for purely professional usage, it&#x27;s still fine. But it&#x27;ll remain quite niche.

We didn’t get the car but we got the price tag.

No. But it&#x27;s an outrageous price for a redundant product that most people will not purchase. I don&#x27;t see any meaningful market leverage for Apple here relative to Meta - if the selling point for this is &quot;experiences, plus iPhone apps&quot; then everyone with an iPhone will get a Quest or similar and save a few thousand bucks.

It might be, but you still need the MacBook Pro if you want to use this as a Mac. So this is just the display, that can access some iPad apps.Although I still think it&#x27;s pretty awesome, need to give it a few years and see the price come down and a few versions later, this tech will be very interesting in the 5-10 year time space, what a crazy time that is going to be with AI and all this stuff.

I&#x27;ll believe it when I see Xcode running on the thing. Plus I would not want to be seen around wearing that thing.

Of course if we lie to ourselves. It&#x27;s just an iOS app browser inside Oculus Quest like product + Disney content.

I suppose if you think of it as a high-end MacBook Pro + display, it’s an easier pill to swallow.

It&#x27;s just disappointing when we know they can easily afford to go Fairchild and hit $2k to help commoditize it a little

Apple won&#x27;t have the supply chain to make this a consumer product for years.So it makes no sense to price it at $399.

I don&#x27;t think this is a revolution but it might be a good enough improvement over existing&#x2F;previous XR devices.It certainly seems better than Microsoft Hololens. Basically the same idea but with higher end hardware and more refined.This does not look like to be a turning point either way, it is priced out of mass market adoption, but it will be an interesting toy for many.

A high end VR&#x2F;XR display like Varjo does feel like a new ux paradigm if the device has low latency and high resolution and good software. Given how long Apple has been at this I would bet they’ve come up with something that is of expected quality.Some of the stuff on display felt gimmicky, but I would imagine as bare minimum there are lot of people who are happy to have a private huge 4k screen they can move anywhere.

Into an ecosystem where people buy a $1000 watch, $1000 phone, $200 earphones, and a $2000 computer.There is absolutely a market for this, the demo experiences are extraordinary.I have no idea what the Meta experience is like, but even in ignorance, it&#x27;s not like what this thing is doing.They were correct in saying this is something only Apple can do.There are a lot of isolated technophiles with money to burn to put into something like this. The idea of lifting your mac into space with nothing but a keyboard and mouse in front of you alone is enough for many to pop for this. Talk about bringing your office into the local Starbucks, this moves it to the next level.

3499. Could this finally be the turning point and beginning of collapse of Apple?

&gt; Starts at $3499Thar she bloooows!

$3499 USD prices this way beyond the grasp of everyone but a small minority of enthusiasts and professionals.In a world of $1000 cellphones, $2000 computers and $40k cars, I wouldn&#x27;t be so sure. I suspect if the prices do stay this high, it&#x27;ll get priced on a monthly like how many people pay for their phones or cars.

Presumably, they would go the SE route where the Pro model retains highest performance and price while the SE model inherits the tech from past generations.

&gt; $3499 USD prices this way beyond the grasp of everyone but a small minority of enthusiasts and professionals.That&#x27;s a really bizarre thing to say. People will literally spend that on a fancy watch. They will spend 30 times that on a car.

I’ll go out on a limb and say it will be far more popular than people think. I’m ready to preorder one (although perhaps I fall into the enthusiast &amp; early adopter category).This can’t be compared to other headsets out there, and is rather in an entirely different product category.

Compared to what you are (potentially) getting for the price it&#x27;s not that high - especially when viewed as a work tool or business expense. You can easily pay more for tech it could replace, like monitors, headphones, speakers, lower-end laptops and desktops even.The only drawback I can see is the 2h battery and potential fatigue from wearing something on your head, near the eyes for longer periods of time. Maybe that&#x27;ll be a non-issue? Will have to wait and see.

It’s effectively a nonstarter. $3499 USD prices this way beyond the grasp of everyone but a small minority of enthusiasts and professionals.And considering Apple isn’t really known for dropping product prices as the years go by, all this really does is tell us that the tech just isn’t ready for mass production yet.I’m considering this, like Google Glass, to be a neat proof-of-concept.

1977 Apple ][ Introductory price US$1,298 (equivalent to $6,270 in 2022)I think folks are missing the point that this is the first Pro version. Likely targeted at developers and early adopters. I’m sure there will be an Air&#x2F;Lite&#x2F;etc version that cost reduces overtime.

$3499 is a high price, but if Apple can deliver, this might just be the next iPhone-like product.

Not for a while, but this is v1. When they’re cheaper, smaller and lighter who knows

At 3500 this will be niche at best. They&#x27;ll sell half the units of Watch Ultra if they&#x27;re lucky.

I think more iPad level. A successful product, but not something everyone will have.

I can’t wait to see the second generation. And with Apple giving some good attention to game developers, the possibilities are incredibly interesting!

The original iPhone was also a bit of a waste of money so that doesn&#x27;t really disprove their point.

&gt; tiresome multiscreen development environment...that fits in your bag. This is huge for folks like me that want to travel without lugging around a large display. If the visual integrity is there, it&#x27;s gonna be worth it for me.

This first version sure but if they&#x27;re able to bring the costs down and maintain the relative power it&#x27;s a pretty neat implementation of the idea.

&gt; It won&#x27;t. Sadly. Can&#x27;t justify spending 3K on... family calls, tiresome multiscreen development environment, finally - games? Won&#x27;t happen unfortunately.You missed one, porn.

The scope for games on this is pretty narrow without the dual independently tracked controllers you get with the Quest&#x2F;PSVR&#x2F;etc.They&#x27;d have to work with hand tracking (low accuracy, no buttons or sticks, no haptics) or a conventional console controller (limited immersion).Nearly all existing VR games are built around dual controllers and would need significant reworking&#x2F;compromises to be playable on the Vision Pro.

It won&#x27;t. Sadly. Can&#x27;t justify spending 3K on... family calls, tiresome multiscreen development environment, finally - games? Won&#x27;t happen unfortunately.

Usually Apple comes along and builds it so well that people will actually start using it. Oculus and the others are still a pretty niche thing.

&gt; ... bring the powerful capabilities of their Mac into Vision Pro wirelessly, creating an enormous, private, and portable 4K display with incredibly crisp text.If this &quot;incredibly crisp text&quot; is true, then I want it. Nobody has done this yet.

People are going to reply to you and say &quot;what made the iPod different from the Nomad&quot;... inarguably the iPod was hugely successful where the Nomad wasn&#x27;t.I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s a great comparison. The MP3 players in the pre-iPod era were all made by tiny players no-one had heard of. The Oculus in particular has absolutely massive backing and still hasn&#x27;t amounted to a lot.I suspect the differentiator will be software, not hardware. In particular the willingness of third parties to create software. Apple has a good record there at least.

The sweat box is actively cooled this time. I&#x27;m concerned about the price as well though, even if it is fantastic beyond all expectations of what was presented that&#x27;s a really hard price for most to justify for the feature set shown. Showing things like true and proper Disney+ integration day 1 gives hope for big name support vs just special one off demos for headsets of the past though. At the same time, they are going to need a lot more properly integrated apps for it to reach success status.

Most VR so far has been designed to isolate you from your surrounding environment, and is the opposite. Also the ability to use it without controllers makes the whole thing feel less intrusive&#x2F;burdensome to use.

I think the:- existing apple ecosystem;- the fact that this looks far more AR focused than the VR focused stuff I&#x27;ve currently seen;- the public&#x27;s perception of the Apple brand and its build quality (questionable if real, but an undeniable public perception nonetheless) could get around the &quot;ugly sweat box&quot; vibe you&#x27;ve described;- the willingness for app-makers to build for the ecosystem;- the 4k and (apparent) visual quality;...could make this successful, or at least iPad-like in terms of dominating a market.Hard to know for sure though until we get some actual reviews and footage of people wearing it.

I have an Oculus2 and a PSVR2, and the Apple headset seems like an entirely different thing. It&#x27;s meant to replace your mac computer and your tv.Yes with the headsets I have, you can surf the web and technically try to write code, but it&#x27;s not a good experience. And those displays basically still suck. You can see the pixels, and the lenses create weird effects. If Apple has solved this, and the presence of the screen and lenses is just &quot;forgotten&quot;, it&#x27;s going to be a huge step forward. It&#x27;ll be a device to actually be productive on, let alone watch movies and play games, IMO.

The difference is the AR, which will eventually make it wearable in everyday life. When setting the perimeter, the Oculus already shows the surrounding using it&#x27;s integrated cameras. This will be the future. I don&#x27;t think the first version of Apple&#x27;s AR mask will be a huge success, because it still looks too dorky. But in a few years you will see many people wearing sunglasses that double as phone screens all the time.

My take would be that it would be Apples track record of making software work well with the hardware, more seamlessly than either Samsung or Meta.Just look at the virtual avatar they demoed compared with Meta’s. Apple went with a more professional looking avatar instead of a cartoony one.Another app that was shown was a Birds Eye view of a basketball game. I’d love to be able to watch a sporting event live from that perspective (if I could stomach the entry fee for the experience).I was on the fence about this product, thinking that there wouldn’t be many good use cases, but their presentation gave some activities that I’d want to try on the hardware. Whereas Meta’s presentation didn’t show anything I was interested in.Apple is giving developers 6+ months to make even more interesting apps. I think there’s a good chance that this could be a successful product. But I should hold my judgement until I’ve seen the caveats of this device (ie comfort, battery life, display quality, etc). I’m sure we’ll see more in-depth looks in the coming months. We can judge it more fairly when these reviews come out.

I&#x27;ve said this before, but Apple&#x27;s attention to detail might finally bridge the uncanny valley to actually good AR. I can elaborate a bit more when I get on my computer.

No controllers, no waving your arms about. Eye tracking and hand gestures for navigation. Screen on the front that shows your face to make it feel less isolating. I don&#x27;t know that it&#x27;ll be a success but it&#x27;s a lot more than just putting an Apple logo on it.

Probably the fact that this uses microOLED at a much higher resolution than anything before.And that it&#x27;s very light weight and more comfortable fitting and probably wont be a sweatbox.

Thr fact that the battery is separate should be a huge improvement for comfort because one of the biggest problems with most existing devices is their weight. Another thing to check is how much heat the device transfers to the user. Or in general the comfort. Also the fact that you can easily see you surroundings should help.

What compelling use cases did the average consumer see for carrying around a computer in their pocket before Apple released the iPhone? There were a bunch of devices on the market all kinda doing what iPhone did, but Apple made it make sense for the average consumer.

Gaming could be much be better on a VR&#x2F;AR device, and a reason to put on a &quot;ugly sweat box&quot; initially. Apple did not go deep into that, only a brief segment about the Unity collab. Maybe gaming is not their forte right now.Apple Vision v3 will not be a sweat box. And even right now, Occulus interface has to evolve to match this. Controller has to be optional. It has to be AR.

&gt; What&#x27;s different about it compared to Occulus or Samsung Gear or any other existing attempts at this?It&#x27;s sexy. Also, it&#x27;s Apple, which means–given the price tag–it&#x27;s unlikely to be shit, and if it is, I&#x27;ll have some semblance of support.

&gt; What about slapping an Apple logo on it and pricing it even further out of reach changes that in your mind?Probably the fact that Apple has an excellent track record of entering nascent consumer electronics markets late (e.g. iPod, iPhone, Apple Watch) at high price points, nailing the execution, and eventually dominating said markets with arguably superior products.It&#x27;s the same story again and again. If you&#x27;ve already decided Apple is charging $3000 for &quot;slapping an Apple logo on it&quot; and nothing else, you may as well have been one of the people back in ~2001 who swore up and down that the iPod was just an overpriced late entry in a market full of mature, attractive offerings like the Archos Jukebox line. In retrospect, to be clear, you would have looked quite silly.I&#x27;m not saying this thing is absolutely going to be a success, but the problem with previous attempts at virtual displays has been that the execution is always shit, and Apple&#x27;s greatest strength is nailing the execution. I don&#x27;t think betting against them here is a good bet.

What&#x27;s different about it compared to Occulus or Samsung Gear or any other existing attempts at this?Virtual movie theaters and virtual monitors haven&#x27;t really been compelling use cases for putting an ugly sweat box on your face so far. What about slapping an Apple logo on it and pricing it even further out of reach changes that in your mind?

Yes, that part also shocked me. It looks like they&#x27;ve completely lost their mind, and don&#x27;t realize they&#x27;re shooting a remake of black mirror..

I dunno, beats pulling out a phone and fumbling with the record button.

I think the remote worker in a hotel was a more likely take.A lot will depend on the quality of the virtual avatar generated for you while in a video call.

I didn&#x27;t think people would enjoy looking at a 6 inch screen while hunched over for every second of their waking lives, but here we are.

&gt; Do you think people will enjoy living with a headset strapped to their face?Yes, while they are working on something. I&#x27;ve often wanted to &#x27;take my screen with me&#x27; as I moved to a different location.

Do you think people will enjoy living with a headset strapped to their face? The shots of that dad playing with his daughters while wearing the device seemed like a stretch that I&#x27;m surprised Apple took. This is the company that takes its &quot;Human Interface Guidelines&quot; seriously.

I agree. This was more amazing than I had expected upfront. I can envision myself using this for developing code as well, but I think I will have a hard time convincing my boss…

Apple TV is excellent? Is there a better device? (If you don’t want to use the apps bundled with tv).

Unironically, the Apple TV is my favorite Apple device. It does exactly what it says it does, is inexpensive, and has a good interface. It just works.

You are high as a kite. AppleTV is one of the greatest things in my househould. The UI is world&#x27;s beyond whatever ad-filled garbage &quot;smartOS&quot; my TV uses.

Using a product I already paid for without getting served any ads is pretty revolutionary &#x2F;s

Apple TV is easily my favourite Apple product. Of all the Apple products it&#x27;s the one that works flawlessly and gets out of my way. I could give up my Mac and switch to Windows before I would switch to an Apple TV competitor.

Are you including the remote which, for free, comes with no mute button?

No wireless. Less pixels than an 8K TV. Lame.

Apple TV is great, I’ve bought a few over the years

I used to think Apple TV was unimpressive. I had an Android TV which turned to shit after like 3 years. Apple TV though? Runs like a dream, still gets updates, has nice integrations with my iPhone. It&#x27;s one of the best &quot;plug and play&quot; Apple devices there is. It &quot;just works&quot;.I went from finding it unimpressive to it being my first recommendation for anyone getting a TV. Screw regular smart TV software, just get the TV with the best panel and use Apple TV. So long as the TV doesn&#x27;t break, you won&#x27;t need to upgrade for a long long time.

Seriously? You still stuck in the 2d world!

I wouldn&#x27;t really make a statement like the above, and I can&#x27;t say I necessarily agree with it... that being said, other folks on this thread are kinda missing the point OP made: it&#x27;s not that Apple TV isn&#x27;t good. It&#x27;s that it isn&#x27;t, and never really was, revolutionary.It&#x27;s an arguably best-in-class app-based TV watching experience. But its market share is pretty small years after launch, it hasn&#x27;t caused much change&#x2F;adaptation in the market as a whole as a result of existing, and it&#x27;s not really at the center of any kind of cultural conversation.I am really curious to learn more details about Vision Pro (like... how much does it weigh?), and would be even more curious to learn about the market fit research Apple must have done to believe there&#x27;s a place for this device, especially at this price point. The biggest omission for me was the placement of the headset as device on which to view movies, and see pictures of your kids, while at the same time completely sidestepping the question of how you&#x27;d do that together with your family, which is how these activities are typically performed in a household with children.

Once people get an AppleTV, do they go back to a chromcast&#x2F;roku&#x2F;firestick&#x2F;media pc?It has a higher MSRP than the others, but once you get one…

I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be as revolutionary as the Apple TV. Perhaps even less so (if such a thing is possible).

Agreed, I think this is going to be big, but it does very much have the feel of a first apple product. Especially wearing it to record 3d videos, I am sure now that there will be a 3d camera on the next iPhone pro.

You can invest in my opinions, from just $3999™!

Oh wow an anonymous hn user makes an optimist statement about new technology - lots riding on that!

Compared to how much progress the iPhone made from initial launch to now, the potential for this product line is very exciting.

That&#x27;s definitely a big concern about the physical pen. If it&#x27;s too heavy or if it&#x27;s too hot, it will overperform or perform some CPU intense work. Also the fitting using your eye with such a close contact with the digital device is another issue.

Not sure how you can say it’s incremental. I’d say it’s quite a jump from the other mixed reality products we’ve seen so far

The idea of hybrid AR&#x2F;VR - adjusted by a dial (crown) - is very clever. As is a high-resolution display.But the form factor is a problem.If it had all of the capabilities announced but combined with the Google Glass form factor of ultra thin &amp; light - then it would be a device more revolutionary than the iPhone.But the form factor makes it much more niche.And the tech just doesn&#x27;t exist in the year 2023 to make a device with that sweet-spot combination of high capability and tiny form factor.(My two cents, which I am hoping ages better than the infamous HN Dropbox comment.)

You do recall that when the iPhone came out we already had Blackberry, HTC, Windows Mobile, Nokia already making smart phones with touch screens and apps right?Sure the experience was terrible, but that&#x27;s the same play here. Apple generally takes a technology space which is a little early and poorly done by others, and ships a great experience across hardware, software, and ecosystem to capture a market.

Was there really an &#x27;iPhone moment&#x27;, though?The success of the iPhone has been all about the &#x27;incremental progress&#x27;.

And I will go on record saying this is nice and all, but fundamentally just some incremental progress. Absolutely not an iPhone moment.The idea of having a fully immersive 3D environment around you is cool, but I haven’t had any VR experience that didn’t turn out to be eventually a headache let alone actually productive. Even with gaming I can only name a few titles that actually benefit, but for the ones that do the effect is quite something, I’ll admit that.

Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with this comment as well. It is because how portable this device is, you have to think about the... Imagine you have an infinite amount of screen just in your pocket. What you say causes what you do, and that&#x27;s a huge thing.

Strongly disagree that this will be as revolutionary as the iphone. The iphone, and smart phones as a platform were revolutionary largely because of how portable they are.This is much more comparable to a laptop than a phone, and it doesn&#x27;t introduce new communications technology like the iphone did with there now being near universal real time access to people&#x27;s cameras and gps location.This feels like what the apple watch was to the iphone but instead to the MacBook pro.

I will happily go on record as saying I do not have $3,499 to spend on this, but I wish i did.

Loved it. It’s exactly how I imagined it. People didn’t have high expectations because they thought this was going to be a gaming device. I posted quite a few comments in the past months telling people vr glasses like this had so much potential for broader applications. I’m glad Apple is making this a reality. It’s going to be a wild success.

Yes, Google Glass was fun, and geeky, but was SO bad.This seems to be an actual well thought out product. The resolution is a lot higher than the meta quest 3, and delays will be super small.They&#x27;re marketing this for productivity, which for me is the main selling point for VR at this point. I want a more spatial desktop, and I want multiple screens on the go.

I completely agree.I&#x27;m one of the weird people who tried out the Google Glass. It was finnicky, 0 actual interaction with the modern world, lasted a good 45 minutes, melted your face, and had terrible audio.But the thing is, if you could peak THROUGH the shortcomings, it was abundantly clear how an eyesight driven, glass form factor is the destination for computing. Smartphones were even less advanced at the time, but even then, we I tried for a few weeks making more extensive use of it, I would catch many glimpses of how &quot;neat&quot; this technology would be... even doing simple things like effortlessly capturing a picture on the spot, or videoconferencing with my gf (now wife!) showing her stuff in the grocery store and asking her what to get.The AR capabilities, mixed with the essentially VR potential for movies&#x2F;games, will totally be a thing and it&#x27;ll totally live on our face as glasses. There can be details as to when exactly, price points ,etc., but the ubiquity of this sort of computing device will eclipse the iPhone when it comes time, and until then, slowly but surely change the nature of &quot;working on a screen.&quot;

Only if it‘s comfortable to wear and not sickening. It must be a huge improvement over current  devices like PS VR2, which I can physically not tolerate for long.

&gt; You&#x27;re making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.Well Apple showed someone using the headset while lying down in bed. I’d say that Apple is making a bold statement about the comfort of their product. We’ll need to wait for hands on reviews to determine if it indeed is as comfortable as Apple implies it is.

&gt; a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.Will it, though? Of course you could build a home theater with better sound, but I&#x27;d bet that the spatial audio built into AirPods delivers better sound that most peoples&#x27; home theater setups (which is generally just a TV with built in sound or a mediocre soundbar).

By Gen3 in 5 years, people will begin to buy these like iPhones and then multiple people will be able to watch via SharePlay.3D images are probably coming to iPhone 15 or iPhone 16 so the posts about &quot;who&#x27;s gonna wear this to take pictures&quot; are already moot.This is a developer&#x2F;enthusiast focused niche release providing perfect beta testing grounds while technology will shrink this device to a smaller and more practical form factor.In 3-4 years, the current Vision Pro will be the standard Apple Vision product with a smaller form factor while a new Pro product will have more advanced features and lose its external battery.I also think that Apple Vision will be successful but Gen1 is not where its at for the vast majority of users.

&gt; You&#x27;re making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.Hey - the world&#x27;s biggest computer company just went up on stage along with the director of the world&#x27;s biggest entertainment conglomerate and made that &#x27;bold assumption&#x27;. They&#x27;re probably pretty careful about these sorts of things.

&gt; ... Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people ...I will point to this article: &quot;Why Americans are lonelier and its effects on our health&quot; [1] that claims that &quot;some surveys reveal that around 60 percent of people in the U.S. right now report feeling lonely on a pretty regular basis. And that&#x27;s pretty devastating from a public health perspective&quot;.I don&#x27;t know the real number but it connect with the market potential. Also, Apple is really great on hitting the mark. Playing with words, I don&#x27;t think Mark is as good as Apple.[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pbs.org&#x2F;newshour&#x2F;show&#x2F;why-americans-are-lonelier-and-its-effects-on-our-health#:~:text=It&#x27;s%20often%20talked%20about%20as,from%20a%20public%20health%20perspective" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pbs.org&#x2F;newshour&#x2F;show&#x2F;why-americans-are-lonelier...</a>.

&gt; Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.I was extremely surprised that shared reality was completely absent from the presentation. Apparently the sensors on these devices don&#x27;t enable creating a coordinate system that multiple devices can collaborate on&#x2F;in. You can&#x27;t look at the same objects in space together.This is hard stuff, but I&#x27;m stunned they&#x27;re shipping it before solving that problem.

&gt; Smart watches have been anything but a groundbreaking technological revolution.I think Apple has made a tactical error here. The days of the shrinking iPhone are long gone, but not forgotten. It was the iPhone 3G that was a turning point for people who hadn&#x27;t bought an iPhone yet. It was smaller with better battery life.If the Apple Watch 3 had followed a similar pattern, they would have had to skip adding the next additional sensor to the device, but I think in the long term that would have just delayed us one design cycle but still given us a thinner and lighter watch, which we would have needed for a deeper impact.

&gt; You&#x27;re making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.I&#x27;ve seen people pass out in VRChat with their headsets on. Some people on VRC are on there for 12+ hours a day. It&#x27;s a fascinating sub culture I was totally shocked to learn about. People drink and do drugs while listening to music at a virtual rave. Multiple rooms full every Friday, Saturday 80-120 people in the room hanging out. I found myself up till 6 am lost in the music.

&gt; it&#x27;s insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboardTotally agree. I just want to use this to replace my big bulky monitor that I can&#x27;t take with me wherever I go and that makes my small place look a little more junky.

For me it could go either way. I am willing to put up with wearing a headset if it unlocks some new use cases. But we really need to know the specs. I haven&#x27;t seen anyone mention a field of view, refresh rate, pixel per degree, etc. And even with these specs I would need to actually try it to get a holistic feel for the product and its software.

&gt; You&#x27;re making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing.Raises hand. I&#x27;m in for that. I&#x27;m a VR fan but my soapbox has always been that AR is the true future.&gt; Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.In the same way that when the iPhone came out there were individual devices that could do each feature better than the iPhone could, yes :)If you look at video consumption, &quot;individual&quot; devices (phones, tablets, laptops) make up about 50% of viewing time. TV the rest. I don&#x27;t think the multiple people angle is going to kill this considering how much content is consumed individually already.A home cinema also has to be researched, purchased separately, takes up space, etc. Any pair of $200 Bose headphones sounds better than the old iPhone ear pods...and yet...&gt; it&#x27;s insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboard.We&#x27;re talking about replacing monitors, not text buffers or keyboards!

$3k: replaces a laptop, TV and computer
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=khMcq66_HeU">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=khMcq66_HeU</a>

&gt; Because it&#x27;s insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboard.And why would you think this would seek to replace that, rather than complementing it? Fill up your entire vision with forty text buffers. Use a keyboard on a twelve-inch-deep shelf on one side of your bedroom with no monitor taking up space behind it.

&gt; For personal&#x2F;entertainment use it completely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.You&#x27;re making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear this headset when relaxing. Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.&gt; For business use, the days of multiple displays and screen management seem set to be a relic of the past. I look forward to coding in an IDE which isn&#x27;t constrained to a physical device sat on my desk, or replying to emails &quot;on the beach&quot; versus under fluorescent lighting.The IDE is an interesting perspective I too as a developer am thinking about. But there&#x27;s a reason you can be as productive in 2023 as in 1983 using emacs or vim. Because it&#x27;s insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboard.&gt; In response to the obvious criticisms (high price, battery life, form factor)... this is Gen 1. Look how quickly the iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between generations 1 to 3, and look how the price changed as production capabilities and economies of scale evolved.Smart watches have been anything but a groundbreaking technological revolution.

What about $3500 says &quot;accessibility&quot; to you? You&#x27;re just re-vomiting out all of the same promises VR companies have been making for the past half decade. No company is going to spend $3500 on a tool that easily breaks for low stakes jobs and is untested&#x2F;unreliable for high stakes jobs.

For me 100% of the excitement is about the bajillion business ideas I&#x27;ve had hoping that VR would become more popular, when it just simply didn&#x27;t get there.Industry is where I&#x27;m a lot more excited.

Google Glass tried to pivot towards industrial use (eg, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=5IK-zU51MU4">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=5IK-zU51MU4</a> ) - it didn&#x27;t seem to go very well.

I REALLY don&#x27;t want a doctor performing surgery on me with this thing on their face.

&gt;This is going to be massive in the workspace, thats where I think people probably underestimate it.I don&#x27;t think companies are going to spring this much for a headset and laptop until there&#x27;s very obvious benefits, but maybe I&#x27;ve just been short-changed with shitty equipment my whole career.Companies trying to get people to go back to the office, then ordering them VR headsets will be the height of tech irony.

Speaking as a total non-expert here: assuming workspaces _look_ good, I think this will entirely depend on software. What will it be like to use this with a keyboard? Will the OS be as siloed as iOS?This morning, my mac wouldn&#x27;t boot. I tried to write on my iPad instead. It was a nightmare: too cumbersome to move between apps, Zotero nearly unworkable, hard to navigate different file versions. If the OS works more like iOS than macOS, I can&#x27;t imagine it being as useful as computers save for very specific applications.

The price is to high for companies.Laptop budget is 1-3k.And people steal expensive shit. Alone the stealing is a deal breaker alone.And we have working cheap AR glasses.

The accessibility of this product is going to be transformative in industry. There have been similar AR headsets for woking in some industrial sectors, but this makes it possible for all companies to develop apps specific to their work place. Every factory, every distribution centre, every construction site, every industrial site, every hospital, can have this integrated to guide their workforce in complex tasks.Imagine this for surgeries, or complex construction tasks, even just finding items in a warehouse.This is going to be massive in the workspace, thats where I think people probably underestimate it.We may all end up with one of these - or the none &quot;pro&quot; version - at home, just as we have iPads laying around. But many of us are going to end ups waring these for many hours a day during work.Taking of a headset when we go home will end up being a joy.

&gt; This literally amplifies your ass to the couch. I&#x27;m shocked. Stunned. And sad.Were you “shocked&#x2F;stunned&#x2F;sad” about Apple TV? A product which physically relies on your ass being sat on the couch?Think a little bigger here! This goes well beyond entertainment value. Imagine the general business uses in industry, manufacturing, medicine, conferencing, telecommunications, let alone any form of interpersonal interaction over long distances…These are all things we take for granted with FaceTime, Google, GPT… All these are new but ubiquitous technologies, which allow us to enhance our human abilities and connect with each other in new and novel ways.

You&#x27;re speaking mips and bits...This is not what got Apple to where it was. It was recognizing what we wanted to do to go further, individually and together, and amplified that with technology.This literally amplifies your ass to the couch. I&#x27;m shocked. Stunned. And sad.

A TV is often a social device.  this thing is not

Not this version probably, just like the first version of the iPhone wasn&#x27;t stellar. But as a new product line, this is the first VR&#x2F;AR device I&#x27;ve seen that demonstrates a vision for the future that might work. For a one-day ubiquitous product, $3k is the entry level price. None of the existing devices support this vision - they are just VR hardware. Their lower price doesn&#x27;t matter because that&#x27;s not what&#x27;s going to go mainstream.

For me, the big difference is apps. I have a Quest and there&#x27;s not much usable stuff for it. I can see a lot of those ipad&#x2F;iphone&#x2F;mac apps as useful on an AR device.Quality also matters. I don&#x27;t really like looking through the Quest for very long. Fresnel lenses and meh screen combined with a terrible processor means the visual experience isn&#x27;t very good. I&#x27;d bet a lot that their custom lenses and screens combined with a decent SoC offer a HUGE jump in visual fidelity.

I will go on record as saying this will be one of the biggest flops in Apple&#x27;s modern hardware history.They&#x27;ve shown no innovative scenarios that Hololens &#x2F; Quest &#x2F; Google Glass (and similar devices) hasn&#x27;t shown before. Those things flopped because they didn&#x27;t have the scenarios and nothing changed now.

Is this the new reverse-Dropbox reverse-iPhone HN groupthink meta? The question is, will we link back to this in 10 years as a gotcha as AR&#x2F;VR is still 10 years away from mainstream then?

&gt;this will be as revolutionary as the iPhoneI&#x27;m not so sure about that but I&#x27;m 100% sure that if anyone manages to pull that off it&#x27;s going to be Apple.Corollary: if this doesn&#x27;t make AR&#x2F;VR finally go mainstream then forget about it, it&#x27;s 3D TV again.

Having multiple private large-scale screens anywhere, even on the train or plane, is huge. Many VR headsets tried delivering that, but so far the resolution just wasn&#x27;t there. The article is a bit light on actual details, but at least the price point gives an indication that Apple might make it possible.

I completely agree with your point about risk. When we&#x27;re talking about risk, the opposite of risk is a great benefit, just like a starship. Captain Kirk said great risk we have, the more potential gain we probably gain. Stand-up work environment is also huge for me. I don&#x27;t like sitting all the time in front of a desk. But I&#x27;m not sure if I sit down, all the benefits gonna last. Maybe it&#x27;s just a choice. Maybe I can sit down doing some different kind of things. Or maybe I can lay on my bed, just do something else. The gesture interface has to be rock solid. I agree. Especially you&#x27;re already doing something more fine-tune level things.For example, you want to manipulate a 3D object, but I think we can, or the engineering can finally overcome those difficulties by using those optical algorithms to track, to kind of think about a new way to interact with computer. Actually, if you think about the way we communicate with computer, all we&#x27;re talking about is the keyboard, but does the keyboard is the only solution to all the problem we have? I don&#x27;t think that is the only problem. The battery lapsed two hours, I&#x27;m not sure what exactly they mean. If it&#x27;s just two hours, maybe it&#x27;s a replaceable charge or something like that, maybe we can bring a bigger external battery. I&#x27;m not sure, but if it&#x27;s just only working for two hours, that&#x27;s going to be some potential issues here.

IMHO the biggest risk factor is that without a mass market version (running iPhone apps in a window doesn&#x27;t count) the developers won&#x27;t reach the critical mass you need to support a novel piece of hardware like this. $3500 is a shit ton to spend on a toy that lets you have a virtual Mickey Mouse standing next to a screen playing a Disney movie.If nobody is buying the product then developers have no incentive to buy one either. The only software for it will be demos from Apple and extremely expensive bespoke professional applications for businesses, and that market is far too small for Apple to ever recoup their R&amp;D costs, much less ongoing expenses.The only way I see this working is if Apple themselves invent a killer application for the headset. Even then its going to struggle to find buyers at that price point. It doesn&#x27;t matter how cool your hardware is if nobody can afford it. It&#x27;s hard to see how they would even cut down the existing hardware to make a version for real people.

I think it&#x27;s a good risk, and the kind of risk Apple is well-positioned (as a combined owner of hardware, software, and third-party software ecosystem) to take.Major we&#x27;ll-see risk factors I identify:1) $3,500 is expensive, any way you slice it. That makes it price-competitive with a workstation.2) The stand-up-and-work environment they demo&#x27;d doesn&#x27;t work for a lot of people. But if you sit down, you lose a lot of the benefit of that panoramic space.3) Their gesture interface has to be rock-solid (meaning no false negatives but also no false positives) for it to be part of a daily work environment.4) We&#x27;ve been experimenting with headsets for long enough to know that for the average user, the amount of time you can comfortably use one is lower than the amount of time seated at a mouse-keyboard-monitor UI.5) The battery life is 2 hours, which is like nothing. You can use it plugged in, but then you&#x27;re plugged in (meaning not only that you&#x27;re tethered to somewhere, but that you&#x27;ve got the constant pressure of the tether disrupting your head motions, which adds up over time in irritation).All of that having been said, if anyone has a prayer of overcoming these obstacles it&#x27;s Apple. They&#x27;ve got the software &#x2F; hardware &#x2F; UI &#x2F; UX integration in-house to take a solid run at the challenge.

&gt;&gt; Can we comfortably use it for 8+ hours a day?With 2 hours of battery life this is not a problem.

I&#x27;m not sold on eyes as a pointer just yet. The Quest Pro can do this and it does not feel great. Based on experience with a lot of other headsets:&gt; Can we comfortably use it for 8+ hours a day?No. Even if the ergonomics are perfect, the screens aren&#x27;t good enough for this.&gt; Is text really crisp enough for productivity usage?If they match the leaked resolution, no.

&gt; I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be as revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even more so.It seems to have the potential. The UX seems incredible. Little details like using eyes as a pointer make it for a far better experience (no, moving your head to point is not the same). Looking at your Macbook to pull apps from it is the sort of thing that can make it intuitive for the average user. A proper review of what this could do would take an article.I think the main things we need to know are:* What sort of apps can we use? Is this IOS-like, or can I run XCode on it? Having to own the headset plus a macbook is not going to make or break it, but it changes the value of the device at its current price point.* Can we comfortably use it for 8+ hours a day?* Is text really crisp enough for productivity usage?I don&#x27;t think this version is quite there yet, but give it a few iterations and we may be able to ditch physical monitors altogether. I&#x27;ve been waiting for that for a while.At $3499 it&#x27;s quite a gamble. At $999 it would have been a no-brainer, as that&#x27;s the price of a phone. It does have way too much hardware for a lower price point, so it&#x27;s understandable. But the more devices that exist, the greater the network effects.

&gt; - In response to the obvious criticisms (high price, battery life, form factor, weird eyeball thing)... this is Gen 1. Look how quickly the iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between generations 1 to 3, and look how the price changed as production capabilities and economies of scale evolved.The original iPhone released for $599, which is ~$876 2023 dollars based on CPI. So, while most of your bullet points about iPhone improving is true, the iPhone is the wrong thing to point to for economies of scale making Apple products cheaper over time.

So most people prefer holding their phone in the hand to using airpods to send voice messages or having calls.What makes you think people will prefer strapping a much heavier and uncomfortable headset to watching a screen?

Not only they don&#x27;t realize it already exists, they don&#x27;t realize how bad it is.There&#x27;s never enough resolution (even with 8K headsets), eye strain from trying to focus on virtual objects is real, and camera passthrough always look fake (and may even cause mild nausea). Not to mention that most folks don&#x27;t really train their neck muscles to support significant extra weight on their heads on front-back axis (we typically tilt our heads much less than lean forward or backward, so headphones are not comparable).I don&#x27;t believe Apple have made some giant leap and included an autorefractor in there and made external cameras moveable and able to match you pupillary distance (and convergence!), then added some fancy magnetostrictive micro-mirror system to dynamically boost resolution at the areas you&#x27;re focusing at. Not in this form factor, and if they would somehow magically make it they&#x27;d be boasting about it non-stop.If they showcase it in Apple Stores I would definitely take a peek, and I would like to be wrong - but I&#x27;m pretty sure it&#x27;s a pricey gimmick that won&#x27;t be anywhere comfortable for any prolonged use.

This sounds like a take from somebody who doesn&#x27;t realise that&#x27;s already there in headsets like the Quest that this presumably won&#x27;t match in numbers.What is brilliant here, are the specs giving some serious boost to the use cases already established by Meta&#x2F;Oculus, NReal etc and services like Immersed, BigScreen etc.But please, less of that breathless &quot;Apple have invented this new thing&quot; tone, it&#x27;s annoying when they haven&#x27;t.Either do some basic research first, or if you have, then at least frame what you reckon is revolutionary in terms of the existing market.I am sure from the specs, if not the price, that this is going to kick up some dust, but its not obviously inventing anything that isn&#x27;t there already.

I will happily go on record to say that you&#x27;re critically wrong and that the only reason this will ever have any usage is the Apple Reality Distortion Field.I speak having used most available VR devices available these past few years, and currently owning a Valve Index:Watching movies: wearing something over your eyes and on your head like that for so long _fucking sucks_. It&#x27;s heavy&#x2F;hot enough when you&#x27;re doing something that takes your attention. Watching a movie is fun for the first time, then you realize that being able to walk around, look at other things etc is infinitely better. Not to mention the fact that if you ever want to watch with someone else, well they better have 3.5k available. that makes it a non starter for literally anyone hoping to, you know, have people over.- For work: it fucking sucks. You know what&#x27;s worse than having two screens taking up your entire sight? Having to physically turn your head to see more screens. It is physically sickening to have your entire attention taken up like that.- Form factor: my dude the last thing I want in public is to look like I&#x27;m wearing swimming goggles. Also, two hours is absolutely pathetic.- Price: the first iPhone cost $600. The cheapest new iPhone 14 is $1000, the most expensive is like 2000. It got worse, not better.It&#x27;s going to be a fun, overpriced toy and it&#x27;ll be just like every VR device people currently own: hanging on your wall and used once every two weeks, at best.

&gt; TV viewing is often a social experience:Sure but &quot;for personal use&quot; kinda excludes &quot;social experience&quot; here.&gt; it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinemaIn my previous flat, living along, a big TV just didn&#x27;t fit anywhere. A sound system would also have annoyed the neighbours. Something like this would have been perfect for getting that 4K HDR viewing experience.

&gt; For personal&#x2F;entertainment use it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.TV viewing is often a social experience: friends gathering in front of a TV to watch a sporting event (say, a World Cup soccer match, or your favorite team&#x27;s football game, or an NBA finals game). This takes away that aspect. I&#x27;m not sure if this is a change we really need.

&gt; - For personal&#x2F;entertainment use it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.I don&#x27;t know about others in this thread, but for me the satisfaction of watching a movie alone is extremely low - to the point I don&#x27;t do it at all.

Small, comfortable smart glasses enabling Hololens 2 like UX, I agree.Bulky, expensive passthrough? No, there are better, cheaper, more open options than this on the market. If it was going to change things, we&#x27;d be seeing people using this capability already.The main hold up here is technology advancement, not quite where it needs to be yet, but the field is showing the progress needed to reach it.

Apple likely started with the &quot;Pro&quot; moniker fully intending for non-pro versions to come out at lower price points.

iPhone price went up with subsequent generations. So I wouldn&#x27;t count on Apple to drop the price at the near future.

Every team in my company got the new meta headset for free. I used it for like 30 seconds and i&#x27;ve never seen anyone else using it.

Nobody will remember&#x2F;care about this as soon as the news sites stop talking about it (in a few days), enjoy your iPhone moment prediction.

Man, I for one sure hope this isn’t the future.But maybe it is. Just another step away from one another, further into isolation.

Sounds like the Vision Pro addresses your main issues - it&#x27;s fully wireless, albeit with the somewhat ridiculous cord hanging off and battery pack in your pocket. And you can walk around your house with (presumably) near perfect pass through view of the real world. And then the resolution - I think you could be wrong about that. It&#x27;s surprisingly hard to compare, but the Vision Pro is going to get you pretty close to high enough resolution that it doesn&#x27;t matter any more.It&#x27;s interesting though you seem to view the fact that it&#x27;s close to impossible to move your monitors as a plus - that part sounds very weird to me.

I have an NReal Air. It offers similar capabilities to everything you mentioned (though much worse resolution).If I have the preference, I still choose a screen. Screens are easy, screens a casual, screens exist in the real world. I can share them, I can walk away from them, I can position them where _they will never, ever move_. Screens have (and will always have) higher resolution. Screens don&#x27;t require me to mess with some cord and pull a headset off to find my snack or walk to the bathroom.I prefer my Nreals in two situations:* When I&#x27;m traveling&#x2F;on-the-go and want more screen real estate.* When my wife is using the main TV and I don&#x27;t feel like hauling the Playstation downstairs.

We&#x27;ve had all these things since the very first VR headsets. I remember sitting in a movie theatre setting trying to play a 1080P movie and it looking like a potato.Forgetting the AR&#x2F;VR debate for a minute, the thing holding these back from wide adoption has been resolution and comfort. I have yet to use an XR device where I can simply play a video without it being jarringly blurry and pixelated. I&#x27;ve yet to use an XR device that isn&#x27;t a chore to wear and sweaty (although I do trust Apple to address this one).Let&#x27;s see. The proof will be in the pudding when I try one of these in an Apple store next year.

I&#x27;m willing to take the opposite &quot;bet&quot;, and say that I think this will receive very little traction.The single reason being that it&#x27;s uncomfortable to use. That&#x27;s it. It&#x27;s an &quot;Emperor&#x27;s New Clothes&quot; type saying: It doesn&#x27;t matter how impressive the capabilities are, if it&#x27;s uncomfortable, people will, after the initial allure fades, just not use it.IMO The only viable future for VR&#x2F;AR is when the form factor will come down to normal looking&#x2F;weighting glasses that I might look around for while having them on.

I was wondering what was dragging HN down :-). That said, if it translates signs in the &quot;real world&quot; on the fly to your native language, that would be win for business users. The &quot;infinite screen&#x2F;screens&quot; thing has always show promise but has always been hard to execute against. The lack of them pushing any kind of gaming experience[1] was a bit telling for me. I&#x27;m guessing they haven&#x27;t fixed the vomit problem. Still think it would be awkward to be in the same physical space with people who have visors and people who don&#x27;t.[1] To be fair I didn&#x27;t see the keynote, just followed the website sales pitch.

The dual-touchpad style VR keyboard like the original Vive has is probably the only usable virtual keyboard. Everything else is one by one, find and peck typing.If you want to experience it, get a steam controller or a steam deck and use the trackpads on that keyboard. You get used to it very fast and you can get really usable typing speed.It won&#x27;t work for programming though because anything that needs more niche than basic punctuation would require chording or multiple inputs, which sucks.

They did show a virtual keyboard during the presentation.

The idea is that you&#x27;ll use voice recognition instead of typing

The thing that amazed me the most with the presentation was that they never showed typing on a virtual keyboard. It seems like you need an actual physical keyboard to do any typing.The keyboard was famously considered a make it or break it feature internally at Apple when developing the original iPhone. It is very telling that they haven’t managed to solve this basic HCI problem for the Vision. Steve Jobs would never have released this. I’m sad to say it, but this is not a “Pro” device. It’s a Prototype device.Apple Vision Prototype(And I’m sorry, but the eyes are creepy —- uncanny valley)

&gt;&gt; this will be as revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even more so.Not even close.99% of the people I know would never put a computer on their face.

Yeah from what I can tell and being a solitary person if I had 3.5k I&#x27;d be all over this. And I am a die-hard Linux guy though I have an iPhone and an Apple Watch. Very cool stuff, albeit, if it lives up to the hype in the presentation. Very cool stuff.

So.. Fun fact, Osterhaut group(ODG) has something just like this and it was working as Apple demos showed and it was out 7 years ago. I tried it on and for me it was the biggest game changer I felt since the 2007 iphone. Microsoft bought the patents from odg and the company ran out of money trying its own strategy. Sad story for them but I hope apple really does this right as it will be an absolute game changer.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;01&#x2F;03&#x2F;odg-unveils-its-first-consumer-ar-glasses-built-on-qualcomms-snapdragon-835-chip&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;01&#x2F;03&#x2F;odg-unveils-its-first-cons...</a>

I agree.I spent a ton of money configuring my home office. Many displays, giant motorized desk, articulating arms, cable management, etc. Easily over $3500, and I still don&#x27;t feel like it&#x27;s ergonomically great. It certainly can&#x27;t be brought anywhere. It occupies a whole room.Now I am thinking I might not need that bulky stuff at all, and if I don&#x27;t need the displays and big desk then maybe I don&#x27;t need the office. If I don&#x27;t need the home office then maybe I should be shopping a home that&#x27;s around 75-100k cheaper with one less room.I&#x27;ve often wanted to work outside from my deck but then I don&#x27;t have my screen real estate and I get tons of glare. This could solve that.We&#x27;ve long complained about the degradation of the in-office experience. These days it&#x27;s all open-floor plans with a fixed monitor set and no privacy. If I could put these on and have a huge display with a beach in the background, I wouldn&#x27;t as much mind sitting 2 feet away from coworkers.The benefits of something like this on flights and in airports seems obvious. Its not really weird, considering savvy travelers swaddle themselves in AirPods Max and bizarre neck-sling-pillow apparatuses already.

&gt; I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be as revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even more so.&gt; Look how quickly the iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between generations 1 to 3I would not compare the iPhone to the Apple Watch. They were on completely different orders of magnitude of evolution.I could see the Apple Vision Pro being half as popular as the Apple Watch (primarily due to the price tag) and I think there&#x27;s a good chance it finds its market, but I think comparing it to the iPhone is way off base.

How can you say that before trying? Have you ever tried VR? You can see the pixels, it&#x27;s not at all immersive. I find it hard to believe that Apple have somehow invented revolutionary display technology before Meta&#x2F;Oculus who have had about decade to do R&amp;D. Not to mention that &quot;inside-out&quot; tracking is nowhere as good as shown as show at the WWDC keynote.

If it&#x27;s so good for WFH, why has Apple insisted everybody return to the office?It&#x27;s got a 2h battery life, so your dreams of using it on the beach are pretty funny versus just using a laptop.

You should probably try it before making this kind of statement.The perfect version of this tech -could- be what you describe. But so far there are quite a few unknowns about the real experience.

&gt; For personal&#x2F;entertainment use it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.It remains to be seen if the experience is better than a large OLED TV.In terms of sound I seriously doubt it. Maybe if it had large planar drivers but I doubt you can use large headphones with it. If it&#x27;s meant to be used with crappy Airpods the sound is going to be nowhere comparable to a home theater.

For people who are loners, live alone and don&#x27;t share anything with others. I guess if you enjoy sitting on your couch watching TV all by yourself all day this is it, yes.

I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be as revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even more so.---EDIT: To clarify this statement...- For personal&#x2F;entertainment use it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.- For business use, the days of multiple displays and screen management seem set to be a relic of the past. I look forward to coding in an IDE which isn&#x27;t constrained to a physical device sat on my desk, or replying to emails &quot;on the beach&quot; versus under fluorescent lighting. My work environment will soon become consistent, without relying on the realities of my real-world physical environment. Think about people working from home with little-to-no desk space: this solves that problem.- In response to the obvious criticisms (high price, battery life, form factor, weird eyeball thing)... this is Gen 1. Look how quickly the iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between generations 1 to 3, and look how the price changed as production capabilities and economies of scale evolved.- Personally, I&#x27;ve been using Apple devices for 20 years. This is the first novel Apple device I&#x27;ve felt genuinely excited about since first joining the ecosystem. Will I use it for everything? No. Will the first version be perfect? No. Does it offer a whole new paradigm to any one of the physical devices I already own...? Yes! If Apple&#x27;s reputation for growth and improvement in other product categories historically is anything to go by, I look forward to seeing how ubiquitous this becomes in 5 or 10 years from now.

controlling the UI with your eyes and fingers is cool.but the issue I always had with VR is at that point when I realise i can&#x27;t actually touch or feel any of it.

Sounds like a great use for SharePlay! (:

&gt;might suggest lower-tier versions coming in some future?First it has to not bomb.

It&#x27;s shipping in 2024, surely they won&#x27;t release a new model in the same year.

This is exactly what I think is going on as well.

I get the impression this model is intended to introduce the product line to the market and give developers something to build on while Apple fine-tunes the hardware. The thing is way overpriced for the average consumer but the tech inside it is wild. I expect we&#x27;ll see more consumer-friendly models in 2024-2025.

Yeah, Apple doesn&#x27;t make products for niche hobbyists though.This isn&#x27;t remarkable or xReal.

&gt; Some say $3499 is a high priceAs a golfer I can assure you plenty of people will happily spend that amount and more on their hobby.

&#x27;Pro&#x27; as in &#x27;Prototype&#x27; I guess.

What about of distance and and field of view? I haven’t seen any metrics to complete the picture.

Foveated rendering + active optics can make the fovea 2x the peripheral.

No FOV was included in the announcement. These numbers are fabricated.

Agreed - we don&#x27;t know what the actual PPD will be, but it will surely fall short of 60 given that the VR display covers more of your field of view than a 4K monitor in front of you.That said, it&#x27;ll still be higher than the current VR headsets and I expect many people will find it sufficient for their work.

23M pixels across the field of vision of two eyes doesn&#x27;t meet the requirements of a design studio. A retina display is minimum 60 pixels per degree. This will be around 30.

I&#x27;m totally getting a quest for fitness. This thing doesn&#x27;t look like it is designed for fitness at all, although I might get one in the future if (a) I have disposable income for it and (b) the experiences are compelling? $3500 isn&#x27;t that much these days (unfortunately).

&gt; let alone $3500. They might as well have made it $9999I’ll buy it at $3,500, but not at $9,999

Tech is so cheap now. When the Macintosh II came out in 1987 [1]:&gt; When introduced, a basic system with monitor and 20 MB hard drive cost US$5,498 (equivalent to $14,160 in 2022). With a 13-inch color monitor and 8-bit display card the price was around US$7,145 (equivalent to $18,400 in 2022).Even the Commodore 64 was expensive [2]:&gt; Volume production started in early 1982, marketing in August for US$595 (equivalent to $1,800 in 2022).If the experience is worth it and there&#x27;s no cheaper competitor, people have the money for these things.And honestly, as a big user of the Quest 2 -- the Quest 3 isn&#x27;t anywhere close to the same ballpark as this. Apple Vision Pro looks absolutely more than 7x better, the only question is whether it&#x27;s worth it for you.[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Macintosh_II" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Macintosh_II</a>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Commodore_64" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Commodore_64</a>

I&#x27;ve never spent even $1500 on a single tech product before, let alone $3500. They might as well have made it $9999. Its pricing puts it in the business buyer &#x2F; wealthy Apple enthusiast league with Mac Pro, not consumer hardware. This is not priced for the market of middle class consumers worried about a recession.The Quest 3 is $499. This headset looks GREAT but is it really 7X greater than the Quest 3?

Did you ever use the power glove? I had one and it was the worst piece of tech I’ve ever had from a major company.

That&#x27;s already making an assumption that this is a valid category that isn&#x27;t doomed to failure like every other attempt since 1985.Enter the story of the Nintendo Power Glove.

It was quite odd that they branded it Pro but then demonstrated 90% consumer applications for it. Very mixed messaging about who the target market is.

Name with &quot;Pro&quot; in it already, might suggest lower-tier versions coming in some future?Device looks promising, and I wonder if they plan to allow 2 devices to show the same content simultaneously to say watch 3D movies with someone else in the same room.Some say $3499 is a high price, but being able to carry huge design studio with you is heck of a value to me.

Getting it as soon as I can. 3500 is steep, but 4k display for my Macbook anywhere I go is invaluable for a remote working nomad.

Looks like an awesome device, but with that price I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s aimed at consumers. Also, would the Pro moniker imply a non-Pro version at a lower price in the future?

My (and I suspect many others&#x27;) main use case for a TV+surround sound system is social consumption of media. A TV I can&#x27;t watch with my partner is useless, a speaker I can&#x27;t use to keep a party going is useless. To me the relevant comparison here is a PC, and by that measure this is a very expensive PC with an improved screen experience. Whether that screen improvement is worth the $1K-1.5K more than a Macbook will depend on how thoroughly they&#x27;ve actually delivered on the AR experience.

Expensive but with such an immersive experience can right off the bat replace a television and surround sound system. But potentially offers a lot more than this.
Not bad for a 1st generation product.

Apple Vision by Bob Bishop has come a long way since 1979!<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=RiWE-aO-cyU">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=RiWE-aO-cyU</a>

With profiles and OpticID you probably wouldn’t need one for everyone in the household. Or even more than one. Just the lenses.

Sony has the patent for the contact lens.

&gt; 4k tv, surround sound, high end laptopNone of those can be replaced by a vr headset in anything but &quot;some&quot; applications and scenarios.

Notably there doesn&#x27;t seem to be any tech present to share virtual spaces at all. All these smiling people staring at their virtual screens couldnt even share their experiences if they wanted to &amp; everyone else had a Vision Pro too. These are personal, pocket spaces.There was notably no effort to do a MagicLeap either, of playing with existing space. Meta for example shows people enjoying a crazy dungeon crawler board game atop their real table; very primitive but something physically integrated. I didn&#x27;t see a single example of Apple integrating with space, only taking it over.

Their cost comparison to a 4k tv, surround sound, high end laptop, etc does seem reasonable for a single person, but it does indeed break down for a family. Everyone sitting on the couch watching a movie, but you with your goggles getting a completely different experience.

is it really low latency considering that it needs 2 cameras and a bunch of leds? Also, saccades are not very precise and are relatively small movement so i m nor 
 sure how precise and detailed the pointer is in these.

I’m convinced it’s not possible to build a decent headset without eye tracking. Low latency, high refresh rates, massive resolutions, 
in a tiny footprint just isn’t possible with our current generation of chips. Eye tracking lets you put your compute cycles where they’re needed, and not waste time rendering to useless pixels.

Unless you’re doing at least once over 100Hz refresh rates, human eyeballs are too fast for foveated rendering. Motion to photon latency for this thing is 12ms from the presentation, which is 83Hz(so it’s 85Hz), and that’s probably for post-processing 2D warping and not 3D scene shading&#x2F;rendering where foveated rendering must take place so no way that works.

Sony&#x27;s VR headset also has eye tracking.It is a great input, but more importantly: drastically lowers the required computation with foviated rendering, i.e. rendering hires where you look, not everywhere.

Well it s good, this is how you make something that turns us to cyborgs.A bit pricey to become a household items (because a family needs 4 of them) but this is probably where things are heading toThere is so much engineering going on here that maybe ... it&#x27;s simpler to start considering retina implants or just brain implants.This was more like a work of art than a consumer device. I wonder if Oculus can steal some ideas ... Like, these device are not for gaming but general productivity. Ditch the 2 oculus controllers, put the battery in the 1 controller and wire it to the head. I m not convinced if eye tracking is worth it. oculus&#x27; controls are precise enough and in any case it&#x27;s better to hold something instead of pointing and pinching the air, it makes the device more physical. dont know what is needed for the ability to render a full field of view but would be interesting to know what is the level of nausea this causes when movement is involved. I guess Apple purposely chose to eliminate all optic flow movement - all the apps appear to be stationary.

It’s not theory. Every VR headset produced, since the 90’s, and every microscope, shortly after their invention, has had optics that make viewing comfortable, by having a distant focal distance, for the eyes to settle on. This is, quite literally, Physics 101 material!

Theoretically the lenses could make this not a problem. We’ll have to see how it works in practice though.

As a glasses wearer I was wondering how this works. They mentioned extra lenses that I would have to install into the device. But why isn&#x27;t it possible to do this all in software?

It&#x27;s the focusing close that is bad, and with the lenses you are focusing further in the distance

From my understanding, the Quest&#x27;s focal distance is at 1.3m<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;ID_AA_Carmack&#x2F;status&#x2F;1371485209603022853" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;ID_AA_Carmack&#x2F;status&#x2F;1371485209603022853</a>Valve Index reportedly around 6 feet<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;ValveIndex&#x2F;comments&#x2F;by1j2z&#x2F;focal_distance_for_dedicated_vr_perscription&#x2F;eqt1o8z&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;ValveIndex&#x2F;comments&#x2F;by1j2z&#x2F;focal_di...</a>

The focal distance won&#x27;t be an inch away of course. Every headset I&#x27;ve seen specs for puts the focal distance at 20ft. For normal human eyes, 20ft is optical infinity, so there&#x27;s no difference optically between looking into a headset and looking at the horizon.

Apple: We&#x27;re concerned about myopia from holding screens too close to your face.Also Apple: Strap a pair of 4K displays an inch from your eyeballs!!!

Apple Vision Pro: Apple’s first spatial computer