Vision Pro Owners Face Weight of Buyer's Remorse (wsj.com) 65
Early adopters of Apple's $3,500 Vision Pro mixed-reality headset report widespread disappointment a year after its February 2024 launch, with many devices now unused due to physical discomfort and social awkwardness, according to customers who spoke with WSJ.
"It's just collecting dust," said Dustin Fox, a Virginia realtor who has used his headset only four times in the past year. "It's way too heavy. I can't wear it for more than 20 or 30 minutes without it hurting my neck." Customers told the paper that the device's one-pound weight causes neck strain. The device is also reeling from limited app selection and negative public reactions as primary complaints.
"It's just collecting dust," said Dustin Fox, a Virginia realtor who has used his headset only four times in the past year. "It's way too heavy. I can't wear it for more than 20 or 30 minutes without it hurting my neck." Customers told the paper that the device's one-pound weight causes neck strain. The device is also reeling from limited app selection and negative public reactions as primary complaints.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The technology is so fucking amazing. If you've used an Oculus, yes, you want one. You just want a better one. The technology just isn't there yet (for most people). Too heavy, graphics too primitive.
This product was marketed as a developer-only sort of deal, and the people buying it should have taken that marketing seriously.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When the marketing basically says "don't buy this unless you're a developer" then yes...
Re:What is it for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's marketing most certainly did not say that!
Google Glass *was* for developers: you had to submit an application showing you were a dev to even purchase a pair. Everyone involved was 100% clear that it was an early developer/demo device.
In contrast, Vision Pro was sold directly to consumers, advertised in mass media, and free demos were given to anyone who walked into an Apple Store. It was an "early adopter" device, absolutely ... but it was not a *developer* device.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a v1.0 (Score:2)
This product was marketed as a developer-only sort of deal, and the people buying it should have taken that marketing seriously.
Yes and no. It was definitely developer oriented, but also early adopters. The latter effectively being beta testers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really a "v1.0" though, it's just another in a long line of VR headsets that do practically the same things. This is like the 10th attempt to try to get people to strap a brick to their head. Just because this one is from Apple doesn't mean the concept of strapping a brick to your head is new ...
It's not about the concept. It's about the implementation. This particular implementation from Apple was v1.0.
Someday the tech and the implementation will be far better, something people might consider if the price is right. There is nothing wrong with the concept. There is only something wrong with implementations so far and with the marketing desperately overreaching to manufacture the impression this thing was highly useful.
Re:What is it for? (Score:5, Interesting)
This product was marketed as a developer-only sort of deal
This was not, stop gaslighting the people who bought it. I watched the entire WWDC and developers weren't mentioned once. It was marketed at people facetiming, it was marketed at people wanting to look at 3D pictures and movies, it was marketed with screen mirroring so you could compensate for your decision to buy something which only had a 14" screen.
Even right now it says in MASSIVE font on their vision pro website: "So you can work, watch, relive memories, and connect in ways never before possible.". The entire site right now talks about entertainment, reliving memories, connecting with family and friends, browsing the internet, spatial audio, self measurbating over the awesome hardware specs, it was designed by Apple (yes kids, Apple's marketing says you should buy this because it was designed by Apple and because Apple has experience designing consumer products, I've never seen a marketing department circlejerk harder, complete with literally flying a circle around the device as you scroll down in this section)...
In fact the website talks about carry cases and accessories before even mentioning the word "developer" and the mention of "developer" is by far the smallest section on the entire website.
and the people buying it should have taken that marketing seriously.
The only one here not taking it seriously is *YOU*. Stop gaslighting.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple killed the self driving car because it wasn't ready, either due to immature technology or the lack of economic viability. Somehow, Apple released the Vision Pro, even though it was apparent that the technology was not sufficiently mature for a second iPhone moment. Maybe they thought Apple fairy dust would grant it some measure of economic success.
This Vision Pro experience reveals two disturbing things about Apple. First, Apple fairy dust has limits. Second, Apple feel for technology and economics is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody I know who used an Oculus even wants one of those. VR got hyped for a moment then died yet again. Its still a solution looking for a problem. It doesn't work for AR (which require you to actually see the world) and VR is a niche thing that most gamers don't even want, and that's its only usecase.
Re: (Score:2)
This product was marketed as a developer-only sort of deal
As a developer, what exactly would this $3,500 "tool" do for my work?
Re: (Score:2)
I like Apple stuff, but honestly it's been a rough few years as a consumer of Apple kit. ARM transition? Superlative. Excellent. Mac Mini rebirth? Couldn't be happier. Anything else? Well....errr....there was USB C on the iPhone which was a good thing. And, and...*
They really, really need a product person back. Trouble is, everything I just said was from the point of using it. It was not fro
Re: (Score:2)
"[T]here was USB C on the iPhone which was a good thing."
Only because the EU forced them at gunpoint to do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Only because the EU forced them at gunpoint to do it.
Nope. Apple was already switching to USB-C. The switch to USB-C started on the iPad line first, before the EU mandate.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple was already switching to USB-C. The switch to USB-C started on the iPad line first, before the EU mandate.
Eh, no. Apple's stated position was "We remain concerned that strict regulation mandating just one type of connector stifles innovation rather than encouraging it, which in turn will harm consumers in Europe and around the world". They even commissioned studies [copenhageneconomics.com] to show that customers want more types of connectors rather than fewer. Of course, their opposition was all about innovation, not locking customers in. Honi soit qui mal y pense!
In the end they had to be dragged kicking [www.rte.ie] and screaming [reuters.com] into changing.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Lightning was already well established in the market. Lightning predates USB-C.
The problem was if you had a lot of lightning accessories then they all became e-waste the moment you upgrade your phone. Fine if the only thing you had was a charging cable, but not so fine if you had docks and other accessories.
I for one would be losing access to several expensive to replace accessories because of the switch to USB-C. Even the USB-C replacements are still several hundred dollars each.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple was already switching to USB-C. The switch to USB-C started on the iPad line first, before the EU mandate.
Eh, no. Apple's stated position was "We remain concerned that strict regulation mandating just one type of connector stifles innovation rather than encouraging it, which in turn will harm consumers in Europe and around the world".
All you are showing is that they wanted to change on their own time table not an externally imposed timetable. Over time, during major redesigns rather than minor incremental updates, we would have seen devices move to usb-c without any action by the EU.
Re: What is it for? (Score:3)
Yep. Apple fought tooth and nail to not have to do it. They wanted to preserve their profits from selling accessories and cables with a DRM chip. They only switched to type C for tablets because their DRM chip prevented adequate power delivery for such devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Apple fought tooth and nail to not have to do it.
They were doing it on their own time table and wanted to continue that way.
They only switched to type C for tablets because their DRM chip prevented adequate power delivery for such devices.
Sure. But once that move was made unifying the connector across all products would allow cost savings. So when a phone goes through a major redesign, as opposed to an incremental redesign, the change would come.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The iphone 16 doesn't even come with a charger. Just a C-to-C cable. Perfect for all those USB-C bricks nobody has! Lets turn all those lightning earpods into e-waste! great move. e-waste all the billion or so A-to-Lightning cables while we're at it.
On top of that, USB-C as a port is more fragile than lightning,
Re: (Score:3)
Non-lightning chargers are even more common and will continue to be more common going forwards. I like many others have type-c chargers as well as machines like laptops and cars have type-c ports. Apple was the last manufacturer on its own standard, it's a good thing they've joined the standards of all other devices
Re: (Score:2)
That’s why I use magnetic adapters on all my iPad and Android stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Their customers asked for a shiny expensive piece of hardware, and that's what they got.
It's obvious nobody ever asked what it would be useful for before purchasing, or they would not have purchased.
Re: (Score:2)
I am SHOCKED! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It is amazing actually the main problem is its weight, nothing else. It solves mainly problems .. you can have a large multi screen desktop in front of you with info at a glance. It offers then potential of totally immersive FPS gaming. It's great for documentaries wherein you can experience the true scale of things like what it's like to be inside the Roman Pantheon or in or near the pyramids. Oh and for hobbies like astronomy it's great .. you can be like a virtual astronaut visiting galaxies, planets, an
Re: (Score:3)
There were other issues beyond the weight. The cost, for one thing. The sub-par head attachment setup. The lack of cross-platform software.
They could have improved both the cost and weight by using lighter materials like injection-molded plastic instead of milled aluminum and not including useless features like the outward-facing creepy-eye-display. They could have improved the perceived weight by using a better mounting mechanism (like a halo style).
It's like Apple just ignored the past decade of learnings
Re: I am SHOCKED! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What!?? (Score:1)
I thought there would be at least a 100 million in use by now! Used by people living in their 3D printed homes?
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Where is this user now? I want to thank him fir years of laughs.
Re: (Score:2)
Oculus sold 20 million Quest 2s. Obviously a lot are gathering dust, but the interest is there.
Re: (Score:2)
They've sold millions of Quest 3 and S3 headsets as well. They were kind of a "hot" item for Christmas 2024, but something tells me that most of them are also collecting dust as well. I know that mine is. The controls are still too kludgy for AAA gaming titles, there really isn't much in the way of productivity software for it, and the simple arcade games like Beat Saber get boring after a few hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is this user now? I want to thank him fir years of laughs.
He shit in his shorts and then died trying to eat them.
VR kinda reminds me of... (Score:3)
...fusion energy
Exciting promise, but seemingly endless problems
I worked on a very well funded VR project with a major company. We achieved kinda cool results, but ran into lots of problems
VR is hard, really hard. Even if you go into it assuming it's hard, it will be harder
Brains and eyeballs have had a long time to get used to reality
VR can get close, but close is never good enough
The stupid money (Score:2)
Is easy to get with flashy but not well-designed gadgets. What else is new?
Really? (Score:1, Flamebait)
It sounds like one of the expectations customers genuinely had is to walk around in public with this thing on your face all the time, and nobody would laugh at them, presumably because the fanbois have been brainwashed to believe that the Apple logo makes them look cool no matter what.
Counterargument from an actual AVP owner (Score:5, Interesting)
For work, having the ability to have a giant screen connected to my Mac, as well as a 360 degree cascade of other apps open (music, tv, RSS feeds, etc) has been great and it's actually kept me a bit more focused on work. I move the distractions literally behind me so that I have to physically turn around to interact with those apps and windows.
For pleasure it's been great for watching TV and movies both at home and while traveling. At home I use it on the couch with my spouse when we both want to be together but don't necessarily agree on what we want to watch. For travel, seriously, on flights for 3+ hours I've really enjoyed having a private space to watch TV or movies or play games and not have it out in the open for the entire plane to watch.
Are there things I don't like about it? Yes, certainly. It is a little heavy, but I bought a third party forehead rest that better distributes the weight. Was it expensive? Absolutely - but I went in knowing what I was getting: A first generation product that Tim Cook and other Apple executives clearly articulated was not an every day consumer product, but was instead a first generation product for enthusiasts and people interested in AR/VR - with a price point that clearly wasn't targeted at average consumers.
There are definitely people who bought it and didn't enjoy it or didn't really get the value proposition that Apple clearly laid out for this device. But there are a lot of us out here who bought one, use it regularly, and truly enjoy it for what it is - and for what it can be if Apple continues to develop this technology.
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno but VR gooning doesn't seem worth 3500
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Apple can't develop this technology alone. It requires thousands and thousands of developers to produce a few great apps and a lot of middling apps that people might want to use. Apple isn't going to develop the killer app for this, and developers haven't flocked to the platform either because of the high cost and low user count. It's a chicken and egg problem, based on the high cost. If more people could afford these things, there woul
Social awkwardness? (Score:1)
With an Apple product? :-)
I think AR has potential (Score:3)
I had a couple of Hololens kits go across my desk a couple years ago. I'm told they were intended for training and assistance purposes maintaining some equipment. I only set them up for the engineering group using them, so didn't use them much. The tech was clearly in infant stage, a bit unwieldly and the interface was kind of difficult to use. But I saw promise for it. I personally have little interest in watching movies or playing games on such a thing, but could see promise in using it like Heads-up-Display for overlaying schematics or similar on a work item.
Sure, Apple's VisionPro was a flop. I content perhaps because they were targeting the wrong market, and also because they hadn't miniaturized it enough yet. Hololens probably had some of the same problems. It was just too soon to market, but this is how these big tech companies operate. Often you can't know what works and what doesn't in the real market until you try it, so you gamble with a product launch to collect data.
no sympathy (Score:1)
If you have $3500 to waste on silly toys, I don't care if your face hurts.
Who would use this for 30min? (Score:3)
There's nothing to do with the Vision Pro. It has no killer apps and certainly no games. It was obvious this was going to be a flop from the way it was announced. Compare:
Apple: 30min of it's the biggest best-est with the highest power and resolution specs on the market, so powerful it needs external battery, and we put a screen on the front so you can creep people out. 15min showing a guy look at pictures of his family (who presumably left him because he bought the Vision pro), and 15min of showing a guy mirroring his laptop because he has buyers remorse about that too because the screen was too small for what he wanted to do.
Meta: 5minutes of the Quest 3 is like the Quest 2 just lighter, higher res and with colour pass through. Anyway moving on let's spend the next 55minutes talking about all the games and content being released in the upcoming year!
I can't believe Apple launched this as poorly as it did.
Re:Who would use this for 30min? (Score:4, Insightful)
And to have a large "portable" desktop screen experience while on the road in hotel rooms on trips....
Those two use cases alone would be good for me...at about half or less the original price.
We told you so! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So many people, including me, knew this would happen. We had our fun with our far cheaper VR headsets, and now they just collect dust. When vision pro came out we rolled our eyes at the price, knowing they would just end up on a shelf collecting dust for most people. After the novelty wears off, it's just a bit too much to strap the thing on. Even watching porn in VR isn't worth it, it's just not fun with a giant block strapped to your head, and if porn isn't really making it happen for VR headsets, then practically nothing will.
I mean I suspected the same would happen as all the other VR stuff, but AVP does have one solid advantage over VR headsets. It is an AMAZING private home theater experience. Nothing to do with VR, just as a freaking huge high def virtual screen, it's amazing at that.
You just can't share it with anyone like you can a similarly priced bigass tv. So it's a mobile version of that.. and I can't bring myself to use it on a plane. So it's basically down to watching scary movies that nobody else in the family wants
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's not. Having to strap a brick to my head does not sound appealing in any way to watch any kind of content. Maybe it does to you, so YMMV, but for most people it's just a non-starter. I don't care how big the screen looks. TVs are already big and cheap enough, and if you aren't a single loner, then strapping the brick to your face is an antisocial behavior no matter what Apple tries to sell it as. About the only use for that type of content consu
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. Having to strap a brick to my head does not sound appealing in any way to watch any kind of content. Maybe it does to you, so YMMV, but for most people it's just a non-starter. I don't care how big the screen looks. TVs are already big and cheap enough, and if you aren't a single loner, then strapping the brick to your face is an antisocial behavior no matter what Apple tries to sell it as. And trust me, AVP audio is in no way comparable t
Google (Score:1)
Don't buy 1.0 of anything from Apple... (Score:2)
if you're looking for long-term utility and support. I made that mistake with the iPad - the first iPad lost support quickly compared to iPad 2 and following.
Apple's design and testing people are good, but you don't really know what people really want until you have feedback from several thousand users.
To the people who bought Vision Pro - thanks for your input on Vision Pro 2, which we won't see until Apple can solve the obvious Vision Pro problems of weight, power, and cost.
Not Alone (Score:3)
Same feeling about my Oculus Quest 2... just gathering dust, but at least it was "only" $300...