5 ms·

> The Apple Vision Pro is the Northstar the VR industry needed, whether we admit it or not I think that sums it up pretty well. More companies should launch pr

> The Apple Vision Pro is the Northstar the VR industry needed, whether we admit it or not I think that sums it up pretty well. More companies should launch products like that!

ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago
It's not though. It has all the problems of previous VR headsets. Heavy, digs into your face, gets warm and sweaty, field of view is limited.
- whynotminot 3y ago
  It has many of the problems, but it also has crucial improvements (mostly nails the user interface, vastly better pass-through, massively better screens). Did you read the article or just immediately come here to drop comments?
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    The author is also delusional, having pushed Oculus before VR was ready for the masses. It wasn't then. It isn't now. The technology won't be good enough for a decade.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      The Commodore 64 (or, staying on-brand, the Apple II) wasn't ready for the masses. Still if we hadn't had that, the computers that followed would have been worse due to not benefiting from lessons learned, built up user affinity etc. And being there it was hella interesting to see it develop. Most tech isn't born right for the masses. And without the pioneers it likely won't get there.
    - whynotminot 3y ago
      I don't think anyone is saying the AVP is a mass market product, and neither were the early Oculus products. VR as a category is niche. Apple will expand the public consciousness of it, but at $3,500 AVP is also niche. There's nothing wrong with that. If it takes a decade for the tech to be good enough so be it--I'll be glad people were innovating and experimenting in the interim to get it right, and that the folks willing to sign up as beta testers helped push progress forward. People get mad about this stuff--you don't have to buy it! I still haven't and probably won't until it feels more ready.
theodric 3y ago
Incomplete, with a poor launch app ecosystem, dependent on owning another of the company's devices to scan your head to get a rather variable quality of mask fit, and when that phone guesses wrong it costs the customer a further $300 for a second guess? As long as the fans keep paying, I suppose you're right.
- dylan604 3y ago
  you just described the first iPod, iPhone, and iPad. they were right about them. you could see where they would assume the magic would happen again just from hubris.
  - ulfw 3y ago
    None of them cost even half as much as this thing. What's with the endless comparisons with previous Apple products that were completely different in a completely different market and competitive environment.
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      They are being compared because the criticisms are the same or very similar. The iPhone was form over function, no keyboard, no apps, and too expensive. You can't even use a stylus with it! It doesn't do anything that my phone and ipod don't already do better. The iPad was absolutely roasted for just being a giant expensive iPhone with a dumb name, it doesn't even have its own apps. It doesn't do anything that my iPhone can't already do. The iMac was underpowered and overpriced, didn't even have a floppy drive, didn't have real connectors just something called USB that no one had ever heard of, it wasn't compatible with 99% of the software on the market. It doesn't do anything that my PC doesn't already do. We see all these products as unmitigated hits now, but at the time they launched, it was still very much up for debate.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      If you read the unwritten subtlety of the phrasing, you can see I'm not exactly comparing these devices. Instead, I'm providing an example of where the company's ego would allow them to think that whatever device they do release would eventually be a smash hit. I intentionally didn't list all of the ways these devices are not the same, as I assumed that the audience would be able to put 1+1 together. I guess I'm yet again reminded of why it is bad to assume

> The Apple Vision Pro is the Northstar the VR industry needed, whether we admit it or not I think that sums it up pretty well. More companies should launch products like that!

ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago

It's not though. It has all the problems of previous VR headsets. Heavy, digs into your face, gets warm and sweaty, field of view is limited.

whynotminot 3y ago
It has many of the problems, but it also has crucial improvements (mostly nails the user interface, vastly better pass-through, massively better screens). Did you read the article or just immediately come here to drop comments?
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  The author is also delusional, having pushed Oculus before VR was ready for the masses. It wasn't then. It isn't now. The technology won't be good enough for a decade.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    The Commodore 64 (or, staying on-brand, the Apple II) wasn't ready for the masses. Still if we hadn't had that, the computers that followed would have been worse due to not benefiting from lessons learned, built up user affinity etc. And being there it was hella interesting to see it develop. Most tech isn't born right for the masses. And without the pioneers it likely won't get there.
  - whynotminot 3y ago
    I don't think anyone is saying the AVP is a mass market product, and neither were the early Oculus products. VR as a category is niche. Apple will expand the public consciousness of it, but at $3,500 AVP is also niche. There's nothing wrong with that. If it takes a decade for the tech to be good enough so be it--I'll be glad people were innovating and experimenting in the interim to get it right, and that the folks willing to sign up as beta testers helped push progress forward. People get mad about this stuff--you don't have to buy it! I still haven't and probably won't until it feels more ready.

theodric 3y ago

Incomplete, with a poor launch app ecosystem, dependent on owning another of the company's devices to scan your head to get a rather variable quality of mask fit, and when that phone guesses wrong it costs the customer a further $300 for a second guess? As long as the fans keep paying, I suppose you're right.

dylan604 3y ago
you just described the first iPod, iPhone, and iPad. they were right about them. you could see where they would assume the magic would happen again just from hubris.
- ulfw 3y ago
  None of them cost even half as much as this thing. What's with the endless comparisons with previous Apple products that were completely different in a completely different market and competitive environment.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    They are being compared because the criticisms are the same or very similar. The iPhone was form over function, no keyboard, no apps, and too expensive. You can't even use a stylus with it! It doesn't do anything that my phone and ipod don't already do better. The iPad was absolutely roasted for just being a giant expensive iPhone with a dumb name, it doesn't even have its own apps. It doesn't do anything that my iPhone can't already do. The iMac was underpowered and overpriced, didn't even have a floppy drive, didn't have real connectors just something called USB that no one had ever heard of, it wasn't compatible with 99% of the software on the market. It doesn't do anything that my PC doesn't already do. We see all these products as unmitigated hits now, but at the time they launched, it was still very much up for debate.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    If you read the unwritten subtlety of the phrasing, you can see I'm not exactly comparing these devices. Instead, I'm providing an example of where the company's ego would allow them to think that whatever device they do release would eventually be a smash hit. I intentionally didn't list all of the ways these devices are not the same, as I assumed that the audience would be able to put 1+1 together. I guess I'm yet again reminded of why it is bad to assume