as reliable and as plugged in as they come. After all that, I just can't see Apple completely ditching the Pro line. They were developing both the cheaper model and the Pro 2 simultaneously, and it sounds like they've simply instead decided to now do one after the other. We shall see...
Yeah, I don't think they are killing the entire Vision Pro line. Rather, it sounds like instead of getting a "Vision Pro 2" we are more likely to get a "Vision" which is a scaled down version. Apple just released a bunch of new features last week, so it doesn't seem like they are abandoning the product entirely.
That said, the life of the Vision Pro has gone exactly the same way as every other VR headset before it. It comes out, people put it on and are amazed, and then a week later it's sitting in a drawer never to be touched again. I don't believe there's a market for VR. Possibly AR, once they get it down to a traditional pair of glasses.
That said, the life of the Vision Pro has gone exactly the same way as every other VR headset before it. It comes out, people put it on and are amazed, and then a week later it's sitting in a drawer never to be touched again. I don't believe there's a market for VR. Possibly AR, once they get it down to a traditional pair of glasses.
I was going to get the PlayStation VR. I decided not to because I was afraid my wife would take videos of me looking dumb playing VR games then post them on social media and make fun of me.
AustinAg2K said:
Yeah, I don't think they are killing the entire Vision Pro line. Rather, it sounds like instead of getting a "Vision Pro 2" we are more likely to get a "Vision" which is a scaled down version. Apple just released a bunch of new features last week, so it doesn't seem like they are abandoning the product entirely.
That said, the life of the Vision Pro has gone exactly the same way as every other VR headset before it. It comes out, people put it on and are amazed, and then a week later it's sitting in a drawer never to be touched again. I don't believe there's a market for VR. Possibly AR, once they get it down to a traditional pair of glasses.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, but this is the key. I would actually use the hell out of a VR/AR system once it's down to a manageable size (like what I posted earlier on this page back on 2/9). But right now, no matter how cool the software/experience is, as long as it's as bulky and awkward looking as it is now, no thanks. Unfortunately, I'm guessing we're going to have to wait until the end of this decade or so before it's anything like my 2/9 post exists, in the quality I'd be looking for.
Power On: Apple’s plan to expand the Vision Pro includes a cheaper model next year, a Vision Pro 2 as early as the year after and AR glasses after that. https://t.co/jNPC8SsnTa
— Mark Gurman (@markgurman) June 23, 2024
The "cheaper" version is still reportedly to be the same price as a high end iPhone. So $1500-2kish and this would be after cost-cutting measures to the hardware including switching to a cell phone processor, lower resolution, decreased FoV, and possibly dropping EyeSight. This thing is doa.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
It's going to be a process. No one is expecting any of these models to do big numbers or catch on yet. It's basically a multi-year, multi-iteration, consumer beta test. Then, at some point, it'll be small enough, cheap enough, and practical enough that it'll catch on, and when it does Apple will have been refining the experience for years, with all kinds of real-world user input.
Will it, though? At some point, you have physical limitations to what's possible. If anyone can do it, it would be Apple or Google but this feels like it's many years or decades out (if ever) from a cheap, small, practical model.TCTTS said:
It's going to be a process. No one is expecting any of these models to do big numbers or catch on yet. It's basically a multi-year, multi-iteration, consumer beta test. Then, at some point, it'll be small enough, cheap enough, and practical enough that it'll catch on, and when it does Apple will have been refining the experience for years, with all kinds of real-world user input.
Kind of agree and disagree.
Meta has sold millions upon millions of headsets, but yes they've struggled with long term engagement. There's a market, but it's kind of niche.
That said, that market gets really small at that ultrapremium price point. It's still going to be small at their cheaper price point. They may or may not have totally killed the Pro line, but it certainly seems like they're having development issues and could kill it on the future. If they're shifting resources to focus on a much cheaper version at less than half the price, I think the writing is probably on the wall that there's just no real market for a Pro line. I wouldn't be shocked if you're right and Apple is seeing very minimal usage data on what they have sold.
And that brings me to something I said very early on this thread. None of what Apple is doing is really revolutionary, and none of it addresses the fundamental obstacles to adoption. Even a version that's half the price with fewer features is going to run into the problem that it's not fundamentally different than anything else out there. People just don't want a headset on their face all the time. I think this is one of those situations where Apple thought they'd create a market for something people didn't know they wanted with a well put together product, but they missed the mark because they fundamentally misunderstood the problem.
Meta has sold millions upon millions of headsets, but yes they've struggled with long term engagement. There's a market, but it's kind of niche.
That said, that market gets really small at that ultrapremium price point. It's still going to be small at their cheaper price point. They may or may not have totally killed the Pro line, but it certainly seems like they're having development issues and could kill it on the future. If they're shifting resources to focus on a much cheaper version at less than half the price, I think the writing is probably on the wall that there's just no real market for a Pro line. I wouldn't be shocked if you're right and Apple is seeing very minimal usage data on what they have sold.
And that brings me to something I said very early on this thread. None of what Apple is doing is really revolutionary, and none of it addresses the fundamental obstacles to adoption. Even a version that's half the price with fewer features is going to run into the problem that it's not fundamentally different than anything else out there. People just don't want a headset on their face all the time. I think this is one of those situations where Apple thought they'd create a market for something people didn't know they wanted with a well put together product, but they missed the mark because they fundamentally misunderstood the problem.
Exactly. For this to really be adopted beyond niche groups, it needs to be the size of a pair of sunglasses. And it needs to look just like them too.
The technology is probably 15-20 years out. And frankly, it's a poor choice of engineering resources for such a distant product.
The technology is probably 15-20 years out. And frankly, it's a poor choice of engineering resources for such a distant product.
I said it a year ago, but I'll say it again:ABATTBQ11 said:
Kind of agree and disagree.
Meta has sold millions upon millions of headsets, but yes they've struggled with long term engagement. There's a market, but it's kind of niche.
That said, that market gets really small at that ultrapremium price point. It's still going to be small at their cheaper price point. They may or may not have totally killed the Pro line, but it certainly seems like they're having development issues and could kill it on the future. If they're shifting resources to focus on a much cheaper version at less than half the price, I think the writing is probably on the wall that there's just no real market for a Pro line. I wouldn't be shocked if you're right and Apple is seeing very minimal usage data on what they have sold.
And that brings me to something I said very early on this thread. None of what Apple is doing is really revolutionary, and none of it addresses the fundamental obstacles to adoption. Even a version that's half the price with fewer features is going to run into the problem that it's not fundamentally different than anything else out there. People just don't want a headset on their face all the time. I think this is one of those situations where Apple thought they'd create a market for something people didn't know they wanted with a well put together product, but they missed the mark because they fundamentally misunderstood the problem.
VR: The next big thing for the last 30 years!
TCTTS said:AustinAg2K said:
Yeah, I don't think they are killing the entire Vision Pro line. Rather, it sounds like instead of getting a "Vision Pro 2" we are more likely to get a "Vision" which is a scaled down version. Apple just released a bunch of new features last week, so it doesn't seem like they are abandoning the product entirely.
That said, the life of the Vision Pro has gone exactly the same way as every other VR headset before it. It comes out, people put it on and are amazed, and then a week later it's sitting in a drawer never to be touched again. I don't believe there's a market for VR. Possibly AR, once they get it down to a traditional pair of glasses.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, but this is the key. I would actually use the hell out of a VR/AR system once it's down to a manageable size (like what I posted earlier on this page back on 2/9). But right now, no matter how cool the software/experience is, as long as it's as bulky and awkward looking as it is now, no thanks. Unfortunately, I'm guessing we're going to have to wait until the end of this decade or so before it's anything like my 2/9 post exists, in the quality I'd be looking for.
The problem is that there are physical barriers to that kind of development with the quality you'd want. It's not really a question of, "Can you make it smaller economically," but, "Physics and biology say no."
The physics of lenses and light and the biology of the human eye dictate the size and shape of the lenses and their distance from the eye. It's not something that can just be engineered smaller or away. Probably the only way this gets any better is by combining the lenses with LEDs similar to how clear LED panels are made. That kind of miniaturization and 3D manufacturing is probably going to take a pretty long time though. I'd throw a wild *** guess at it and say 10 years.
That said, you'd still need a seal to keep light out and maintain immersion. Light leakage would ruin the VR experience. Either you have something like Google Glass or a headset. There's not a lot of option for in-between.
evan_aggie said:
Exactly. For this to really be adopted beyond niche groups, it needs to be the size of a pair of sunglasses. And it needs to look just like them too.
The technology is probably 15-20 years out. And frankly, it's a poor choice of engineering resources for such a distant product.
Kind of different use cases at that kind of form factor. You're talking non-immersive AR as opposed to VR or MR. Good luck watching a movie or show on that or doing a lot of the graphic productivity work Apple is trying to target.
Was easy to tell this product would flop in spite of the enormous influencer marketing campaign.
A very very small portion of the world wants to wear something on their face, and certain not ski goggles on a leash.
A very very small portion of the world wants to wear something on their face, and certain not ski goggles on a leash.
some of the feedback from users was that they didn't like these because the headset gave them feelings of isolation. big surprise...
Featured Stories
See All
Elko closes curtains on 'circus' with major culture shift in Year 1
by Olin Buchanan
11:45
5h ago
5.6k
Presenting Texas Aggies United's Aggies in Vegas Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
Legalize-It-Ags
SIAP - Likely Changes coming to Playoff Structure - Josh Pate
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
74