Apple Vision Pro Tipped For Late January, Early February Release (techcrunch.com) 35
The Vision Pro, Apple's first "spatial computing" device that costs $3,499, is expected to have a "late-January/early-February" release date, according to Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo. "The analyst says that the first wave of Vision Pros are being shipped to Apple in about a month, with total shipments numbering around 500,000 for the full year," adds TechCrunch. From the report: The company's precise target for the year remains an open-ended question. About a month after the device was revealed, reports suggested that Apple has scaled back expectations from around one million to "fewer than 400,000." Even the updated 500,000 figure is small for a company of Apple's massive size and influence. Keep in mind that the company should be shipping more than 200 million iPhones this calendar year.
The Vision Pro, however, is widely regarded as the biggest gambit of Tim Cook's 12-year tenure as CEO. Not only is it an entirely new category and form factor for the company, it's also prohibitively priced, even for customers accustomed to shelling out extra for apple products. Add to that VR's decades-long failure to live up to expectations, and you've got a big uphill fight on your hands. Kuo refers to Vision Pro as "Apple's most important product of 2024." Given the years of speculation and all the time and money the company has no doubt poured into the headset, it's a tough statement to argue.
The Vision Pro, however, is widely regarded as the biggest gambit of Tim Cook's 12-year tenure as CEO. Not only is it an entirely new category and form factor for the company, it's also prohibitively priced, even for customers accustomed to shelling out extra for apple products. Add to that VR's decades-long failure to live up to expectations, and you've got a big uphill fight on your hands. Kuo refers to Vision Pro as "Apple's most important product of 2024." Given the years of speculation and all the time and money the company has no doubt poured into the headset, it's a tough statement to argue.
Woo. (Score:2)
I'm feeling the excitement already. (yawn)
Too bad the walled garden will kill it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Too bad the walled garden will kill it (Score:3)
My problem specifically with the Vision Pro is that it *is* a general purpose computer. The thing is not a VR headset, itâ(TM)s a computer with an integrated display system. Given that, the walled garden really doesnâ(TM)t make sense there.
Re: (Score:2)
My problem specifically with the Vision Pro is that it *is* a general purpose computer. The thing is not a VR headset, itâ(TM)s a computer with an integrated display system. Given that, the walled garden really doesnâ(TM)t make sense there.
+1. Agreed wholeheartedly. I was ready to buy one until I learned about that. Now there's maybe a 20% chance of me doing so at best.
Re: (Score:2)
As a general-purpose computer, it is going to fail in the market, because it can't run Mac apps, and iOS just doesn't do very well at that sort of thing, which means VisionOS almost certainly won't, either.
What sort of thing?
I think that running as an enhanced Display System for Macs is precisely the proper role for macOS "collaboration" with the Vision Headsets. Although it technically has the compute-power of at least a MacBook Air, I think the cooling system and Battery Life would be taxed beyond comfortable Design Limits when people inevitably try to Install and Run "Apps" like Final Cut, Logic, or CPU and Memory-Intensive AAA macOS games. Then, the "Bad Reviews" will Start.
OTOH, on Day One, visionOS will
Re: (Score:2)
So is the iPad, though the trackpad/mouse and keyboard are sold separately. Both Apple and Microsoft would wall off everything if they could get away with it. And they do for everything that doesn't look like a traditional PC. On both Windows and MacOS they have the app store without the lockdown - but both offer lockdown by default, whether by S Mode or on the Mac having to go into System Preferences and allow non-app store apps.
Re: Too bad the walled garden will kill it (Score:2)
And unless I'm mistaken, no one will be handing out cheap/free apple visions like they did with iPhones. So now you are suddenly asking people to hand out thousands of dollars for a new device that doesn't have an ecosystem to back it up, is in a locked garden, with nothing but a hope it might some day MIGHT fill some niche in your life. That's
Re: (Score:2)
If someone can figure out a monthly contract service that they can overcharge for by $150 a month, they might subsidize a headset.
It's not like the iPhone is free. It's usually with a fixed term contract and if you want a better phone you also have a monthly payment plan. And to get all that you pay about double for your wireless service. All that's needed is a bigger type of contract service where you can hide the extra costs.
And even today, the phone lock-in still works. By the time that payment plan i
Popular but practical? (Score:3)
This idea was made popular in 1992 (Lawnmower Man) but has never caught traction for two reasons: the headset becomes an uncomfortable brick after 15 minutes and no killer app has been imagined yet. I've played around with a few headsets over the last 25 years. They all had one thing in common, they became boring after just a few minutes of use.
Re: Popular but practical? (Score:1)
But I so want to enjoy VR.
I hate the closed-source Apple/Google duopoly, so I really hope Apple haven't cracked the problem.
Along with Trump, Hamas and Ukraine, that's one of my big fears for 2024.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. That's like the only problem which doesn't exist. You're not focusing on a screen in front of you. You are focusing on a screen 1.5m away from you, literally not straining your eye. That's what the lens in the headset actually does.
To be clear people do suffer eye strain, those people probably need corrective lenses. Eye strain is the one thing a headset should not give you.
It's also not cybersickness. Cybersickness is the disconnect between the physical experience and the visual one. Input lag, displ
Re: (Score:2)
The lenses in the headset fake the distance. Your eyes aren't straining for that.
But this $3500 headset is still only 90Hz. Even if the human eye can only see at maybe the equivalent of 70-80Hz, your eyes aren't sync-locked to the device. Like in audio, the Nyquist theorem tells us we may need something like 140-200Hz minimum for the motion to feel smooth and not give you motion sickness. And that's ignoring input lag. Which is inherently impossible with how things are currently done. You'd need the s
Re: (Score:2)
"Along with Trump, Hamas and Ukraine, that's one of my big fears for 2024."
For maximum shock and horror, imagine watching President Trump in VR in real time brokering a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia and Hamas and Israel simultaneously.
Re: (Score:2)
"Along with Trump, Hamas and Ukraine, that's one of my big fears for 2024."
For maximum shock and horror, imagine watching President Trump in VR in real time brokering a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia and Hamas and Israel simultaneously.
That was the shittiest horror movie I ever saw. The nuke the world ending was so predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
"The nuke the world ending was so predictable."
Ah yes, Biden's Revenge. It was hard to suspend disbelief that he'd remember which button to press, or who he was.
Re: (Score:2)
That thread certainly devolved quickly, and Godwin wasn't even implicated this time.
Re: (Score:2)
That's despite the fact that some think that Trump is literally Hitler.
Aw crap
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I can imagine it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a VR headset called "Bigscreen Beyond" and its form factor seems to work, but the resolution on it could use a bump up -- and I suspect that will happen eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
They all had one thing in common, they became boring after just a few minutes of use.
It's not the headset's job to be exciting. Your problem is you don't enjoy the content. To be fair a lot of it is boring, but much of it isn't either. I have no problem being engaged for an hour or two at a time playing games. Maybe you haven't found the right ones, or just aren't into gaming?
Re: (Score:2)
This idea was made popular in 1992 (Lawnmower Man) but has never caught traction for two reasons: the headset becomes an uncomfortable brick after 15 minutes and no killer app has been imagined yet. I've played around with a few headsets over the last 25 years. They all had one thing in common, they became boring after just a few minutes of use.
Yes, but Apple have cornered the market on making expensive shit that doesn't do much. They have the perfect audience for it.
Jokes aside, isn't that pretty much the reason Google gave up on Glass? There was no practical use for it (and a whole lot of downside from improper use).
The only practical use I can think of is motion capture, I.E. to see where my head is turning when I'm driving but I'm certain we've already got better kit for that (Like IR sensors rather than optical) and probably doesn't cos
Gambit? (Score:3)
How is it a gambit? Worst case they ditch the product and write off a couple billion. That's chump change for Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to make it sound like Apple's doing you a personal favor to bring you such an amazing product, so you'd better buy it!
Re: (Score:2)
How is it a gambit? Worst case they ditch the product and write off a couple billion. That's chump change for Apple.
It's a gambit because design patents only last so long. In 15 years, it's open season on any new user interface designs that Apple comes up with. That means if the product doesn't become the next thing since sliced bread pretty quickly, then in 15 years, somebody else is going to build a product that does the same thing, but better, and cut them off at the knees. And that has the potential for real, long-term losses.
Re: (Score:2)
This generation's design patents are not as important as the next one. There are so many problems to work out with VR, they need actual human test subjects to come up with a design that works. And then they can patent that. If they can even sell them. And then they also need an app ecosystem to come up with an actual use for VR. If they can even get enough users to get developers to help with that for free.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... is the Apple iDevice interface being replicated now? I'm not sure when iPhones were introduced - I think I handled one in about 2010, but I didn't bother to make an entry in my diary - but it must be getting up close to that 15 year deadline.
Or was the iDevice interface less of a breakthrough than Apple touted? It certainly didn't seem particularly marvellous back when I rejected it.
It would have helped if the
For comparison⦠(Score:4, Interesting)
Sony shipped 1 million PSVRs in the first 8 months it was available, and that was a peripheral which automatically limited the market that would even consider buying it. Apple should be able to sell 100,000 vision AR goggles to developers alone, but all the developers I've talked to literally don't know what they would even build for them. Personally, I've had my doubts that anyone could figure out a killer app since Apple's introductory video showed a guy using it for "work" and the apps he was using were iMessage, Photos and Music. (None or which even seemed enhanced by an AR UI.) They've been working on this for how many years and that's what they've come up with?
Then the obvious use case for AR goggles (games) has probably been severely limited by Apple's rocky relationship with Epic Games, which builds the game engine that's the industry standard. Nothing spells motion sickness like poor frame rates, and the game engine Apple's promoting (Unity) is known for it's bad performance. You'd be a fool to count Apple out, but it's going to be interesting to see how they pull this one off.
Re: (Score:1)
It's worse than that. Apple is launching a product with no application. At least the first iPhone made phone calls, something that can get you through several generations before Jobs got up and started repeating "there's an app for that" over and over again at his keynote.
There is no app. This can't make phone calls. There's a reason Meta's Quest keynote spent only 5 minutes talking about the headset and 40min talking about all the upcoming content for it. There was a reason they were bundling games with ea
Re: For comparison⦠(Score:3)
The app this replaces is Finder. And your monitor. And your mouse. And your big-screen TV. Whether many people will find it worth $3,500 is doubtful, but that doesnâ(TM)t matter because it will get cheaper and better over time, and Apple can afford to wait.
Re: (Score:2)
No it does not. That's not an app, and anyone who has used a virtual desktop before will tell you it is *not* a substitute for using the correct tool for the job. It is one of the worst use cases for VR, so if that's what they are banking on they will fail even at 1/10th the price.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple should be able to sell 100,000 vision AR goggles to developers alone, but all the developers I've talked to literally don't know what they would even build for them.
Developers might be an actual user market that could benefit straight away and the cost is high but not much more than two giant screens and a PC. If there was an IDE that could take advantage of the format. So that might be the first thing to build.
Luxury item (Score:1)
Waiting for the 3rd edition. (Score:2)