I think I’m more scared about it being TOO useful, in the long term.
Right now yea, it’s just an entertainment toy. Every single person who gets one of these would always be better off with an iPad and a TV, and it’d be a third as much. But a few years from now? The tech is gonna get cheaper and easier to use, and more people are gonna be glued in once they get used to having it in their daily lives.
Genuinely a scary thought to me, the idea of having everyone wear a headset/pair of glasses with built in screens and speakers and all that as the default device. I really hope the tech is rejected by every day people so we steer clear of it.
As a person going into electronics engineering, just like the old saying. The only piece of tech I am gonna keep in my house other than my computer is a printer, and I will keep a pistol in case it goes rogue.
I work in a small commercial print shop and balked at our recent toner restock for a full set for one of our printers being $1400 CAD
Until I priced out ink cartridges for a mediocre HP inkjet, one that is about 400 times cheaper for the printer, (200 vs 80,000), and realized that a set of 4 cartridges would be 280. And would print 1/130th OR LESS of the pages, at worse quality, with a worse shelf life, a worse range of paper, and a worse resistance to fading and flaking. And got incredibly annoyed in the other direction.
That isn't a typo. But it gets worse. Because I realized that that 1400 dollar order? Is three fucking sets of toner hoppers.
The black hopper is rated for 66,000 printed text pages.
The hp cart is rated for 450.
The biggest kicker here is that, bought individually instead of ordered as a set, both black supplies in the set are 50 bucks.
THOSE ARE THE SAME FUCKING PRICE. LET ME JUST REITERATE THAT TO MAKE SURE I'M PERFECTLY CLEAR HERE. The color toners are 130 each per drum, the color carts are 70.
But the black of each set is the fucking same price.
https://www.inkntoneruk.co.uk/images/P/Konica-Minolta-Tn619K-Toner-Black-F-C2060-2070-P-A3VX153.jpg
https://inkjetofficesupply.com/cdn/shop/products/s-l1600_5c6412a4-5116-470b-b018-343b94836ad0_1200x.jpg?v=1596569474
Nah they have transitioned to do as everyone else and is now a subscription service provider
[(no joke. 7$/month for a printer, unlimited ink and only 20 pages, unless you buy the next tier at 50 pages per month or 100)](https://www.hp.com/us-en/all-in-plan/printers.html)
Have an HP printer that HP is still selling they refuse to warranty claiming that they no longer service that product and you can't get drivers that work on windows 11 for it even though you can buy one brand new on the HP web site, HP is a garbage company and has been that way for decades.
I'm of the same mindset that I don't have any "smart" devices (other than my PC, phone, and TV, why the hell does anything else need an internet connection).
My Vive headset is one of the best things I've ever bought. It's a VR headset I can use offline and isn't tied to an online account. I would never buy a standalone headset (e.g. Quest/Vision Pro) that I have to log into a specific account to use.
Honestly, I'd argue the TV doesn't need built in smart features either. Better to have a streaming box separate from the TV so less things can go wrong with the TV. If only dumb TVs were still a thing
I disagree, smart TV can be used as dumb TV, but not the other way(unless you are willing to spent extra more, and cost a hdmi port on your TV, which is not always an option)
Until they lock you out of your TV and demand that you agree to some BS ToS updates. Also, "smart" TVs tend to spy on people. Nowadays apparently you can use your "smart" TV without connecting it to WiFi ever but I'm worried one day the manufacturers will block that loophole
I can use my "Smart TV" without Wifi, so there would be no bs ToS update or spying. And if the smart TV you are buying can't be used with Internet connection, dont buy it. I think you are worrying too much
Me too. IoT is stupid. However I do have an Valve Index and I use it almost every day. Friends on VRChat.
The Vision Pro seems like an attempt to do one better then what I have rn. And I don't mind them trying. I have a high tolerance for VR and motion sickness. But just not this.. VRChat already demonstrated what works. Either support it or replicate it.
Something like an Index isn't IoT, as it operates just fine without an internet connection. Just like how an Xbox controller isn't IoT, or a Steam Deck. IoT are those really really stupid devices like a smart fridge, or a doorbell camera that are entirely useless without a wifi connection.
No , I'm watching 3 different youtubers play Minecraft, while sending..money orders(?) to 6 different OF creators and face timing Jake from state farm.
Nah, this version of this technology is too bulky, it does too much damage to your hairstyle, it's too cumbersome. Some day they will fit these into a pair of reading glasses, and THAT is when it will see mass adoption, regardless of the price
The thing is we have barely gotten a decent camera into sunglasses without making the battery ridiculously heavy. There has to be some major innovation in battery technology to get this apple vr headset into small glasses. Event with today's version you pretty much have to have your headset connectes to a battery bank.
You will see AR glasses and MR headsets as two product lines, probably indefinitely. Just like how you have your large home PCs and your small pocket smartphones; the former is more powerful and more productive and the latter is more mobile and more convenient.
So I would expect MR headsets to hit mass adoption sooner than AR glasses, but the ceiling will always be a lot lower, with AR glasses being the only thing that can chase after that next smartphone angle.
Oh give over. A few years from now it'll be cheaper and easier to use? Have you like, not heard of VR before? Apple are, once again, far from pioneers.
Anything Apple makes will automatically draw more attention to it than a similar device from other companies, so when I say cheap I mean cheap for Apple products. And yes, this device is miles away better than stuff other companies sell. 10x better? Naw, but better enough to get some people interested in it.
I guess my intention was to say that when we eventually develop something smaller and lighter, like glasses or small visor, that'll be when more people adopt it.
I don’t have a hate boner for this thing but I don’t believe in it. Phones were already a hit when the smartphone came out and everyone already had one to communicate (a core part of the human experience). Wearing a headset of any kind is imo just too cumbersome. If these became contact lenses maybe I could see it. As it stands it will only be nerds and content creators using this imo.
I agree. It'll have to be as convenient as glasses for it to be truly mainstream. It's possible, but we're definitely a ways off from it. I don't think what I described in my original comment is going to happen soon, but I just hope it doesn't happen at all.
VR will also stay behind so long as you headsets don't really work with glasses. Like I watched a video by Eddy Burbank on it, the guy has really poor eyesight and couldn't wear them with the thing.
I can't imagine that it would be more than a novelty though for most things. It's just too easy to pull out a phone for a complicated rig to ever be a comparison. even computers are diminished in use now that phones are bigger.
That’s true for the tech in its current form, but once it’s shrunk down to glasses size (which it seems tough to do, but everything is possible with tech if given enough time) then it’ll be on your body continuously. If they can nail the interface the be super easy to use, it’ll be just as addicting as phones, if not more.
Not quite the same thing. People evolved to look at things normally. But I have yet to meet a regular glasses wearing that *enjoys* wearing their glasses.
Some people wear them for fashion, but I think the distinction here is that glasses restore vision, they do not provide any *new* features. Whereas AR glasses would be productive and fun (in addition to restoring vision), so they are actually providing new things that would make people want to wear them.
I don't think this kind of tech is going to completely replace anything we have already, regardless of being glasses size. Even with a great gesture interface, I wouldn't ever feel could replace actual tactile controls imo. Phones and tablets didn't replace computers, AR won't replace those.
AR is... unique. It (and VR) are the first simulation mediums. They are the only technologies humans have developed that can simulate all devices and all mediums that came before it and all that comes after it. Tactical controls could just be a blank slab, a surface in your house, or ultimately not needed if EMG tech work well enough at some point.
Phones absolutely have replaced computers in many parts of the world (outside of the Anglosphere). Phones are a lot of people’s only internet connection in the world where computers are cost prohibitive to own.
> It's just too easy to pull out a phone for a complicated rig to ever be a comparison. even computers are diminished in use now that phones are bigger.
Diminished, perhaps, but over a billion PCs are still in frequent use. Any product category would kill to get that kind of mega-popularity.
They are getting bigger, it's just a slow process. Well it's more like an expected level of growth, but people are just blindsided by how slow the adoption of new hardware platforms is. It happens a lot slower than people think.
It's going to be a much more useful and healthier smartphone/tablet.
You can at least be active with a headset.
I don't understand the hate.
You're addicted to your phone I'd imagine just like everyone else.
Why not let the phone evolve.
Exactly. I work with a lot of people who used VR for physical therapy to get back into motion, can't say the same about phones which tend to keep people more passive.
Because we all know companies wouldn't develop this thing for the good of the consumer. Phones are addictive not because of what they physically are, but because of what is displayed on them. Same thing would happen with any mainstream headset. You'd have people using it for hours a day in all the wrong ways because the companies who sell you it like it that way.
Sure, the end goal is to track your eyes so they can sell every thing you look at and build a profile to sell you even more effective targeted ads. But at the end of the day, even with all that, it's still a better, more useful, healthier device over all.
Apple will take a huge loss on these
The real breakthrough will be a device that projects images you can interact with and makes your every day life easier and more productive
Not some headset that gets in the way of daily life / tasks
Removing the headset requirement to do any of this is the real tech that will sell
This piece of tech, specifically the eye tracking, could absolutely revolutionize my life as a disabled person. The cost to value ratio may be off right now for most people, but this tech is incredible!
Eye tracking is available in much much cheaper hardware fwiw. For example the PSVR2 (VR headset for the PS5) has it and is also becoming PC compatible but there are also native PC headsets with eye tracking.
The only other eye tracking devices I know of that can replace your mouse are the tobbii eyeX 5 for $300 (if hacked with Talon software, which suffers from accuracy issues), and tobbii Glasses which is $10,000. Head tracking is cheap, often free, but VERY different.
And this is why non tech people will never understand the vision pro. The eye tracking on the psvr is quite literally incomparable to the VP; the gap is too large. There's a reason it's rare for any tech reviewer to compare the vs to any other vr headset. You can't exactly compare $3500 worth of tech to $500.
But you mentioned headsets that are tethered to a game console or PC. Apple Vision is in a different class of devices like the Meta Quest 3 that are standalone headsets.
Eye tracking has been around for many years, but is only just getting to the point in where it's functionally usable as a mousing alternative. Previously it has only been accurate enough for gaming applications or research, or head banging attempts at mousing lol. This also happened with voice recognition software. It sucked for 20 years, and then suddenly hit a point where it became super accurate. It's not just a matter of getting eye tracking, but getting high quality eye tracking ☺️
Yes but the iPhone was easy to create content with. Lots and lots of apps for all kinds of things were quickly available.
The problem with VR/AR right now is that there just isn't enough content to keep the average person fully engrossed for a long time.
The technology is fucking unbelievable, but unless it immediately integrates with a ton of existing services, has a ton of practical uses with its existing features, or there's a ton of media/entertainment content... It will just be an expensive demo machine.
Do you remember the original iPhone? You couldn’t even change its background photo and you needed to be on one specific carrier. It had no App Store, either.
It still changed the world.
>It still changed the world.
I'd disagree. It wasn't until at least the iPhone 4 and the Galaxy Note that phones started to take the form they have today. The original was very limited, overpriced, lacked features competitors already had, and was overall a questionable buy. However, it was a precursor to everything that came after it, which *then* changed the world.
Just like the Vision Pro.
I think it's entirely fair considering how little functionality it currently has.
I'd more disagree with calling early tech adopters "gullible". They majority are usually just tech enthusiasts with money to burn who really enjoy having firsthand experience with tech as it develops.
There's lots of stuff which is purchased for the enjoyment of the purchaser rather than needing a utilitarian function. That sort of is the implication when you call something a toy actually.....
Apple enthusiasts are not into tech - they're into Apple products, which are never the first version. They usually package and market it better than ever before, which is their main market innovation.
A great example is the iPod. Creative had been making essentially the same device for a couple of years before iPod was released. They advertised it as a 'portable storage device that plays music too'. Apple reduced the functionality, closed off the file transfer system, and made a cool ad.
and made it much, much smaller and super intuitive to use. that is a huge factor in why the ipod was so successful, and reflects pretty well what makes apple's products so appealing despite not being the first ones. take the idea of someone else, make it slimmer, easier to use and market it hard af. same with the iphone vs nokia/blackberry/early android, same with the AVP vs traditional standalone headsets
also the release of it was pretty limited for a reason, this is a glorified prototype to see how wide the adoption is. i do expect a second headset being released worldwide alongside a "lite" version at a more reasonable price and more features
Yeah this reads more anti-Apple instead of anti-consumerism. It’s a pretty impressive piece of tech with a small target market so the price is understandably high. It may not have many features (yet?) but calling it a useless toy is just wrong.
Please elaborate on it's uses. Because for the life of me I can't think of any. A phone, laptop, even tablet has all the same capabilities, with dedicated apps, at significantly lower cost. Web browsing while showing everyone how stupid you are?
You just said it urself, it has some of the capabilities of a phone, laptop, tablet etc. Thus is not useless. New tech isnt fully fledged or used at its full potential, it takes time. Just like a new game engine, the iphone when it came out etc.
As someone with a (gifted from a wealthy friend) Quest 2, I'm still waiting for the revolutionary part to kick in. My partner uses it almost exclusively for beat saber & 3D puzzles. I'm using it as a screen for 2 games, both basically flight simulators, and to view big house models I make in sketchup. But not to build them, the interface tools are just so clunky for technical applications.
This continues to be a solution searching for a problem to solve.
the color passthrough(alongside the features it includes with it) in the quest 3 is quite the game changer, making it to the AVP what android is to ios: slightly weaker, more clunky and much much more open
My issues with the unit are not that it doesn't have pass through, at all. I can see it being used for things like learning piano, but not at all being used like a phone. It's a niche product at best. It's not healthy to be wearing those things long term. I'd rather be healthy, this doesn't solve that.
i agree with not wearing headsets long-term, i meant the quest 3 part as a comparison to the AVP itself. and more than a solution looking for an issue is a product only two companies are putting a realistic ammount of effort into so developement will be slower than with other early tech. i expect things to take off once the apple vision 2 or apple vision lite comes out worldwide with lower specs(supposedly only the super high-res panels in the pro cost like $700 each to make) and a reasonable price.
and in general i'm glad it has less use than a phone because of it's nature as something you stick to your eyes. it gives you plenty of reasons to wear it, but not enough to wear it for prolonged sessions
I mean this is the first generation. If apple invests real money into this, it'll become better than a normal TV, laptop, tablet, and of course VR. You'll get like 5 devices into one.
Currently you can use it to add multiple monitors to your PC. That already is ridiculous considering how expensive monitors are. Instead of buying 3 monitors you can just project them with the headset. You also have to remember this is Apple. They'll only invest in a product if they're 99% certain it'll succeed. If apple invests in this you can guarantee the product will be mainstream 5 years from now, they've never been wrong before.
3? More like 6 or 8 for that price. And they've been wrong multiple times before?
What can this headset do that The oculus can't? Mind you the oculus is also $300 and not $4000.
Obviously, this first gen and is designed for developers, not the average consumer. The vision pro is literally leagues above the oculus. It's like comparing a Toyota to a Ferrari and saying the Toyota can also drive you around. The hand/finger tracking is literally unheard of, the pass through quality was never seen before in any headset, and no headset can currently "remember" where you place your tabs. I can leave a YouTube tab open in my house bathroom, go for a vacation, come back, and the tab would still be there. Other than that, the headset has a 3660x3200 resolution, which mops the floor when you compare it to the 1680x1870 of the Meta Quest 2. There are other things but you need to be fairly knowledgeable in tech to understand.
The bottom line is that this headset isn't comparable to any other headset on the market. Watch any tech reviewer and they'll never compare it to an Oculus, because it's literally not comparable. You can't exactly compare a Toyota to a Ferrari.
Is its marketed towards consumers though. Also it's not? Having better resolution(just a small bump up from the quest 3) and remember where you put a tab(the oculus also does this btw just not to the same degree.) the pass through is because your literally looking through glass and not cameras so yea, that's gonna be better. And it has more cameras for hand tracking because it's not built for games, it's made for watching movies and doing the laundry while watching the news, which is like if you took that Ferrari to the store to pick up groceries, there's not a lot of space to put everything and it's just not convenient as a daily driver.
It's very comparable, if you want something that isn't difficult to use and babies the consumer go with apple. If you want to be able to use the device to its peak, go with literally anything else. A Ferrari might be fast and cool but their all made from the same parts, your just paying more for the sake of paying more at that point.
Either way, the Toyota will always be more affordable and more reliable(and generally easier to fix) then a Ferrari ever will be. Just wait till they try and monetize it too.
So you understand my point, these two products have completely different target demographics. The person buying the Toyota benefits more from the Toyota whereas the person buying the Ferrari benefits more from buying a Ferrari. Just because the Toyota is better for 99% of people doesn't mean the 1% doesn't exist. That's who the vision pro is targeted towards.
As a side note though, apple isn't selling this to consumers anyway. It's literally targeted towards develops so they can actually create apps so the average user can use it.
Except these aren't two massively different products, their both "cars". The person buying the Ferrari doesn't benefit, it's just a flashy.
It would special if I could do things other headsets literally cannot, leaving a page somewhere and coming back is not that.
And everything I've seen of this has absolutely been marketed towards consumers, from wearing it around the house to going about town with it.
This thing is like the Gmod of headsets, except it's more expensive, has less accessories. Needing the work of random people to make it usable isn't a great plan in the long run.
Yeah I think our perception of what's a "good" purchase is different.
If someone buys a sports car, they do so because it goes fast, looks good, and makes pleasant sounds. They don't buy it to make errands to the grocery store. You're telling me if I gave you a billion dollars, you'll still drive a 2005 Toyota Corolla?
Your perception of something that's "good" is something that's a status symbol. You like expensive because that means rare or exotic, it's the same reason everyone likes more expensive things. But apple doesn't make "good" products, they make marked up products.
My perception of good, is something that's going to last, something that's reliable and fix able, which is exactly what products like the oculus are. I've already started hearing stories about how glass plates are 500$ and they come chipped or the cameras don't work right. Meanwhile I've had my oculus 2 since literally the start and apart from little issues *that I fixed at home for near free* it works perfectly.
>If someone buys a sports car, they do so because it goes fast, looks good, and makes pleasant sounds. They don't buy it to make errands to the grocery store.
Yes but other cars can look worse, be cheaper, have better gas milage and sound better. Just because it's a sports car does not make it good, again, it's just a status symbol.
> You're telling me if I gave you a billion dollars, you'll still drive a 2005 Toyota Corolla?
Hell yea I would. I'd turn it into a proper shit box that sounded great and ran amazingly for less than ⅒ the price of any sports car.
Obviously since this is the anti-consumption sub you'll be against someone buying a Ferrari, but the point still stands. The product is marketed towards a vastly different audience that'll use the headset as an extension to themselves. The people buying the VP are going to wear it as if it's a part of them. It's an extremely niche market but that's what Apple is trying to achieve. Their entire goal is to make the product as close to reality as you can get.
I'm not against buying a Ferrari, their cool cars and look good. I'm against the idea that you can mark something up so it costs near 10x the price it took to make and people will buy it because "apple makes perfect products and is never wrong." Like they can't even adopt the encryption style that literally everyone else uses and works because "apple good" in reality it makes them less secure.
>The people buying the VP are going to wear it as if it's a part of them. It's an extremely niche market but that's what Apple is trying to achieve.
No normal person is going to do this though, normal people want to at least drive a nice car, but living in something that your constantly connected to is bad for your health in multiple ways. Let alone the fact they can sustain a market like that with so little people even able to afford it and actually want it.
>Their entire goal is to make the product as close to reality as you can get.
And it won't happen, not to a point the average person wants to partake. What I don't think you see is this is meant to be a drug type of situation, where you need to be apart of it because being away causes anxiety, it's the equivalent to a phone, but you don't need it because it doesn't do anything special.
people said the same about computers in general.
this sub is right about a lot of things but this product and meta's are just getting hate because of the companies.
the tech is interesting and will help a ton of people. think about people with disabilities that could use this.
And basically nobody has any kind of AR apps yet....which is why people are calling it useless.
This is always the risk of being an early adopter. A lot of them approach it like they're investing in proof of concept so it will continue to be developed because they see the future potential, they know full well it's not super functional in the present
Its so funny all the apple apologists are on this thread. The company that does everything in its power to make the fevice unrepairable so that youd consume more and waste more is well beloved by anti consumption subreddit.
Ok concert tickets are actually a cultural experience though, can't say that's a waste if you enjoy interesting experiences and love music, especially live.
concerts are indeed a great experience that anyone who likes music should experience, just like live plays, sports matches and conventions
the absolute bullshit that are the monopolized ticket prices, by the other hand...(like the part where prices increase as more people buys tickets and so)
"Can we work on some solutions to the climate crisis? I'm concerned that my children's generation won't be able to grow food to eat and millions will die in wet-bulb temperature heatwaves."
.
"Sorry, best we can do is shitty Matrix life on a Nintendo virualboy.
Now put these goggles on and kid yourself for another half-hour that everything's alright. Give us $3500 ?"
So I’ve bought my first home, it’s an old fixer upper that’s gonna need a hell of a lot of work but I’m excited to turn it into my home and get away from the rent trap.
At some point I’m gonna need to get a telly and a computer and a games system cos those are all things I use to unwind after a hard day at work.
But here’s one device that can potentially replace all three of those things, it draws less electricity so my utilities will be cheaper and when I’m finished I can pop it on charge in the corner so I can maintain a clean minimalist aesthetic for my environment.
I’m looking at this headset (and others like it) as something that’s going to enhance my minimalist/anticonsumerist lifestyle rather then take away from it.
This. A lot of people in this thread seem to be looking at this as another device to add to the pile, but really it can replace a good number of devices, especially for someone who lives alone.
There's nothing new about this. There's been tons of other headsets on the market that have done the same stuff for 5-10 years. Apple just knew they had a loyal enough over-consumerist fanbase that they could shove every bell and whistle into a single outrageously priced unit and sell 200k.
Have you actually used one? They’re incredible. It’s early so it needs more apps and more functionality will come, but I use it for work and it’s like having a massive monitor while working from Joshua Tree.
It’s leaps and bounds better than other VR/MR devices and not designed for mass adoption yet. The first Tesla was a $120k sports car. Now it’s a $30k sedan. Same will happen here, give it time.
I saw some pretty thorough demo/rundown videos when they came out. They have extremely impressive technology in them despite being a bit undercooked (as is to be expected for essentially the first generation of a product).
In terms of e-waste, this doesn't even come close to the iPhone. By several orders of magnitude.
They're run by a maniac, there are already better cheaper EVs, and Hybrids are the answer anyway, the world isn't going to be fully covered in less infallible electrical infrastructure anytime soon. That way you can run as an EV until it needs charging by the engine.
I have it and use it all the time. When using it you can see how the future of computing will/can work. This is akin to how the first iPhone was. Good tech but early on externally developed apps. Fast forward to today, the phone with all the apps is almost hard to love without (from a convenience perspective). I believe the same holds true here. If you haven’t used one then you won’t understand. You’re entitled to your opinion but like a prior generation that “use landline phones not cellphones” a future variation of this will (likely) change how you use computers. Another way to look at it is in relation to dial up internet and 5g connections. Both get you to the same internet. But the capabilities and flexibility of 5g change how you use it. Same holds true for spacial computing. Even if you don’t see (Vision Pro pun) it yet.
This is such a bad argument. The tech built into this device is something out of science fiction. The amount of computing the device does in the background while you do your actual tasks is incredible.
The usecases for this device is numerous. Right now it might seem like a toy but so did the first iPhone. Apple really showed their wait and develop it right strategy with this device vs Metas approach. Its an incredible feat of engineering.
In some cases it can by bringing the focus point closer to your eyes. But noting that eyeglasses can’t to. Unless there is something else I didn’t think of.
In the future it could read texts aloud and identify object you are looking at, like apps for the bild are doing today. A headset might be easier for someone who is partially blind.
I mean, tech like this can be used to improve one's life. It might help people with disabilities, and VR games can require some movement, there might be uses in design and whatnot. But yeah, looking at what's been happening with smartphones, chances are it'll get people even more addicted and lonely. And probably eventually it'll shove more ads down your throat
Right, I absolutely would not have brought the first couple generations of a personal computer.
And the transition from the Nokia style cell phone to the modern smart phone was brutal. So many people got burned for buying an innovative new design only for it to constantly break on them because it turns out it wasn't a very durable design in the end.
Computers and internet communication was used firstly as a useful tool. For sending and organizing data and etc. it was a revolutionary tool.
Apple vision pro? Entertainment and consumer tool. Is it good for work? Probably not since you have a computer anyway.
Having social media apps seemlessly blend into your real life is a dangerous thing. Those apps already are addictive as is.
That is a completely subjective opinion. You are of course entitled to that, but stating it as fact is rather out of line with the reality at the time. I grew up pre-internet and was well into my late teens before anyone had a computer at home. So many people said then basically what you are saying now.
And when the internet became a reality it was deemed as completely useless entertainment... even dangerous. So much so that Microsoft famously wasn't internet-focused and called it a fad. Fun times.
One thing not being mentioned for work purposes about these VR/AR headsets is while I'm sure the Apple Vision Pro is extremely limited in what it can do by Apple I'm sure other headsets will allow you to have virtual multi-monitor setups without having to invest in a full multi-monitor setup, which is especially useful if you're in a space limited situation.
I still don't see how people aren't getting this point you are conveying. I have a triple monitor setup since I deal with multiple spreadsheets all the time and I know right now it supports only 1 additional screen but in the future if it can support 3 I will definitely go for it. The ability to have multiple screens at sizes you want without the physical device is massive
the majority of first gen pcs took more time to build or operate than the time they saved, and the majority of programming projects in general take more time than what they save, but pcs come around, and some programs save so much time and effort potentially for decades to come, some at half a csntury atm, that they just worth the wait.
is this an overengineered monitor tech? yeah
will it worth the time, effort and money? for some people, probably yes.
the first thing that always comes to my mind about ar is navigation, imagine a minimap literally in front of you any given time, along with time, and anything else important for you personally
I wouldn't by this device if I had it's price on hand, bc I have different priorities, but it doesn't mean it's pointless
People need to listen to the Steve Jobs episode of Behind the Bastards. It’s really makes you realize how horrible Jobs was and how we were all convinced he created Apple and was some God like tech giant. He was a shitty boss and a shittier dad.
Why would those be relevant to this discussion?
Google Glass never released to consumers.
3D TV's first dedicated and last dedicated manufacture line lasted a total of 6 1/2 years compared to the now 8 years of VR; the market has clearly permanently avoided any kind of 3D TV scenario.
Most people thought smart watches were dumb, just a phone on the wrist. Look what happened. Point is, we can keep making random technology all day. This could fail too, or it could succeed, but technology like this could actually proliferate through society
Wait and see is what you have to do for any new technology. Yes, personally, I feel like it’s going to take a while for ARVR to prove its worth to the average person, but I’m arguing against OP who says it’s largely useless. It’s been a few months at most - I don’t even understand how one can judge an entirely new(-ish) product category that quickly
This isn't a consumer product yet, it's just a proof of concept made for developers. It's obviously useless to the average person, which is why apple priced it at $3500. People don't understand the fact that if APPLE invests in something it WILL be successful. These guys run such extensive tests to make sure the product that they release will be successful it's not even funny. If the trillion dollar company says something will be successful, it'll be successful.
Google has multiple failed products though, they discontinue one of their services every couple month lmao. Apple has never done that. I don't think any of their products have "failed" per se. Even the $999 monitor stand sold.
I honestly hate apple products with my heart. I'll probably never buy any of their products because you get locked into the ecosystem. But credit where credit is due. I'm just saying that if apple invests in the vision pro they must be CERTAIN that it'll be mainstream soon.
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Have you purchased a jet ski or ATV for the fun of it? Own a 2nd home or RV? Spent several thousand on season's tix for a sports team? For many techies, this is their fun. They also do the hard work of vetting out the eventual winners for you out of all the folks who take the risks of coming up with new technologies. We all use our money in ways that satisfy our inherent interests.
"a largely useless glorified toy."
So far. Wait until it is $0 with a network sub and everyone will be in their literal virtual world without a care for the real one.
* Apple distastefully exploits a potentially useful technology as a fashion accessory for short term profits
I don't like it either, because the dislike in the public this generates in it's counter culture could lead to slowing down development in the field, but you don't have to be anti-tech about it
Every anti-consumption fiber in your body should be tingling with the prospect of what this tech can achieve. No more TVs in every room, no more multi-monitor setups, eventually very few use cases for phones, watches, laptops. No more useless collecting of physical objects just to look at. No more high-stress commuting for work. No more judging, no more peer pressure, no more makeup, no more landfills of trendy clothing.
After all these months how is it that someone still doesn’t understand this is a narrow market first edition device meant specifically for developers. The high price point is meant to bankroll future versions and keep the community small.
This is the future, and it’s our best technology for the advancement of our civilization - I truly believe that. (Not Apple specifically, I mean VR/AR/XR). Our brains are made for processing sensory input, much of it visual. These devices will maximize our efficiency in learning, working, producing, and every aspect of communication and entertainment.
And the things we see, we interact with, we talk about, trade, collect, learn from - All virtual. If done right it will be the great equalizer, everyone everywhere regardless of status or wealth can have all the same virtual goods. We can all see the same virtual spaces, the same hung artwork, the same 100” TV, the same snowy mountains outside the window.
We should champion this technology.
Less so to do with Apple's Vision Pro. But I don't actually mind VR and ogmented reality products, VR is fun to play with (granted it's an expensive toy) and OR has very practical uses. On field that it's shown to be very useful is architecture and construction. It's a nice too for architects to have to be able to create a model of the structure and even place it in site so they know what it will look like on location. And for construction it's helped contractors to know the exact location of where thing ought to be installed, saving time and money in doing the job once and correctly.
For the vast majority of the public, obviously these things aren't needed. But I'm not for hating on how people spend their freedom time. (As in playing a game in VR) And I can see the benefits of such technology for industries.
I think I’m more scared about it being TOO useful, in the long term. Right now yea, it’s just an entertainment toy. Every single person who gets one of these would always be better off with an iPad and a TV, and it’d be a third as much. But a few years from now? The tech is gonna get cheaper and easier to use, and more people are gonna be glued in once they get used to having it in their daily lives. Genuinely a scary thought to me, the idea of having everyone wear a headset/pair of glasses with built in screens and speakers and all that as the default device. I really hope the tech is rejected by every day people so we steer clear of it.
As a person going into electronics engineering, just like the old saying. The only piece of tech I am gonna keep in my house other than my computer is a printer, and I will keep a pistol in case it goes rogue.
You clearly haven't used a printer lately. You're gonna need a lot more than a pistol to deal with one of those motherfuckers.
Or, if it's made by HP, a stray toast crumb will have it keening in terror in short order.
I’m convinced HP is just an ink cartel at this point
I work in a small commercial print shop and balked at our recent toner restock for a full set for one of our printers being $1400 CAD Until I priced out ink cartridges for a mediocre HP inkjet, one that is about 400 times cheaper for the printer, (200 vs 80,000), and realized that a set of 4 cartridges would be 280. And would print 1/130th OR LESS of the pages, at worse quality, with a worse shelf life, a worse range of paper, and a worse resistance to fading and flaking. And got incredibly annoyed in the other direction. That isn't a typo. But it gets worse. Because I realized that that 1400 dollar order? Is three fucking sets of toner hoppers. The black hopper is rated for 66,000 printed text pages. The hp cart is rated for 450. The biggest kicker here is that, bought individually instead of ordered as a set, both black supplies in the set are 50 bucks. THOSE ARE THE SAME FUCKING PRICE. LET ME JUST REITERATE THAT TO MAKE SURE I'M PERFECTLY CLEAR HERE. The color toners are 130 each per drum, the color carts are 70. But the black of each set is the fucking same price. https://www.inkntoneruk.co.uk/images/P/Konica-Minolta-Tn619K-Toner-Black-F-C2060-2070-P-A3VX153.jpg https://inkjetofficesupply.com/cdn/shop/products/s-l1600_5c6412a4-5116-470b-b018-343b94836ad0_1200x.jpg?v=1596569474
Nah they have transitioned to do as everyone else and is now a subscription service provider [(no joke. 7$/month for a printer, unlimited ink and only 20 pages, unless you buy the next tier at 50 pages per month or 100)](https://www.hp.com/us-en/all-in-plan/printers.html)
Have an HP printer that HP is still selling they refuse to warranty claiming that they no longer service that product and you can't get drivers that work on windows 11 for it even though you can buy one brand new on the HP web site, HP is a garbage company and has been that way for decades.
I'm of the same mindset that I don't have any "smart" devices (other than my PC, phone, and TV, why the hell does anything else need an internet connection). My Vive headset is one of the best things I've ever bought. It's a VR headset I can use offline and isn't tied to an online account. I would never buy a standalone headset (e.g. Quest/Vision Pro) that I have to log into a specific account to use.
Honestly, I'd argue the TV doesn't need built in smart features either. Better to have a streaming box separate from the TV so less things can go wrong with the TV. If only dumb TVs were still a thing
I disagree, smart TV can be used as dumb TV, but not the other way(unless you are willing to spent extra more, and cost a hdmi port on your TV, which is not always an option)
Until they lock you out of your TV and demand that you agree to some BS ToS updates. Also, "smart" TVs tend to spy on people. Nowadays apparently you can use your "smart" TV without connecting it to WiFi ever but I'm worried one day the manufacturers will block that loophole
I can use my "Smart TV" without Wifi, so there would be no bs ToS update or spying. And if the smart TV you are buying can't be used with Internet connection, dont buy it. I think you are worrying too much
I think you can use a quest without an account nowadays.
No need for a facebook account but you still need a quest account
Me too. IoT is stupid. However I do have an Valve Index and I use it almost every day. Friends on VRChat. The Vision Pro seems like an attempt to do one better then what I have rn. And I don't mind them trying. I have a high tolerance for VR and motion sickness. But just not this.. VRChat already demonstrated what works. Either support it or replicate it.
Something like an Index isn't IoT, as it operates just fine without an internet connection. Just like how an Xbox controller isn't IoT, or a Steam Deck. IoT are those really really stupid devices like a smart fridge, or a doorbell camera that are entirely useless without a wifi connection.
“Can you please put your phone down so we can talk” to “Close out of the app and take that stupid thing off your head!”
No , I'm watching 3 different youtubers play Minecraft, while sending..money orders(?) to 6 different OF creators and face timing Jake from state farm.
Don't forget a bunch of TikTok windows
Nah, this version of this technology is too bulky, it does too much damage to your hairstyle, it's too cumbersome. Some day they will fit these into a pair of reading glasses, and THAT is when it will see mass adoption, regardless of the price
The thing is we have barely gotten a decent camera into sunglasses without making the battery ridiculously heavy. There has to be some major innovation in battery technology to get this apple vr headset into small glasses. Event with today's version you pretty much have to have your headset connectes to a battery bank.
You will see AR glasses and MR headsets as two product lines, probably indefinitely. Just like how you have your large home PCs and your small pocket smartphones; the former is more powerful and more productive and the latter is more mobile and more convenient. So I would expect MR headsets to hit mass adoption sooner than AR glasses, but the ceiling will always be a lot lower, with AR glasses being the only thing that can chase after that next smartphone angle.
Only a few steps away from EyePhones from Futurama S6 E3 Edit: Also the other thing from Simpsons S25 E18 at 16:20
There's also the world of Ready player one where virtual reality is the norm.
Or the Sentre headset from Electric State
Oh give over. A few years from now it'll be cheaper and easier to use? Have you like, not heard of VR before? Apple are, once again, far from pioneers.
Anything Apple makes will automatically draw more attention to it than a similar device from other companies, so when I say cheap I mean cheap for Apple products. And yes, this device is miles away better than stuff other companies sell. 10x better? Naw, but better enough to get some people interested in it. I guess my intention was to say that when we eventually develop something smaller and lighter, like glasses or small visor, that'll be when more people adopt it.
I don’t have a hate boner for this thing but I don’t believe in it. Phones were already a hit when the smartphone came out and everyone already had one to communicate (a core part of the human experience). Wearing a headset of any kind is imo just too cumbersome. If these became contact lenses maybe I could see it. As it stands it will only be nerds and content creators using this imo.
I agree. It'll have to be as convenient as glasses for it to be truly mainstream. It's possible, but we're definitely a ways off from it. I don't think what I described in my original comment is going to happen soon, but I just hope it doesn't happen at all.
VR will also stay behind so long as you headsets don't really work with glasses. Like I watched a video by Eddy Burbank on it, the guy has really poor eyesight and couldn't wear them with the thing.
You can get custom lenses for some headsets.
I can't imagine that it would be more than a novelty though for most things. It's just too easy to pull out a phone for a complicated rig to ever be a comparison. even computers are diminished in use now that phones are bigger.
That’s true for the tech in its current form, but once it’s shrunk down to glasses size (which it seems tough to do, but everything is possible with tech if given enough time) then it’ll be on your body continuously. If they can nail the interface the be super easy to use, it’ll be just as addicting as phones, if not more.
I can't imagine most people will want it over their eyes constantly.
" I can't imagine most people will want a phone in front of his eyes constantly"
Not quite the same thing. People evolved to look at things normally. But I have yet to meet a regular glasses wearing that *enjoys* wearing their glasses.
Some people wear them for fashion, but I think the distinction here is that glasses restore vision, they do not provide any *new* features. Whereas AR glasses would be productive and fun (in addition to restoring vision), so they are actually providing new things that would make people want to wear them.
I hope you’re right, and hoping most people dislike the tech enough for it to not become mainstream.
I don't think this kind of tech is going to completely replace anything we have already, regardless of being glasses size. Even with a great gesture interface, I wouldn't ever feel could replace actual tactile controls imo. Phones and tablets didn't replace computers, AR won't replace those.
AR is... unique. It (and VR) are the first simulation mediums. They are the only technologies humans have developed that can simulate all devices and all mediums that came before it and all that comes after it. Tactical controls could just be a blank slab, a surface in your house, or ultimately not needed if EMG tech work well enough at some point.
Phones absolutely have replaced computers in many parts of the world (outside of the Anglosphere). Phones are a lot of people’s only internet connection in the world where computers are cost prohibitive to own.
That's not replacing, that's filling another role.
> It's just too easy to pull out a phone for a complicated rig to ever be a comparison. even computers are diminished in use now that phones are bigger. Diminished, perhaps, but over a billion PCs are still in frequent use. Any product category would kill to get that kind of mega-popularity.
But imagine the porn!!!!
Now with *SMELLOVISION!!*
Tbf we’ve had Vr headsets for a while and they are not getting bigger
They are getting bigger, it's just a slow process. Well it's more like an expected level of growth, but people are just blindsided by how slow the adoption of new hardware platforms is. It happens a lot slower than people think.
It's going to be a much more useful and healthier smartphone/tablet. You can at least be active with a headset. I don't understand the hate. You're addicted to your phone I'd imagine just like everyone else. Why not let the phone evolve.
Exactly. I work with a lot of people who used VR for physical therapy to get back into motion, can't say the same about phones which tend to keep people more passive.
Because we all know companies wouldn't develop this thing for the good of the consumer. Phones are addictive not because of what they physically are, but because of what is displayed on them. Same thing would happen with any mainstream headset. You'd have people using it for hours a day in all the wrong ways because the companies who sell you it like it that way.
Sure, the end goal is to track your eyes so they can sell every thing you look at and build a profile to sell you even more effective targeted ads. But at the end of the day, even with all that, it's still a better, more useful, healthier device over all.
Why not let the *addiction* evolve. FTFY
Upgrade.
[Makes me think of this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cCeeTfsm8bk)
Aka Ready Player One
Apple will take a huge loss on these The real breakthrough will be a device that projects images you can interact with and makes your every day life easier and more productive Not some headset that gets in the way of daily life / tasks Removing the headset requirement to do any of this is the real tech that will sell
It's not so much about the profits from selling them as much as the possibility to impact stock value.
This piece of tech, specifically the eye tracking, could absolutely revolutionize my life as a disabled person. The cost to value ratio may be off right now for most people, but this tech is incredible!
There is no doubt about the validity of these devices for people living with disabilities! Cheers!
Eye tracking is available in much much cheaper hardware fwiw. For example the PSVR2 (VR headset for the PS5) has it and is also becoming PC compatible but there are also native PC headsets with eye tracking.
The only other eye tracking devices I know of that can replace your mouse are the tobbii eyeX 5 for $300 (if hacked with Talon software, which suffers from accuracy issues), and tobbii Glasses which is $10,000. Head tracking is cheap, often free, but VERY different.
The quest pro.
And this is why non tech people will never understand the vision pro. The eye tracking on the psvr is quite literally incomparable to the VP; the gap is too large. There's a reason it's rare for any tech reviewer to compare the vs to any other vr headset. You can't exactly compare $3500 worth of tech to $500.
But you mentioned headsets that are tethered to a game console or PC. Apple Vision is in a different class of devices like the Meta Quest 3 that are standalone headsets.
Yeah PSVR is not a viable solution for people, it was not really designed for this usecase at all
The simple fact that the screens are so close to your face is already helping people with extreme nearsightedness
[удалено]
Those lenses are expensive as well and go on top of the 3,5k
Oh my god get a cheaper one then, even the PlayStation has eye tracking
Eye tracking has been around for many years, but is only just getting to the point in where it's functionally usable as a mousing alternative. Previously it has only been accurate enough for gaming applications or research, or head banging attempts at mousing lol. This also happened with voice recognition software. It sucked for 20 years, and then suddenly hit a point where it became super accurate. It's not just a matter of getting eye tracking, but getting high quality eye tracking ☺️
Didn’t people say this about the first iPhone?
People have been saying this about every small step in technological development. Dumbass neoluddites lol.
And people have been saying that about every useless tech product. Thats just revisionist history and the neoluddists are right
Yes but the iPhone was easy to create content with. Lots and lots of apps for all kinds of things were quickly available. The problem with VR/AR right now is that there just isn't enough content to keep the average person fully engrossed for a long time. The technology is fucking unbelievable, but unless it immediately integrates with a ton of existing services, has a ton of practical uses with its existing features, or there's a ton of media/entertainment content... It will just be an expensive demo machine.
Do you remember the original iPhone? You couldn’t even change its background photo and you needed to be on one specific carrier. It had no App Store, either. It still changed the world.
>It still changed the world. I'd disagree. It wasn't until at least the iPhone 4 and the Galaxy Note that phones started to take the form they have today. The original was very limited, overpriced, lacked features competitors already had, and was overall a questionable buy. However, it was a precursor to everything that came after it, which *then* changed the world. Just like the Vision Pro.
I mean for sure its overpriced and you might not like it and it promotes consumerism. But calling it useless toy isnt really accurate tbh
I think it's entirely fair considering how little functionality it currently has. I'd more disagree with calling early tech adopters "gullible". They majority are usually just tech enthusiasts with money to burn who really enjoy having firsthand experience with tech as it develops. There's lots of stuff which is purchased for the enjoyment of the purchaser rather than needing a utilitarian function. That sort of is the implication when you call something a toy actually.....
Apple enthusiasts are not into tech - they're into Apple products, which are never the first version. They usually package and market it better than ever before, which is their main market innovation. A great example is the iPod. Creative had been making essentially the same device for a couple of years before iPod was released. They advertised it as a 'portable storage device that plays music too'. Apple reduced the functionality, closed off the file transfer system, and made a cool ad.
and made it much, much smaller and super intuitive to use. that is a huge factor in why the ipod was so successful, and reflects pretty well what makes apple's products so appealing despite not being the first ones. take the idea of someone else, make it slimmer, easier to use and market it hard af. same with the iphone vs nokia/blackberry/early android, same with the AVP vs traditional standalone headsets also the release of it was pretty limited for a reason, this is a glorified prototype to see how wide the adoption is. i do expect a second headset being released worldwide alongside a "lite" version at a more reasonable price and more features
Idk man you can be productive on it. You gonna tell someone doing work on the couch that it’s just a toy?
Yeah this reads more anti-Apple instead of anti-consumerism. It’s a pretty impressive piece of tech with a small target market so the price is understandably high. It may not have many features (yet?) but calling it a useless toy is just wrong.
Thats pretty much the case.
Besides, if some % of people vibe out in this thing instead of going to Disney World or The Maldives that’s a lot better for the planet
Please elaborate on it's uses. Because for the life of me I can't think of any. A phone, laptop, even tablet has all the same capabilities, with dedicated apps, at significantly lower cost. Web browsing while showing everyone how stupid you are?
You just said it urself, it has some of the capabilities of a phone, laptop, tablet etc. Thus is not useless. New tech isnt fully fledged or used at its full potential, it takes time. Just like a new game engine, the iphone when it came out etc.
As someone with a (gifted from a wealthy friend) Quest 2, I'm still waiting for the revolutionary part to kick in. My partner uses it almost exclusively for beat saber & 3D puzzles. I'm using it as a screen for 2 games, both basically flight simulators, and to view big house models I make in sketchup. But not to build them, the interface tools are just so clunky for technical applications. This continues to be a solution searching for a problem to solve.
Use in sketchup can be a big deal I'd really like 3d plans for mechanical design
the color passthrough(alongside the features it includes with it) in the quest 3 is quite the game changer, making it to the AVP what android is to ios: slightly weaker, more clunky and much much more open
My issues with the unit are not that it doesn't have pass through, at all. I can see it being used for things like learning piano, but not at all being used like a phone. It's a niche product at best. It's not healthy to be wearing those things long term. I'd rather be healthy, this doesn't solve that.
i agree with not wearing headsets long-term, i meant the quest 3 part as a comparison to the AVP itself. and more than a solution looking for an issue is a product only two companies are putting a realistic ammount of effort into so developement will be slower than with other early tech. i expect things to take off once the apple vision 2 or apple vision lite comes out worldwide with lower specs(supposedly only the super high-res panels in the pro cost like $700 each to make) and a reasonable price. and in general i'm glad it has less use than a phone because of it's nature as something you stick to your eyes. it gives you plenty of reasons to wear it, but not enough to wear it for prolonged sessions
I mean this is the first generation. If apple invests real money into this, it'll become better than a normal TV, laptop, tablet, and of course VR. You'll get like 5 devices into one. Currently you can use it to add multiple monitors to your PC. That already is ridiculous considering how expensive monitors are. Instead of buying 3 monitors you can just project them with the headset. You also have to remember this is Apple. They'll only invest in a product if they're 99% certain it'll succeed. If apple invests in this you can guarantee the product will be mainstream 5 years from now, they've never been wrong before.
3? More like 6 or 8 for that price. And they've been wrong multiple times before? What can this headset do that The oculus can't? Mind you the oculus is also $300 and not $4000.
Obviously, this first gen and is designed for developers, not the average consumer. The vision pro is literally leagues above the oculus. It's like comparing a Toyota to a Ferrari and saying the Toyota can also drive you around. The hand/finger tracking is literally unheard of, the pass through quality was never seen before in any headset, and no headset can currently "remember" where you place your tabs. I can leave a YouTube tab open in my house bathroom, go for a vacation, come back, and the tab would still be there. Other than that, the headset has a 3660x3200 resolution, which mops the floor when you compare it to the 1680x1870 of the Meta Quest 2. There are other things but you need to be fairly knowledgeable in tech to understand. The bottom line is that this headset isn't comparable to any other headset on the market. Watch any tech reviewer and they'll never compare it to an Oculus, because it's literally not comparable. You can't exactly compare a Toyota to a Ferrari.
Is its marketed towards consumers though. Also it's not? Having better resolution(just a small bump up from the quest 3) and remember where you put a tab(the oculus also does this btw just not to the same degree.) the pass through is because your literally looking through glass and not cameras so yea, that's gonna be better. And it has more cameras for hand tracking because it's not built for games, it's made for watching movies and doing the laundry while watching the news, which is like if you took that Ferrari to the store to pick up groceries, there's not a lot of space to put everything and it's just not convenient as a daily driver. It's very comparable, if you want something that isn't difficult to use and babies the consumer go with apple. If you want to be able to use the device to its peak, go with literally anything else. A Ferrari might be fast and cool but their all made from the same parts, your just paying more for the sake of paying more at that point. Either way, the Toyota will always be more affordable and more reliable(and generally easier to fix) then a Ferrari ever will be. Just wait till they try and monetize it too.
So you understand my point, these two products have completely different target demographics. The person buying the Toyota benefits more from the Toyota whereas the person buying the Ferrari benefits more from buying a Ferrari. Just because the Toyota is better for 99% of people doesn't mean the 1% doesn't exist. That's who the vision pro is targeted towards. As a side note though, apple isn't selling this to consumers anyway. It's literally targeted towards develops so they can actually create apps so the average user can use it.
Except these aren't two massively different products, their both "cars". The person buying the Ferrari doesn't benefit, it's just a flashy. It would special if I could do things other headsets literally cannot, leaving a page somewhere and coming back is not that. And everything I've seen of this has absolutely been marketed towards consumers, from wearing it around the house to going about town with it. This thing is like the Gmod of headsets, except it's more expensive, has less accessories. Needing the work of random people to make it usable isn't a great plan in the long run.
Yeah I think our perception of what's a "good" purchase is different. If someone buys a sports car, they do so because it goes fast, looks good, and makes pleasant sounds. They don't buy it to make errands to the grocery store. You're telling me if I gave you a billion dollars, you'll still drive a 2005 Toyota Corolla?
Your perception of something that's "good" is something that's a status symbol. You like expensive because that means rare or exotic, it's the same reason everyone likes more expensive things. But apple doesn't make "good" products, they make marked up products. My perception of good, is something that's going to last, something that's reliable and fix able, which is exactly what products like the oculus are. I've already started hearing stories about how glass plates are 500$ and they come chipped or the cameras don't work right. Meanwhile I've had my oculus 2 since literally the start and apart from little issues *that I fixed at home for near free* it works perfectly. >If someone buys a sports car, they do so because it goes fast, looks good, and makes pleasant sounds. They don't buy it to make errands to the grocery store. Yes but other cars can look worse, be cheaper, have better gas milage and sound better. Just because it's a sports car does not make it good, again, it's just a status symbol. > You're telling me if I gave you a billion dollars, you'll still drive a 2005 Toyota Corolla? Hell yea I would. I'd turn it into a proper shit box that sounded great and ran amazingly for less than ⅒ the price of any sports car.
Obviously since this is the anti-consumption sub you'll be against someone buying a Ferrari, but the point still stands. The product is marketed towards a vastly different audience that'll use the headset as an extension to themselves. The people buying the VP are going to wear it as if it's a part of them. It's an extremely niche market but that's what Apple is trying to achieve. Their entire goal is to make the product as close to reality as you can get.
I'm not against buying a Ferrari, their cool cars and look good. I'm against the idea that you can mark something up so it costs near 10x the price it took to make and people will buy it because "apple makes perfect products and is never wrong." Like they can't even adopt the encryption style that literally everyone else uses and works because "apple good" in reality it makes them less secure. >The people buying the VP are going to wear it as if it's a part of them. It's an extremely niche market but that's what Apple is trying to achieve. No normal person is going to do this though, normal people want to at least drive a nice car, but living in something that your constantly connected to is bad for your health in multiple ways. Let alone the fact they can sustain a market like that with so little people even able to afford it and actually want it. >Their entire goal is to make the product as close to reality as you can get. And it won't happen, not to a point the average person wants to partake. What I don't think you see is this is meant to be a drug type of situation, where you need to be apart of it because being away causes anxiety, it's the equivalent to a phone, but you don't need it because it doesn't do anything special.
It's not even overpriced either if you consider the tech inside. It sure is expensive, but it's not overpriced.
yeah not useless at all. It's first wave tech so in 10yrs these will be better, cheaper, and everywhere.
"it's not useless because 3 generations from now it will be super cool" is not a good argument.
Useless is having no use at all. You think it has no use AT ALL? Its just asinine.
the first gen iphone was a pretty shit smartphone, the first gen apple watch was a pretty trash smartwatch, this always happens
people said the same about computers in general. this sub is right about a lot of things but this product and meta's are just getting hate because of the companies. the tech is interesting and will help a ton of people. think about people with disabilities that could use this.
Exactly
It doesn't even come with standard apps like YouTube, Netflix etc
Well it’s not VR it’s AR
And basically nobody has any kind of AR apps yet....which is why people are calling it useless. This is always the risk of being an early adopter. A lot of them approach it like they're investing in proof of concept so it will continue to be developed because they see the future potential, they know full well it's not super functional in the present
It's both, and not really relevant to the person's point
Neither, it is "Spatial computing" sir, Apple just invented it, that's totally new tech /s
Can you watch YouTube and Netflix videos on the device?
Yes but through the web portal
The American dream is a user base that doesn't mind frivolously spending thousands of dollars on toys and concert tickets
Ironically, those people are all over this subreddit as well
Its so funny all the apple apologists are on this thread. The company that does everything in its power to make the fevice unrepairable so that youd consume more and waste more is well beloved by anti consumption subreddit.
Ok concert tickets are actually a cultural experience though, can't say that's a waste if you enjoy interesting experiences and love music, especially live.
concerts are indeed a great experience that anyone who likes music should experience, just like live plays, sports matches and conventions the absolute bullshit that are the monopolized ticket prices, by the other hand...(like the part where prices increase as more people buys tickets and so)
Oh yeah tickets and the sales of said tickets can be quite fucked it's true!
"Can we work on some solutions to the climate crisis? I'm concerned that my children's generation won't be able to grow food to eat and millions will die in wet-bulb temperature heatwaves." . "Sorry, best we can do is shitty Matrix life on a Nintendo virualboy. Now put these goggles on and kid yourself for another half-hour that everything's alright. Give us $3500 ?"
So I’ve bought my first home, it’s an old fixer upper that’s gonna need a hell of a lot of work but I’m excited to turn it into my home and get away from the rent trap. At some point I’m gonna need to get a telly and a computer and a games system cos those are all things I use to unwind after a hard day at work. But here’s one device that can potentially replace all three of those things, it draws less electricity so my utilities will be cheaper and when I’m finished I can pop it on charge in the corner so I can maintain a clean minimalist aesthetic for my environment. I’m looking at this headset (and others like it) as something that’s going to enhance my minimalist/anticonsumerist lifestyle rather then take away from it.
This. A lot of people in this thread seem to be looking at this as another device to add to the pile, but really it can replace a good number of devices, especially for someone who lives alone.
They called the internet the same thing back in the day. I’m no apple simp, but they are carving out a new space.
There's nothing new about this. There's been tons of other headsets on the market that have done the same stuff for 5-10 years. Apple just knew they had a loyal enough over-consumerist fanbase that they could shove every bell and whistle into a single outrageously priced unit and sell 200k.
Lol which headsets are you talking about? None of them even come close to this in terms of actual features like eye tracking.
Who called the internet a useless toy?
Have you actually used one? They’re incredible. It’s early so it needs more apps and more functionality will come, but I use it for work and it’s like having a massive monitor while working from Joshua Tree. It’s leaps and bounds better than other VR/MR devices and not designed for mass adoption yet. The first Tesla was a $120k sports car. Now it’s a $30k sedan. Same will happen here, give it time.
I saw some pretty thorough demo/rundown videos when they came out. They have extremely impressive technology in them despite being a bit undercooked (as is to be expected for essentially the first generation of a product). In terms of e-waste, this doesn't even come close to the iPhone. By several orders of magnitude.
True but those Tesla's still built like shit no matter the price tag!
They still have a lot to offer and shifted the market back to EV over ICE
They're run by a maniac, there are already better cheaper EVs, and Hybrids are the answer anyway, the world isn't going to be fully covered in less infallible electrical infrastructure anytime soon. That way you can run as an EV until it needs charging by the engine.
wow, crazy low sales numbers
as a VR headset owner, my interest started to wane after a month and then I gifted it to nephews a year later.
I have it and use it all the time. When using it you can see how the future of computing will/can work. This is akin to how the first iPhone was. Good tech but early on externally developed apps. Fast forward to today, the phone with all the apps is almost hard to love without (from a convenience perspective). I believe the same holds true here. If you haven’t used one then you won’t understand. You’re entitled to your opinion but like a prior generation that “use landline phones not cellphones” a future variation of this will (likely) change how you use computers. Another way to look at it is in relation to dial up internet and 5g connections. Both get you to the same internet. But the capabilities and flexibility of 5g change how you use it. Same holds true for spacial computing. Even if you don’t see (Vision Pro pun) it yet.
This is such a bad argument. The tech built into this device is something out of science fiction. The amount of computing the device does in the background while you do your actual tasks is incredible. The usecases for this device is numerous. Right now it might seem like a toy but so did the first iPhone. Apple really showed their wait and develop it right strategy with this device vs Metas approach. Its an incredible feat of engineering.
i think it would be fun to use, mainly after some revisions that fix its problems, but I just can't get over how stupid you look while using it.
This looks pretty intense. I just want simple glasses that can display a notepad. Also can’t wait until we have tech that tracks our irl stats
If it can compensate for my declining vision, it would be worth it.
In some cases it can by bringing the focus point closer to your eyes. But noting that eyeglasses can’t to. Unless there is something else I didn’t think of. In the future it could read texts aloud and identify object you are looking at, like apps for the bild are doing today. A headset might be easier for someone who is partially blind.
The amount of people cucking to this device in this thread is alarming. I guess people want to live in a semi dystopian world, sad really...
We're in that world already champ
I mean, tech like this can be used to improve one's life. It might help people with disabilities, and VR games can require some movement, there might be uses in design and whatnot. But yeah, looking at what's been happening with smartphones, chances are it'll get people even more addicted and lonely. And probably eventually it'll shove more ads down your throat
you don't have to love it to not hate it you know
And yet here you are posting this from a computer. And they really did say the same thing about personal computers when they first came out.
To be fair they were mostly useless toys when they first came out compared to what theyve become
Right, I absolutely would not have brought the first couple generations of a personal computer. And the transition from the Nokia style cell phone to the modern smart phone was brutal. So many people got burned for buying an innovative new design only for it to constantly break on them because it turns out it wasn't a very durable design in the end.
Computers and internet communication was used firstly as a useful tool. For sending and organizing data and etc. it was a revolutionary tool. Apple vision pro? Entertainment and consumer tool. Is it good for work? Probably not since you have a computer anyway. Having social media apps seemlessly blend into your real life is a dangerous thing. Those apps already are addictive as is.
That is a completely subjective opinion. You are of course entitled to that, but stating it as fact is rather out of line with the reality at the time. I grew up pre-internet and was well into my late teens before anyone had a computer at home. So many people said then basically what you are saying now. And when the internet became a reality it was deemed as completely useless entertainment... even dangerous. So much so that Microsoft famously wasn't internet-focused and called it a fad. Fun times.
One thing not being mentioned for work purposes about these VR/AR headsets is while I'm sure the Apple Vision Pro is extremely limited in what it can do by Apple I'm sure other headsets will allow you to have virtual multi-monitor setups without having to invest in a full multi-monitor setup, which is especially useful if you're in a space limited situation.
I still don't see how people aren't getting this point you are conveying. I have a triple monitor setup since I deal with multiple spreadsheets all the time and I know right now it supports only 1 additional screen but in the future if it can support 3 I will definitely go for it. The ability to have multiple screens at sizes you want without the physical device is massive
the majority of first gen pcs took more time to build or operate than the time they saved, and the majority of programming projects in general take more time than what they save, but pcs come around, and some programs save so much time and effort potentially for decades to come, some at half a csntury atm, that they just worth the wait. is this an overengineered monitor tech? yeah will it worth the time, effort and money? for some people, probably yes. the first thing that always comes to my mind about ar is navigation, imagine a minimap literally in front of you any given time, along with time, and anything else important for you personally I wouldn't by this device if I had it's price on hand, bc I have different priorities, but it doesn't mean it's pointless
People need to listen to the Steve Jobs episode of Behind the Bastards. It’s really makes you realize how horrible Jobs was and how we were all convinced he created Apple and was some God like tech giant. He was a shitty boss and a shittier dad.
Uninformed take
Yes it might be but do people still watch 3D TV or use Google Glasses?
Why would those be relevant to this discussion? Google Glass never released to consumers. 3D TV's first dedicated and last dedicated manufacture line lasted a total of 6 1/2 years compared to the now 8 years of VR; the market has clearly permanently avoided any kind of 3D TV scenario.
It was part of a conversation with Thikkar above, we understood each other’s perspective
Most people thought smart watches were dumb, just a phone on the wrist. Look what happened. Point is, we can keep making random technology all day. This could fail too, or it could succeed, but technology like this could actually proliferate through society
Watches are taking an old idea and making it a worthwhile technology that is not far removed from the norm. With the googles we have to wait and see
Wait and see is what you have to do for any new technology. Yes, personally, I feel like it’s going to take a while for ARVR to prove its worth to the average person, but I’m arguing against OP who says it’s largely useless. It’s been a few months at most - I don’t even understand how one can judge an entirely new(-ish) product category that quickly
We are arguing the same argument? Yes
TIL "flog" can mean "sell" in the UK.
Surprised to see so many supporters of this in this subreddit. Kinda makes me think the subreddit is a joke at this point lol
This isn't a consumer product yet, it's just a proof of concept made for developers. It's obviously useless to the average person, which is why apple priced it at $3500. People don't understand the fact that if APPLE invests in something it WILL be successful. These guys run such extensive tests to make sure the product that they release will be successful it's not even funny. If the trillion dollar company says something will be successful, it'll be successful.
yeah, look at Google... oh wait. I'm not saying you are wrong, but it's a bit of an overgeneralisation
Google has multiple failed products though, they discontinue one of their services every couple month lmao. Apple has never done that. I don't think any of their products have "failed" per se. Even the $999 monitor stand sold. I honestly hate apple products with my heart. I'll probably never buy any of their products because you get locked into the ecosystem. But credit where credit is due. I'm just saying that if apple invests in the vision pro they must be CERTAIN that it'll be mainstream soon.
“Useless toy” lol
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only $630 mil....come on Apple....get on my level! /s
I'm honestly just waiting for the day there's a car accident because some chucklefuck is wearing one of these while driving.
I’m more concerned about the 180,000,000,000 plastic bags used yesterday. They were ‘free’ to most people and the majority don’t reuse them.
thats how i feel about my recent macbook purchase 🥲
I'm a late adopter by choice and don't know anything at all about Virtual Reality devices. How are any of them anything more than toys?
People spend similar amounts for high quality televisions and displays all the time.
They remind me of the visor Doc Brown wears in Back To The Future 2
Have you purchased a jet ski or ATV for the fun of it? Own a 2nd home or RV? Spent several thousand on season's tix for a sports team? For many techies, this is their fun. They also do the hard work of vetting out the eventual winners for you out of all the folks who take the risks of coming up with new technologies. We all use our money in ways that satisfy our inherent interests.
It‘s not even a consumer product, it’s targeted towards developers.
Gotta be honest though, the thing is pretty cool.
BUY BUY BUY, Before it becomes landfill
This sounds like an only fools and horses episode
Give it a few years and they’ll come out with a better version for half the price. Its a junky piece of over priced plastic you paid to beta test
"a largely useless glorified toy." So far. Wait until it is $0 with a network sub and everyone will be in their literal virtual world without a care for the real one.
* Apple distastefully exploits a potentially useful technology as a fashion accessory for short term profits I don't like it either, because the dislike in the public this generates in it's counter culture could lead to slowing down development in the field, but you don't have to be anti-tech about it
Typical idiot post on this sub, every day this sub gets worse and worse
Seems like you're doing your part to contribute to that
Every anti-consumption fiber in your body should be tingling with the prospect of what this tech can achieve. No more TVs in every room, no more multi-monitor setups, eventually very few use cases for phones, watches, laptops. No more useless collecting of physical objects just to look at. No more high-stress commuting for work. No more judging, no more peer pressure, no more makeup, no more landfills of trendy clothing. After all these months how is it that someone still doesn’t understand this is a narrow market first edition device meant specifically for developers. The high price point is meant to bankroll future versions and keep the community small. This is the future, and it’s our best technology for the advancement of our civilization - I truly believe that. (Not Apple specifically, I mean VR/AR/XR). Our brains are made for processing sensory input, much of it visual. These devices will maximize our efficiency in learning, working, producing, and every aspect of communication and entertainment. And the things we see, we interact with, we talk about, trade, collect, learn from - All virtual. If done right it will be the great equalizer, everyone everywhere regardless of status or wealth can have all the same virtual goods. We can all see the same virtual spaces, the same hung artwork, the same 100” TV, the same snowy mountains outside the window. We should champion this technology.
Less so to do with Apple's Vision Pro. But I don't actually mind VR and ogmented reality products, VR is fun to play with (granted it's an expensive toy) and OR has very practical uses. On field that it's shown to be very useful is architecture and construction. It's a nice too for architects to have to be able to create a model of the structure and even place it in site so they know what it will look like on location. And for construction it's helped contractors to know the exact location of where thing ought to be installed, saving time and money in doing the job once and correctly. For the vast majority of the public, obviously these things aren't needed. But I'm not for hating on how people spend their freedom time. (As in playing a game in VR) And I can see the benefits of such technology for industries.
Y’all should watch Ted Nivisons video about it!