from the words-are-but-wind dept
The tech companies seem more interested in what will bouy up their share prices than actually producing products that people want.
There’s No Dancing Around It: Apple’s Vision Pro Was An Ugly Dud
Submitted 1 year ago by florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/02/theres-no-dancing-around-it-apples-vision-pro-was-an-ugly-dud/
Comments
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 1 year ago
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That and also they’ve lost understanding that you need an actual set of use cases 100% operational. The niche their product will fill.
The best by far example of this done right is - game consoles. With PlayStation 2 (I remember that from my childhood, lost interest to games of console kind after it) it’s absolutely clear how to use it. You buy the damn good-looking box itself, you buy a couple of damn good-looking controllers and memory cards, you buy a couple of games (all games from that time seem very cool, dunno why), you stick things where needed and put the disc where needed, and then life is cool.
With Apple’s iPod it was clear too. The small white square one, not the bullshit after it.
With PSP, other than games, you knew you could watch movies, listen to music, even browse the web and use IMs and Skype. PSP Slim, BTW, was far closer to what those “smartphones” of today pretend to be. A real usable pocket computer, except, of course, no way to easily type text. OK, I suppose initially there was no such software for it as Skype and IM clients, but the rest remains.
One can go on, it comes down to the question “what the hell will I use it for” which even Apple cultists will ask. When there’s an answer, they can’t resist, that’s why they are cultists, but when there’s none, they most likely won’t buy it.
That’s this need for growth. They feel they have to show new horizons and new lands with gold and spices being discovered, but there’s none, of those reachable by sea at least. They have grown as big as they can. Absolute majority of humans uses computers almost everywhere economically relevant. And the Web.
So now it came to doing things well instead of doing things fast and capturing new colonies first, and that’s where these companies suck. Doing things well requires rigor and rational practices of organization. Doing things well requires going back to 80s, one can say. They can’t. So everything they do is aimed at spreading money to suppress such competition that will kill them if it survives.
rumba@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
I’m not going to say we’re hitting a wall but there’s a serious hurdle here. The tech to make the AR/VR experience truly pleasant doesn’t really exist yet, and even once we get the tech nailed down it’s going to be really expensive
The shot that Apple took and I kind of agree with it, to a point, is that immersive VR is a secondary concern. It’s a game. It’s an occasional escape. Occasionally, you’ll throw yourself into a virtual world and hide away for a bit but it’s not where you’re going to spend most of your time.
AR is what we need to tackle. We need a bright clear high-res overlay capable of doing at least 90°. It needs to be close enough to the size and weight of a pair of glasses to wear comfortably. Maybe we stop carrying around the tablet sized cell phones and move back to candy bars that push the display for the glasses.
Meta has a somewhat promising looking prototype that costs $10,000 to manufacture.
The quest definitely scratched the itch for VR. It’s a great platform, super cheap, and as magic for short to medium balance of playing around in virtual worlds. But we need a tool, something that improves our existing lives not something that replaces them.
SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 year ago
I tried one in the store. It’s an amazing experience, the augmented reality is done very well.
The problem is I don’t think there’s any content for it. If it could play 3D movies or games or something, that might be a reason to buy it. But for right now as far as I can tell the main reason to have one is to view 3D photos from an iPhone in actual 3D. And I’m sorry but that’s just not worth $3,500.The other issue is the competition. Quest 3 is very close in terms of technology, not quite as good but close, and it’s 7x cheaper with a hell of a lot more content available.
Make it $1500 and release enough content that there’s a reason to buy it, and it’ll sell.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Apple treats developers like hot garbage, why would anyone bother to develop content for them just to be immediately kicked to the curb?
hmancuso@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Apple’s development kit offers cutting-edge technology at a price point accessible to those who can afford it. For individuals like me, who need to prioritize essential expenses, spending $3,500 isn’t feasible. However, if circumstances were different, this would undoubtedly be an exciting gadget to explore.
kadup@lemmy.world 1 year ago
[deleted]hmancuso@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I understand your point, but I truly believe that Apple’s Vision Pro (at least the current iteration) was never intended as a mainstream product for the following reasons:
-
It’s hard to imagine that a $3,500 headset would become an overnight sensation;
-
There’s barely any software available to support it, with most content aimed at showcasing user-case scenarios and the hardware’s potential.
-
It seems designed to showcase Apple’s design and “vision” of what a high-end headset should be.
Despite this, some news outlets report that the product flopped due to Apple selling fewer than 500,000 units in 2024. Apple Insider reported that in the first three quarters of 2024, the company sold around 370,000 units of its pricey headset.
While it’s true that Apple reviewed their expectations and cut production, and interest in the product has dwindled after the initial buzz, it’s worth noting that when Samsung first launched its Galaxy Fold, sales were far below forecast in the first year, but improved over time. Although it’s not a smashing hit compared to other Galaxy products, it has found its niche.
The big question now is whether Apple will discontinue its pricey proof of concept. Will there be an Apple Vision Pro 2? It’s hard to tell. If other companies are successfully selling their glasses, Apple might release a stripped-down version of its Vision Pro, priced around $1,000, for a second attempt. However, crystal ball gazing is a tough game.
-
echodot@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Calling it a dev kit is just copism.
Apple never advertised this as anything other than a fully baked product. There was no suggestion that this was a prototype or development preview. This was being sold as the next big thing in computing.
The thing is it’s an actually decent product, if they just made it with slightly less advanced components, an integrated battery, and the ability to connect to any computer not just a Mac it could be something interesting. I am sure somebody else will come along with a more realistic version of the product in the next year or so.
echodot@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Yeah like helicopters, they are accessible at a price point for people who can afford them.
hmancuso@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Or private jets, or luxury watches. It’s a long list…
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I just wanna get doxed in public by some dude wearing an implanted vision chip…then a year later he can’t see because that chip is not upgradable! Planned human obsolescence. Or Pho for short.
thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
mmmm phö
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Absolutely delicious! Buy for the vegans we have need “I can’t believed its not Pho!” Or “IPho…impossible Pho”
kibiz0r@midwest.social 1 year ago
Meh. TechDirt is great for privacy stuff, but market analysis isn’t their wheelhouse.
I think Vision Pro pretty much accomplished what Apple wanted from it.
Tech press kept comparing it to “the iPhone moment”, but that’s ridiculous. It’s a dev kit.
A dev kit with the best hardware, at a lower price than the second-best, and a more mature OS than anything else out there.
We’ll have to see how it evolves from here, but it’s a perfectly fine first step. Not everything is for you.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
nah, this is just copium. Apple don’t release dev-kits to the general public. It was a real product, and it was a dud
NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com 1 year ago
I mean I want one but the only reason I don’t have one is because I’m not paying $3500 for one. And even if I could get one used for under $1000, I’m still not because a majority of customers feel the same way, so this was DOA for that reason alone. No developer is developing anything fun for this en masse with no customer base.
I think a majority of people are in this boat. People flock to anything with the apple logo on it, but this was just too damn expensive.
That headset is more expensive than most MacBooks, just for reference.
Telorand@reddthat.com 1 year ago
And because of that lack of dev support, it can do less than a MacBook
five82@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s a tech demo at this point, not a product. Tim Cook wanted something to cement his legacy so they released it even though the technology was not at all ready yet. The potential is impressive but we’re years away.
Say what you want about Steve Jobs. But his timing during his second stint at Apple was unrivaled. He knew what to bet on and when. And he wasn’t afraid to go all in and bet the company on it.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Tech Press Derides Tech Press For Doing Tech Press Things.
Also, no mention of, or comparison to, AI. At least Apple created a viable product somebody wanted.
venusaur@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Did people get motion sickness from these. I know VR is diff, but the PS VR2 make my head hurt after 20 min or so.
wccrawford@lemmy.world 1 year ago
No, because they weren’t for games and they pretty much had always-on video passthrough, which greatly reduces the chances of getting nausea.
venusaur@lemmy.world 1 year ago
No delay with the passthrough video? Still can be disorienting. Maybe it’s just me.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s an ugly dud just like every VR headset because the technology for displays, processing, and batteries make them look like gigantic, heavy ski goggles.
Plus there’s no applications. Games are cool, socializing is cool (I guess), and porn is porn, but what can I do with it? It’s like releasing the first Macintosh without MacWrite or MacPaint.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Honestly, the killer application is really simple, but this headset wasn’t quite designed for it (nor is MacOS in general), and that is simply as external monitors.
You know what’s annoying? Trying to use your computer outside, trying to use it on an airplane, or while travelling. Or being in an open plan office with a million visual distractions.
If you’re working in a professional setting where your company is already buying you a giant ultra wide display or multiple professional 27" screens then you’re approaching the territory of a thousand or two dollars spent on each employee, and suddenly a VR headset is starting to look more reasonable as a monitor replacement.
If this was closer to the size of the size of the Big Screen Beyond but could let you place as many windows / monitors around you as you wanted, they might actually have a compelling product.
Or if it was cheaper it could be used for gaming.
Or if it had transparent AR displays it could be used for industrial applications like Hololens.
But yeah, as is, it feels like it had a neat idea or two, some really fancy tech, and fell right in the middle of not being that useful for anyone.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I agree that using it as an unlimited display would be a great application. The only problem is that the device itself is too heavy for long-term usage, which goes back to the technology not being ready yet.
Maybe if all that you put on your face was a screen, and the rendering and power were offloaded to a desktop it could be made light enough to wear for hours at a time.
RaoulDook@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s fine if you don’t want one, but my VR headset get used daily and was a great investment. Once you get used to good VR games, the rest of the video games in 2D just begin to pale in comparison. One example is Assetto Corsa (racing sim) which I could not win any races in in 2D standard mode, but when I played in VR my 3D sense of distance allowed me to actually race competitively enough to win for a change. Also it’s just pretty rad to drive racecars in full 3D view, getting the full experience of moving at high speed.
And it’s absolutely not true that there’s “no applications” for VR. You just don’t know about them because you’re against it. In my household the primary applications are gaming and exercise. There are a number of VR games that require the player to physically move a lot, enough to break a sweat on every session.
IMO the only thing wrong with Apple’s Vision Pro is the high price. I spent $1000 on my VR system and that was a lot. So when you get into the triple-thousand dollar ballpark, your market is just too tiny to grow into anything soon.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There’s the butthurt VR bro who shows up every time I point out the tech for VR isn’t ready yet. There’s always one of you.
And it’s obvious you didn’t read my whole comment because I said that it’s got games. But that just means it’s a game console. What I want is an application that does something useful and productive.
Num10ck@lemmy.world 1 year ago
wheres the first party stuff at LEAST? like garage band couldve been amazing… or logic or reason, or maps… wheres the tilt brush and 3d modelers? rollercoaster tycoon would shred in this.
kalleboo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah it feels like even Apple is half-heartedly invested in it. Lots of the first-party Apple apps are basically just iPad apps, a year after launch. And there’s no real video content, just a bunch of short 7-minute teasers.
vinylshrapnel@lemmynsfw.com 1 year ago
They said this about iPads and Apple Watches too. Eventually this will be a big deal. It’s still pretty early though.
Telorand@reddthat.com 1 year ago
Until Apple makes a device that’s as capable as the Vision but as unobtrusive as a pair of glasses, it’s going to remain a niche item. The Apple Watch, as you mentioned, has the benefit of being the same general form factor as a watch. iPads are just fancy notebooks.
As much as he wishes it was true, Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs or Jony Ive.
(For reference, both devices you mentioned, as well as all of Apple’s successful devices since the first iPod, were products of their marketing genius.)
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 year ago
“No wifi. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.” - Slashdot reacting to the first iPod
vinylshrapnel@lemmynsfw.com 1 year ago
Blackberry went hard against the iPhones’ lack of physical keyboard when it was announced too.
MyOpinion@lemm.ee 1 year ago
No support for VR or controllers. What a complete failure of design.
humble_pete_digger@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I would drop apple stock. Everything they work on is a flop recently.
5g modem , apple car, lightning, VR, apple tv is not profitable etc.AutoPastry@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
Seems psvr2 controller compatibility is in the works theverge.com/…/apple-vision-pro-sony-psvr2-contro…
MyOpinion@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Soon
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I went and did the Apple demo. I was there for something else at the time, and they had an opening, so I jumped on it. I highly recommend doing the demo, it’s honestly really freaking impressive. I’m not positive what the killer app is for it yet, or if this is just a step in long term AR/MR, but what they’ve done is really impressive. Yes, it’s expensive as hell, and my suspicion is that long term the displays will be replaced with a waveguide (Stanford’s looks pretty good at this point), so it won’t need the external-facing display, but they’ve got the head and hand-tracking in a good spot, as well as the gestures needed for it.
Maybe, the killer app will be the overlay itself, where it uses a camera/location/audio to see what’s going on and present more context. Looking at a menu? Okay, I’ve had this and this and liked it, but their X I’m not a fan of. I need Y from the grocery store, where is it on the shelves… more than anything, I think that they saw what Google glass could become capable of, and thought that the phone as it is now (screen, etc) was going to become obsolete at some point, and they were terrified of losing that race.
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 1 year ago
Yes, it’s expensive as hell, and my suspicion is that long term the displays will be replaced with a waveguide (Stanford’s looks pretty good at this point), so it won’t need the external-facing display
Interesting; any more information on this? I tried a search but didn’t turn much up.
I think that they saw what Google glass could become capable of, and thought that the phone as it is now (screen, etc) was going to become obsolete at some point, and they were terrified of losing that race.
That’s very fair… I definitely think the only viable future here is lightweight AR glasses.
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 1 year ago
waveguide here’s a good article on it: theverge.com/…/stanford-ai-holographic-ar-glasses…
echodot@feddit.uk 1 year ago
What is the point in developing something so expensive that nobody buys it?
Like sure it’s got some really cool tech in it but since literally no one has made any apps for it what’s the point.
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Some reasons.
- Apple needs new products - even something like this gives headlines, reminds people about the cool product, so maybe they choose a different one. Even if it doesn’t make money it keeps Apple as “new and innovative” and helps recruitment.
- Gets it out there for developers to try out, come up with use cases and killer apps.
- People (prosumers) come up with uses that Apple and Devs may not have thought of.
- Allows people from #4 to bring them to work - after all, that’s how Apple got big in the first place… People bringing their Apple ][ & visicalc, since their IT wasn’t responsive enough or people hated working on mainframes. It wouldn’t surprise me if one of the doctors brought it in himself thinking it might be useful.
- Allows Apple to come up with justification for the R&D money for the GUI, UX, hand gestures, etc that they’re going to need later. Gotta keep shareholders happy.
cornshark@lemmy.world 1 year ago
What’s a waveguide?
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Here’s a good article about this specific waveguide: theverge.com/…/stanford-ai-holographic-ar-glasses…
TLDR - they need special materials to allow small/thin glasses for XR goggles. This looks like it could be huge.
vulture_god@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
It appears to be related to fiber optics, here’s the best resource I found:
QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world 1 year ago
For the specs of what it is and what else is out there, it’s actually a really good price.
People like to compare it to the cheapest headsets out there, but it has specs that beat the highest end headsets out there and it’s cheaper than those.
When the Apple Vision pro came out, the closest device sporting similar specs would be the Varjo XR-3 which was only available to Enterprise users. It cost $7k plus a $1500 yearly subscription, plus you needed a powerful computer to run it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=REo1ugX5GSI
Basically, hardware wise, it’s good, but for it’s actual uses it’s not worth the $3500.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s got good hardware, but there’s nothing being done with that hardware. The pricepoint kept there from being any broad dev support, so its basically a gimmicky paperweight that costs $3500. At least Microsoft will directly work with industry partners for Hololens development, but there’s nothing like that with Apple to help pave over the notoriously rough super-early adoption era.
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah, I’ve seen where doctors are using it for surgery and I see all sorts of parallels to the portable computing movement of the 90s, which were about having tablets instead of a ton of manuals, and some of the AR/MR where it shows them where everything goes while looking at the part in question.
chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Would have been fine if it didn’t cost a kidney and they’d invested in app development more.
Too closed off. Too expensive.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
They were mostly concerned with preventing you from escaping their walled garden so they crippled it. Great job Apple