11 ms·

It would very obviously be useful for work if you can actually get high res, effectively unlimited monitor space. Maybe not for everyone, but people already spe

It would very obviously be useful for work if you can actually get high res, effectively unlimited monitor space. Maybe not for everyone, but people already spend $3500+ on monitor setups somewhat regularly (and employers definitely do this). Apple themselves sell a single monitor that costs $2300 when fully spec'd out (5k, but the point is that they know what people spend on monitors). I can't figure out why that wasn't the highlight of the demo, since that's just very clearly the easiest way to sell a $3500 device with this specific set of features. The recording video of a kid's birthday was one of the most ridiculous thing's I've ever seen. I'd maybe record my kid with something like this every once in a while, but I certainly wouldn't be wearing ski goggles while he blows out candles.

ray__ 3y ago
Yes, I agree with this. I'll only be buying one of these if it means I can replace my work displays with it–I'd happily pay the exorbitant price if it meant being able to have the equivalent of an unlimited high-res display anywhere, at any time. The lack of sub-pixel rendering on macOS means that I'm already forced to buy an expensive 5K display for every place that I plan to do work; a headset like this is a bargain in comparison. Obviously this means that the headset will have to be comfortable enough to use for long periods of time and have high enough resolution to compete with a hiDPI display. I doubt that this device will be able to deliver on both of those fronts.
dwhitney 3y ago
Yeah that was silly, but aren't all of the new iPhone cameras 3D cameras? People take photos/videos all of the time. Now you can immerse yourself in them. I think it's pretty cool
- bredren 3y ago
  Presumably the current and next iPhone Pros can capture 3D video. I don’t know why this wouldn’t have been ridiculous, because it really is ridiculous to suggest this would be worn by a parent during a young child’s happy birthday singing and blowing out the candles. This idea seemed like way too much of a stretch for this intro. They had to know this, so I am very curious what the reasoning was for why they included it.
  - xp84 3y ago
    Current iPhone Pros? How would they? Their cameras are super close together and different focal lengths (or whatever the correct term is for "they're 1x, 3x and 0.5x"). I share your immediate skepticism that wearing one of these during any moments you'd like to relive later seems preposterous. May as well just be DVRing the "moments" with your goggles and be watching a movie on the inside, because that's how present you would seem. Unless the entire family all had their goggles on ("Apple Vision Pro Family, starting at $9,999!") and you are all actually experiencing a remote moment virtually!
    - jkestner 3y ago
      iPhones Pro also have a LiDAR scanner on the back.
  - derefr 3y ago
    > I don’t know why this wouldn’t have been ridiculous, because it really is ridiculous to suggest this would be worn by a parent during a young child’s happy birthday singing and blowing out the candles. Do you not remember the 1970s-1980s, when "filming home movies" meant resting a 50lbs camcorder on your shoulder and looking through the eyepiece in a way that blocks anyone from seeing 75% of your head?
    - partiallypro 3y ago
      Too bad we now live in the 2020s where no one wants to do that or look stupid doing that. A camera strapped to your face and you having to move your own face/body to zoom into something is way more ridiculous than the camcorders of those eras.
      - derefr 3y ago
        People generally didn't want to look stupid back then, either. But dads finding ways to combine "being excited about their kids" with "nerding out about new technology" have eternally been the exception to the "people don't want to look stupid" rule.
coryfklein 3y ago
This "unlimited monitor space" is a complete non-selling point for me. Being a wealthy software engineer, my monitor space is not bottlenecked by my budget or desk space, but by my literal neck. Constantly rotating my head back and forth from one monitor to another is, quite literally, a pain. For me the sweet spot is a single curved monitor right in front of me. If I need more "desktop space" I add another Space with Mission Control. And with keyboard shortcuts I can move between Spaces nearly as fast as I can rotate my head around. So what am I going to do with a VR headset if I ever got one? Put the active app straight in front of me just like I do with my normal monitor. I'm not going to put my terminal at some odd angle 25° above my head and crane my head back when I want to run a command in it. I won't put the Weather app 90° to my right, obscuring what is currently a nice picture window looking out on my yard. For me, VR needs that "killer app" to justify the high pricing and inconvenience of use, and I just don't see one yet. I don't expect one any time soon either; if VR was going to get a killer app, it would have shown up by now.
- threeseed 3y ago
  Most developers don't have mobility issues. They have 2 / 3 large monitors (or laptop + monitor). And so in this case they have the ability to access them anywhere, anytime.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    Not wanting to turn your head 90 degrees to see your 13th monitor is not a "mobility issue".
    - threeseed 3y ago
      Or you could not be ridiculous and just use 2 or 3 monitors like everyone does today. At least you have the option to put monitors above and below as well. And completely swap configurations for different use cases e.g. coding versus gaming.
      - zippergz 3y ago
yowzadave 3y ago
The tech on this thing is so cool and so useless! People will buy them, try them out, and then a month later realize they didn't actually use it at all and return them to the store.
- keymon-o 3y ago
  Most people buy products because they are usable, not useful. There is crazy amount of tech available today, and people strive to own most of them. The decision to purchase is usually based on wheter we can afford it and wether we will find some use for it. The mere fact that goggles will enable users to communicate and consume media just as they can with devices they already own, will be the key argument to purchase this expensive headset. But this incremental improvement we get after purchase of each-time-more-polished device finacnces future inventions and innovations, and then after some number iteration we get something that is truly useful. At least that's the trend I noticed regarding every tech breakthrough and hype in this century.
bredren 3y ago
I am OP on the XDR Pro Display owner’s thread over in the Macrumors Forums. Last week I asked XDR owners about their thoughts for possibly replacing their high end XDR monitor(s) with virtual displays in the Apple Vision Pro (I called it Apple Reality) The question and replies cover some of the considerations around this replacement and there are ongoing replies now that some of the specs are known: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/pro-display-xdr-owners-thread.2242790/page-36?post=32205280#post-32205280 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/pro-display-xdr-owners-...
deergomoo 3y ago
> It would very obviously be useful for work if you can actually get high res Is it even that high res for detailed monitor work? 4K per eye yes, but for your entire field of view. Does that meet Apple’s definition of a “retina display”? I currently sit a few feet away from a 5K display, that’s way more pixels per degree of FoV. Same goes for movie and TV watching. I sit maybe 8 feet away from a 4K 55” TV and I can absolutely tell the difference between 1080p and 4K. Surely the equivalent “projected” display on this thing is gonna be 1080 or lower? Of course, as one of those 30% of people with myopia they referenced earlier in the video, I dread to think how much extra it would cost to be able to see anything at all through this thing.
- TimTheTinker 3y ago
  Keep in mind that the display processor utilizes a foveated rendering pipeline, which appears to concentrate the highest resolution rendering where your eyes are focusing. That doesn't speak to the overall resolution of the per-eye screens, however.
  - ehnto 3y ago
    This doesn't increase pixel density at the point it is rendering, since that id a limit of physical pixels. Instead it decreases the rendering resolution of peripheral vision, but even that still has the same physical pixel density. I am pretty certain 4k per eye still isn't enough for monitor like text rendering but it is pretty good.
- automatic6131 3y ago
  >4K per eye yes I think what's missed here, in the absence of any better specs, is that they're saying "better than 4K per eye!" without mentioning that 4k refers to 3840x2160, and that it's the vertical dimension that they've exceeded. So > 2160x2160 per eye. Pretty good but not even close to good enough for a floating screen of text
  - wrasee 3y ago
    They actually said 23 million pixels over both panels. So if taking that as 11.5 million each then at an equivalent aspect ratio that would be something like 4550 * 2560 per eye. Right?
sizzle 3y ago
Yeah the kids playing scene felt like a clip from Black Mirror. I would never want to relive memories like that when I can just go hug my kid, and if they weren’t alive it would destroy my mental health to see them in that high fidelity without being able to hug them. What a strange demo.
- cjbprime 3y ago
  It felt like strong "I am recently divorced, and also a parent of young children" vibes throughout. There was the value comparison to a large TV and surround sound system, which is only valid if both your home theater and AR device have the same audience size (to divide the cost by) of one person.
- sooheon 3y ago
  The vast majority of families are multi-city, and many are multinational. I don't see anything wrong with trying to improve on FaceTime, since millions of people already use that every day.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    Then they should focus their marketing on that, not make boneheaded choices like this: https://twitter.com/jenskstyve/status/1666027793971396608 https://twitter.com/jenskstyve/status/1666027793971396608
    - sizzle 3y ago
      I love this! Thanks for putting my words into image.
foobiekr 3y ago
Most VR goggles eventually cause pretty significant eyestrain due to vergence-accommodation conflict [1] and other issues all of which get significantly worse the closer to the user the virtual objects are. Apple's display is, I guess, in best-of-class, but they have no special sauce at all on this, and no physical IPD adjustment at all, and so this device as previewed is basically only useful for media consumption and maybe something like a telepresence meeting, albeit not long duration. Without controllers it's unlikely to even work well for most games. Basically this is the best of a huge crowd of not very good VR helmets with probably industry-leading AR camera-based passthrough. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflic...
- MacsHeadroom 3y ago
  The Vision Pro demo clearly showed physical IPD adjustment multiple times.
  - scheeseman486 3y ago
    IPD isn't that, they're talking about focus. All current VR headsets are focused at a fixed distance, typically around 2 meters away though earlier headsets focused to infinity. Anything outside of the 2m distance can look incorrect and it causes visual weirdness like depth of focus blur to instead look uncannily sharp. Not fixable without varifocal lenses which adjust focus depending on what your eyes are looking at.
    - MacsHeadroom 3y ago
      No I'm talking about IPD. Maybe someone else is talking about focus? In the demo they showed a break out of the device which showed adjustable IPD width, with the displays sliding on little rods similar to many other HMDs.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
bigthymer 3y ago
I can see how that would be a popular application. I imagine a software engineer that was forcefully returned back to the office would love the ability to have unlimited computer screens hidden from the prying eyes of busybodies around the office.
crossroadsguy 3y ago
I am not a fan of even the look of this thing but I am not sure why people are just talking about room and work. I think people will just buy it and watch films when lying down on their beds or sideways, when on the commode, or when commuting on a bus seat (assuming power delivery is sorted - and yeah if everything needed for it is portable enough).
- rchaud 3y ago
  They'll do it on a $400 tablet, not something that costs 2 months' rent.
agumonkey 3y ago
I feel the same, like glass, it has some real work (or peculiar situations) value, where augmenting the information at hand for important tasks would be a massive leverage. Electrical work, repair, medicine..
ramblenode 3y ago
> It would very obviously be useful for work if you can actually get high res, effectively unlimited monitor space. Very big "if". I already notice visual artifacting in REPLs on 1080p displays at 60FPS. That's nothing compared to the aliasing issues facing stereoscopic virtual displays. I can't imagine wanting to do hours of focused work staring at objects in an aliased virtual world. Could still be a useful for travel.
eterevsky 3y ago
That would be a valid use case, but it's hard to imagine that this headset is miles ahead of all existing ones in resolution and clarity. In all present-day headset even simple tasks involving text are a challenge. They just can't legibly render more than ~10 lines of text in your field of view. To compete with monitors for day-to-day tasks, the perceived resolution has to improve by an order of magnitude.
bufferoverflow 3y ago
> but people already spend $3500+ on monitor setups somewhat regularly I don't know a single person who has such an expensive monitor (or a set of monitors). And none of my employers, current or past, would ever agree to spend that much on a monitor setup. You can buy a 4K OLED monitor for a fraction of that.
- alexalx666 3y ago
  Pro Display XDR costs around 7000 euros in Germany
  - bufferoverflow 3y ago
    And how many people do you know that own it? This is a very niche device for photo or video editing.
Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
The catch is, they might have an impressive display of unlimited size, but it is still likely to be tied to locked down iOS (or whatever they call it on Vision devices), so the selection of productivity apps and their capabilities will probably be very limited.
- mihaaly 3y ago
  Except when they find a way mirroring the Mac's desktop in this environment on a nice way. Straight up 'external display' mode (more like external 3D space), but with less constraints on how to position the windows and the taskbar ... and consequently more trouble on navigating among those. Desktop icons might be a burden too, also wonder what to do with fullscreen mode. Anyway, if one app was used on its OS for mirroring the Mac environment on a nice way, that could be enough for me.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
    I feel that this feature looks more like Continuity than real desktop/app mirroring. You'll likely have to have a corresponding app installed on the device to run it this way.
mnky9800n 3y ago
the second I want to show any of my colleagues what I'm working on to get a question answered I need a headset for each of them. That kind of kills the whole idea of VR goggles in general.
antigirl 3y ago
4k monitor at 27 inches costs less than 400 dollars. Unless its 10 bit with 1ms response time for gaming. Who is spending $3500 on monitor setups besides gamers?
- reaperducer 3y ago
  The same people who spend $50,000 on home theater gear, or buy a house based on the size of the "man cave." I've met sports gamblers who have a dozen or more flat screens on a wall so they can fully indulge in their addiction^w hobby.
pelorat 3y ago
My 27" $500 monitor smokes anything Apple has ever produced in the monitor space.
jen729w 3y ago
2007: ‘There’s no way I’d watch my kid’s entire school play through a 4” screen just so that I could get a recording of it.’ 2023: ‘I certainly wouldn't be wearing ski goggles while he blows out candles.’ We — perhaps not you, but humans — have shown a remarkable preference for watching the live event through a tiny screen so that we can have a recording of it for later.
- ric2b 3y ago
  When I record something that I also want live I don't watch it through the screen, I just glance at the screen occasionally to make sure it's still pointed correctly.

ray__ 3y ago

Yes, I agree with this. I'll only be buying one of these if it means I can replace my work displays with it–I'd happily pay the exorbitant price if it meant being able to have the equivalent of an unlimited high-res display anywhere, at any time. The lack of sub-pixel rendering on macOS means that I'm already forced to buy an expensive 5K display for every place that I plan to do work; a headset like this is a bargain in comparison. Obviously this means that the headset will have to be comfortable enough to use for long periods of time and have high enough resolution to compete with a hiDPI display. I doubt that this device will be able to deliver on both of those fronts.

dwhitney 3y ago

Yeah that was silly, but aren't all of the new iPhone cameras 3D cameras? People take photos/videos all of the time. Now you can immerse yourself in them. I think it's pretty cool

bredren 3y ago
Presumably the current and next iPhone Pros can capture 3D video. I don’t know why this wouldn’t have been ridiculous, because it really is ridiculous to suggest this would be worn by a parent during a young child’s happy birthday singing and blowing out the candles. This idea seemed like way too much of a stretch for this intro. They had to know this, so I am very curious what the reasoning was for why they included it.
- xp84 3y ago
  Current iPhone Pros? How would they? Their cameras are super close together and different focal lengths (or whatever the correct term is for "they're 1x, 3x and 0.5x"). I share your immediate skepticism that wearing one of these during any moments you'd like to relive later seems preposterous. May as well just be DVRing the "moments" with your goggles and be watching a movie on the inside, because that's how present you would seem. Unless the entire family all had their goggles on ("Apple Vision Pro Family, starting at $9,999!") and you are all actually experiencing a remote moment virtually!
  - jkestner 3y ago
    iPhones Pro also have a LiDAR scanner on the back.
- derefr 3y ago
  > I don’t know why this wouldn’t have been ridiculous, because it really is ridiculous to suggest this would be worn by a parent during a young child’s happy birthday singing and blowing out the candles. Do you not remember the 1970s-1980s, when "filming home movies" meant resting a 50lbs camcorder on your shoulder and looking through the eyepiece in a way that blocks anyone from seeing 75% of your head?
  - partiallypro 3y ago
    Too bad we now live in the 2020s where no one wants to do that or look stupid doing that. A camera strapped to your face and you having to move your own face/body to zoom into something is way more ridiculous than the camcorders of those eras.
    - derefr 3y ago
      People generally didn't want to look stupid back then, either. But dads finding ways to combine "being excited about their kids" with "nerding out about new technology" have eternally been the exception to the "people don't want to look stupid" rule.

coryfklein 3y ago

This "unlimited monitor space" is a complete non-selling point for me. Being a wealthy software engineer, my monitor space is not bottlenecked by my budget or desk space, but by my literal neck. Constantly rotating my head back and forth from one monitor to another is, quite literally, a pain. For me the sweet spot is a single curved monitor right in front of me. If I need more "desktop space" I add another Space with Mission Control. And with keyboard shortcuts I can move between Spaces nearly as fast as I can rotate my head around. So what am I going to do with a VR headset if I ever got one? Put the active app straight in front of me just like I do with my normal monitor. I'm not going to put my terminal at some odd angle 25° above my head and crane my head back when I want to run a command in it. I won't put the Weather app 90° to my right, obscuring what is currently a nice picture window looking out on my yard. For me, VR needs that "killer app" to justify the high pricing and inconvenience of use, and I just don't see one yet. I don't expect one any time soon either; if VR was going to get a killer app, it would have shown up by now.

threeseed 3y ago
Most developers don't have mobility issues. They have 2 / 3 large monitors (or laptop + monitor). And so in this case they have the ability to access them anywhere, anytime.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Not wanting to turn your head 90 degrees to see your 13th monitor is not a "mobility issue".
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Or you could not be ridiculous and just use 2 or 3 monitors like everyone does today. At least you have the option to put monitors above and below as well. And completely swap configurations for different use cases e.g. coding versus gaming.
    - zippergz 3y ago

yowzadave 3y ago

The tech on this thing is so cool and so useless! People will buy them, try them out, and then a month later realize they didn't actually use it at all and return them to the store.

keymon-o 3y ago
Most people buy products because they are usable, not useful. There is crazy amount of tech available today, and people strive to own most of them. The decision to purchase is usually based on wheter we can afford it and wether we will find some use for it. The mere fact that goggles will enable users to communicate and consume media just as they can with devices they already own, will be the key argument to purchase this expensive headset. But this incremental improvement we get after purchase of each-time-more-polished device finacnces future inventions and innovations, and then after some number iteration we get something that is truly useful. At least that's the trend I noticed regarding every tech breakthrough and hype in this century.

bredren 3y ago

I am OP on the XDR Pro Display owner’s thread over in the Macrumors Forums. Last week I asked XDR owners about their thoughts for possibly replacing their high end XDR monitor(s) with virtual displays in the Apple Vision Pro (I called it Apple Reality) The question and replies cover some of the considerations around this replacement and there are ongoing replies now that some of the specs are known: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/pro-display-xdr-owners-thread.2242790/page-36?post=32205280#post-32205280 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/pro-display-xdr-owners-...

deergomoo 3y ago

> It would very obviously be useful for work if you can actually get high res Is it even that high res for detailed monitor work? 4K per eye yes, but for your entire field of view. Does that meet Apple’s definition of a “retina display”? I currently sit a few feet away from a 5K display, that’s way more pixels per degree of FoV. Same goes for movie and TV watching. I sit maybe 8 feet away from a 4K 55” TV and I can absolutely tell the difference between 1080p and 4K. Surely the equivalent “projected” display on this thing is gonna be 1080 or lower? Of course, as one of those 30% of people with myopia they referenced earlier in the video, I dread to think how much extra it would cost to be able to see anything at all through this thing.

TimTheTinker 3y ago
Keep in mind that the display processor utilizes a foveated rendering pipeline, which appears to concentrate the highest resolution rendering where your eyes are focusing. That doesn't speak to the overall resolution of the per-eye screens, however.
- ehnto 3y ago
  This doesn't increase pixel density at the point it is rendering, since that id a limit of physical pixels. Instead it decreases the rendering resolution of peripheral vision, but even that still has the same physical pixel density. I am pretty certain 4k per eye still isn't enough for monitor like text rendering but it is pretty good.
automatic6131 3y ago
>4K per eye yes I think what's missed here, in the absence of any better specs, is that they're saying "better than 4K per eye!" without mentioning that 4k refers to 3840x2160, and that it's the vertical dimension that they've exceeded. So > 2160x2160 per eye. Pretty good but not even close to good enough for a floating screen of text
- wrasee 3y ago
  They actually said 23 million pixels over both panels. So if taking that as 11.5 million each then at an equivalent aspect ratio that would be something like 4550 * 2560 per eye. Right?

sizzle 3y ago

Yeah the kids playing scene felt like a clip from Black Mirror. I would never want to relive memories like that when I can just go hug my kid, and if they weren’t alive it would destroy my mental health to see them in that high fidelity without being able to hug them. What a strange demo.

cjbprime 3y ago
It felt like strong "I am recently divorced, and also a parent of young children" vibes throughout. There was the value comparison to a large TV and surround sound system, which is only valid if both your home theater and AR device have the same audience size (to divide the cost by) of one person.
sooheon 3y ago
The vast majority of families are multi-city, and many are multinational. I don't see anything wrong with trying to improve on FaceTime, since millions of people already use that every day.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  Then they should focus their marketing on that, not make boneheaded choices like this: https://twitter.com/jenskstyve/status/1666027793971396608 https://twitter.com/jenskstyve/status/1666027793971396608
  - sizzle 3y ago
    I love this! Thanks for putting my words into image.

foobiekr 3y ago

Most VR goggles eventually cause pretty significant eyestrain due to vergence-accommodation conflict [1] and other issues all of which get significantly worse the closer to the user the virtual objects are. Apple's display is, I guess, in best-of-class, but they have no special sauce at all on this, and no physical IPD adjustment at all, and so this device as previewed is basically only useful for media consumption and maybe something like a telepresence meeting, albeit not long duration. Without controllers it's unlikely to even work well for most games. Basically this is the best of a huge crowd of not very good VR helmets with probably industry-leading AR camera-based passthrough. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflic...

MacsHeadroom 3y ago
The Vision Pro demo clearly showed physical IPD adjustment multiple times.
- scheeseman486 3y ago
  IPD isn't that, they're talking about focus. All current VR headsets are focused at a fixed distance, typically around 2 meters away though earlier headsets focused to infinity. Anything outside of the 2m distance can look incorrect and it causes visual weirdness like depth of focus blur to instead look uncannily sharp. Not fixable without varifocal lenses which adjust focus depending on what your eyes are looking at.
  - MacsHeadroom 3y ago
    No I'm talking about IPD. Maybe someone else is talking about focus? In the demo they showed a break out of the device which showed adjustable IPD width, with the displays sliding on little rods similar to many other HMDs.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

bigthymer 3y ago

I can see how that would be a popular application. I imagine a software engineer that was forcefully returned back to the office would love the ability to have unlimited computer screens hidden from the prying eyes of busybodies around the office.

crossroadsguy 3y ago

I am not a fan of even the look of this thing but I am not sure why people are just talking about room and work. I think people will just buy it and watch films when lying down on their beds or sideways, when on the commode, or when commuting on a bus seat (assuming power delivery is sorted - and yeah if everything needed for it is portable enough).

rchaud 3y ago
They'll do it on a $400 tablet, not something that costs 2 months' rent.

agumonkey 3y ago

I feel the same, like glass, it has some real work (or peculiar situations) value, where augmenting the information at hand for important tasks would be a massive leverage. Electrical work, repair, medicine..

ramblenode 3y ago

> It would very obviously be useful for work if you can actually get high res, effectively unlimited monitor space. Very big "if". I already notice visual artifacting in REPLs on 1080p displays at 60FPS. That's nothing compared to the aliasing issues facing stereoscopic virtual displays. I can't imagine wanting to do hours of focused work staring at objects in an aliased virtual world. Could still be a useful for travel.

eterevsky 3y ago

That would be a valid use case, but it's hard to imagine that this headset is miles ahead of all existing ones in resolution and clarity. In all present-day headset even simple tasks involving text are a challenge. They just can't legibly render more than ~10 lines of text in your field of view. To compete with monitors for day-to-day tasks, the perceived resolution has to improve by an order of magnitude.

bufferoverflow 3y ago

> but people already spend $3500+ on monitor setups somewhat regularly I don't know a single person who has such an expensive monitor (or a set of monitors). And none of my employers, current or past, would ever agree to spend that much on a monitor setup. You can buy a 4K OLED monitor for a fraction of that.

alexalx666 3y ago
Pro Display XDR costs around 7000 euros in Germany
- bufferoverflow 3y ago
  And how many people do you know that own it? This is a very niche device for photo or video editing.

Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago

The catch is, they might have an impressive display of unlimited size, but it is still likely to be tied to locked down iOS (or whatever they call it on Vision devices), so the selection of productivity apps and their capabilities will probably be very limited.

mihaaly 3y ago
Except when they find a way mirroring the Mac's desktop in this environment on a nice way. Straight up 'external display' mode (more like external 3D space), but with less constraints on how to position the windows and the taskbar ... and consequently more trouble on navigating among those. Desktop icons might be a burden too, also wonder what to do with fullscreen mode. Anyway, if one app was used on its OS for mirroring the Mac environment on a nice way, that could be enough for me.
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  I feel that this feature looks more like Continuity than real desktop/app mirroring. You'll likely have to have a corresponding app installed on the device to run it this way.

mnky9800n 3y ago

the second I want to show any of my colleagues what I'm working on to get a question answered I need a headset for each of them. That kind of kills the whole idea of VR goggles in general.

antigirl 3y ago

4k monitor at 27 inches costs less than 400 dollars. Unless its 10 bit with 1ms response time for gaming. Who is spending $3500 on monitor setups besides gamers?

reaperducer 3y ago
The same people who spend $50,000 on home theater gear, or buy a house based on the size of the "man cave." I've met sports gamblers who have a dozen or more flat screens on a wall so they can fully indulge in their addiction^w hobby.

pelorat 3y ago

My 27" $500 monitor smokes anything Apple has ever produced in the monitor space.

jen729w 3y ago

2007: ‘There’s no way I’d watch my kid’s entire school play through a 4” screen just so that I could get a recording of it.’ 2023: ‘I certainly wouldn't be wearing ski goggles while he blows out candles.’ We — perhaps not you, but humans — have shown a remarkable preference for watching the live event through a tiny screen so that we can have a recording of it for later.

ric2b 3y ago
When I record something that I also want live I don't watch it through the screen, I just glance at the screen occasionally to make sure it's still pointed correctly.