Production difficulties and the complex design of Apple's $3,499 Vision Pro mixed reality headset have reportedly caused Apple to scale back its internal sales target of 1 million units sold in 2024 as it is worried it won't be able to make enough of its newest device.
This seems like sometuing that wouldnt work so well anyway.
It looks great and if it was more affordable i think alot of people would be interested but its going to be hard to get a large number of early adopters with the 3.5k price tag.
This will be a rich boy toy for a long time before it sells on a large scale a few versions down the line.
1 million isnt that many people but i dunno if its features are enough to justify the cost to 1 million people.
I see your point but i dont know if i equate this new apple device to a computer. Its certainly got alot of amazing features but compared to a computer it doesnt hold up functionally.
You could argue that eventually it will surpass a computer in functionality and become more mainstream but thats kind of my point. Right now its not there, but after they have developed it for 10-15 years you might see mass adoption of this type of device over PCs.
I also didnt say it would never amount to anything. Using your statement i would point out that computers were not found in everyones home until the end of the 90s and beyond. So i stand by my suggestion that it will be something rich people have for many yeara beforw becoming mainstream.
Yeah it’s an M2 along with an R1, which in the marketing images appears as big as the M2 though that could just be for looks. Either way it has more silicon than the Mac Mini/MBA.
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” ― Carl Sagan
Just because a large expensive rich toy turned into a staple does not imply that all rich toys turn into the same thing.
Oh I totally agree. I’m not arguing that because the Mac SE was a rich boys toy that all rich boy toys will succeed. I’m arguing that it’s an invalid dismissal that something is a rich boy’s toy, because sometimes those go on to popular success. The person I was responding to seemed to think that rich boy toy was some terminal destination of irrelevance. It clearly isn’t always. Good quote though, thank you for sharing that.
The difference is this doesn’t solve any problems. It is just a new way to do the same things. It isn’t even any faster. At least the computers in the 80s were a faster way to do what we could do on paper or with older computers.
I think there is pretty interesting potential for 3D design to be much superior in a stereoscopic interface than the flattened version of it you get on a 2D screen. Consuming anything 3 dimensional has the same potential benefits. Basically, you’re dismissing the third dimension with a wave of your hand. I’d keep that question open until we see more what application there are. People did say that the Mac was NOT an easier way of doing paper things and that they already had good ways of doing all office tasks. Look at how far the Mac has come from its genesis though. And it’s only true feature, at the bottom of it all, was using a mouse visually instead of keyboard commands. An interface style that was more intuitive and made things discoverable. Virtual computing can easily be as big a jump as that.
It doesn’t solve any problems that you have thought of yet. There may be some cool stuff that none of us thought of that we’ll find has become a part of our daily life in the future.
I’m not buying one but I’m glad they are working on stuff like this. It’s a fully portable, wearable 3D computer system. We didn’t use to have cool stuff like that and now we do.
I feel like something like this truly won’t go mainstream until two things happen:
they need to be smaller and have a battery life closer to that of current smart phones
they need to look waaaay less wonky. I mean most people would be embarrassed to wear this goofy ass looking thing in public. Don’t even get me started on the goofy digital eyeballs on the front. There’s a good reason this is the first apple product ever that the presenter didn’t use on stage, cause he would look like an idiot and they knew it.
Once that happens I think they’ll explode in popularity. If they can make them look closer to just reading glasses or something with a 5 hr battery life at a bare minimum, everyone will want them. Obviously it would help a lot if they weren’t $3,500 too lmao
The glasses thing will not happen for a long time, the are just too many limitations with the form factor.
On the other hand, Bigscreen’s HMD looks and feels way better than the toasters we’re accustomed to strapping to our faces. For that alone, I considered switching from the Index.
What we can hope is that Apple will somewhat normalize VR gear usage and push it further mainstream. They’re really good at this and the VR industry could use some more competition. Now, only if they wouldn’t patent every screw in that thing…
I know it’s not turned on in VR mode and only AR mode. But yeah software is flexible so we’ll probably need to wait for closer to release to know some of the real nitty gritty details.
It might be a chicken and egg type of problem, but for me it is more about content.
Right now it is mostly just games, but i actually don’t think that is enough to go mainstream. At least on the consumer side i think it needs more diverse content, like maybe live events like concerts and sport events, tours of special places and maybe even regular house viewings.
Actuallly thinking about it, the main issue might be that the content for VR needs to be specifically made. Smartphones for example could take advantage of already existing use cases (websites, mail, text/voice messages and so on). And additionally had more intersections with existing technology.
From discussion I’ve heard by my gen z friends I’m pretty sure apple could sell almost anything and people will buy it and claim it’s the best thing ever. Airpods are treated as jewelery at this point. I will say their phones are decent products but they’re way too locked down for me to ever own one. Great for my parents etc who want something simple
Thinking of Apple kit as Jewelry makes so much sense.
I have a pair of £40 Bluetooth earbuds and recently asked a group of co-workers why they owned Airpods.
They all admitted the sound quality was worse but it has a nifty find my airpod function. Which put me off buying Airpods.
Thinking of them as £200 earrings explains alot. The reason you buy them isn’t for a practical purpose but to be seen in them or look pretty (which is entirely subjective).
Can’t say anything about the regular airpods since I haven’t tried them, but the Pros are unparalleled. Impossible to offer anything near that kind of transparency mode without custom silicon, the competition is stuck with what they can get off the shelf.
I understand all of those words but not the sentence.
I know there are differences in sound replication quality, but the difference between high end and cheap kit has eroded over the last 10 years.
Its like comparing 720p to 1080p, sure there is a difference and 1080p is better, but not 10 times the cost improvement. 4k is having the same issues selling itself atm.
No, it’s not about sound replication, that is the easy part. AirPods have both really good active noise canceling, and a transparency mode that does completely lag-free filtered pass thru, meaning that you can hear everything around you and follow a podcast at the same time. They even switch between ANC and transparency if you start speaking to someone. Nobody has anything similar except on paper, everyone else does it with so much lag that it’s useless.
This seems like sometuing that wouldnt work so well anyway.
It looks great and if it was more affordable i think alot of people would be interested but its going to be hard to get a large number of early adopters with the 3.5k price tag.
This will be a rich boy toy for a long time before it sells on a large scale a few versions down the line.
1 million isnt that many people but i dunno if its features are enough to justify the cost to 1 million people.
$3500 in today’s money is not far off from what early computers cost. It’s actually less.
The Mac SE retailed for $2900 in 1987. This is equivalent to over $7000 in today’s money.
“A rich boys toy that will never amount to anything” would have been a grossly bad prediction back in 1987.
Just sayin.
I see your point but i dont know if i equate this new apple device to a computer. Its certainly got alot of amazing features but compared to a computer it doesnt hold up functionally.
You could argue that eventually it will surpass a computer in functionality and become more mainstream but thats kind of my point. Right now its not there, but after they have developed it for 10-15 years you might see mass adoption of this type of device over PCs.
I also didnt say it would never amount to anything. Using your statement i would point out that computers were not found in everyones home until the end of the 90s and beyond. So i stand by my suggestion that it will be something rich people have for many yeara beforw becoming mainstream.
I mean, isn’t it the equivalent of a Mac Mini strapped to your head, computing-horsepower-wise?
Yeah it’s an M2 along with an R1, which in the marketing images appears as big as the M2 though that could just be for looks. Either way it has more silicon than the Mac Mini/MBA.
Power wise maybe, but fuctionally it remains to be seen if this could replace a desktop. I suspect not in its current form.
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” ― Carl Sagan
Just because a large expensive rich toy turned into a staple does not imply that all rich toys turn into the same thing.
Oh I totally agree. I’m not arguing that because the Mac SE was a rich boys toy that all rich boy toys will succeed. I’m arguing that it’s an invalid dismissal that something is a rich boy’s toy, because sometimes those go on to popular success. The person I was responding to seemed to think that rich boy toy was some terminal destination of irrelevance. It clearly isn’t always. Good quote though, thank you for sharing that.
The difference is this doesn’t solve any problems. It is just a new way to do the same things. It isn’t even any faster. At least the computers in the 80s were a faster way to do what we could do on paper or with older computers.
I think there is pretty interesting potential for 3D design to be much superior in a stereoscopic interface than the flattened version of it you get on a 2D screen. Consuming anything 3 dimensional has the same potential benefits. Basically, you’re dismissing the third dimension with a wave of your hand. I’d keep that question open until we see more what application there are. People did say that the Mac was NOT an easier way of doing paper things and that they already had good ways of doing all office tasks. Look at how far the Mac has come from its genesis though. And it’s only true feature, at the bottom of it all, was using a mouse visually instead of keyboard commands. An interface style that was more intuitive and made things discoverable. Virtual computing can easily be as big a jump as that.
It doesn’t solve any problems that you have thought of yet. There may be some cool stuff that none of us thought of that we’ll find has become a part of our daily life in the future.
I’m not buying one but I’m glad they are working on stuff like this. It’s a fully portable, wearable 3D computer system. We didn’t use to have cool stuff like that and now we do.
Yeah but that was 36 years ago and that’s not a trivial amount of time to wait for something to be x
Are you saying the Mac has become a popular success JUST NOW? lol wut
I feel like something like this truly won’t go mainstream until two things happen:
Once that happens I think they’ll explode in popularity. If they can make them look closer to just reading glasses or something with a 5 hr battery life at a bare minimum, everyone will want them. Obviously it would help a lot if they weren’t $3,500 too lmao
The glasses thing will not happen for a long time, the are just too many limitations with the form factor.
On the other hand, Bigscreen’s HMD looks and feels way better than the toasters we’re accustomed to strapping to our faces. For that alone, I considered switching from the Index.
What we can hope is that Apple will somewhat normalize VR gear usage and push it further mainstream. They’re really good at this and the VR industry could use some more competition. Now, only if they wouldn’t patent every screw in that thing…
I think it would be better if it had no eye display
Surely it can be turned off, right?
I know it’s not turned on in VR mode and only AR mode. But yeah software is flexible so we’ll probably need to wait for closer to release to know some of the real nitty gritty details.
It might be a chicken and egg type of problem, but for me it is more about content.
Right now it is mostly just games, but i actually don’t think that is enough to go mainstream. At least on the consumer side i think it needs more diverse content, like maybe live events like concerts and sport events, tours of special places and maybe even regular house viewings.
Actuallly thinking about it, the main issue might be that the content for VR needs to be specifically made. Smartphones for example could take advantage of already existing use cases (websites, mail, text/voice messages and so on). And additionally had more intersections with existing technology.
From discussion I’ve heard by my gen z friends I’m pretty sure apple could sell almost anything and people will buy it and claim it’s the best thing ever. Airpods are treated as jewelery at this point. I will say their phones are decent products but they’re way too locked down for me to ever own one. Great for my parents etc who want something simple
Thinking of Apple kit as Jewelry makes so much sense.
I have a pair of £40 Bluetooth earbuds and recently asked a group of co-workers why they owned Airpods.
They all admitted the sound quality was worse but it has a nifty find my airpod function. Which put me off buying Airpods.
Thinking of them as £200 earrings explains alot. The reason you buy them isn’t for a practical purpose but to be seen in them or look pretty (which is entirely subjective).
Can’t say anything about the regular airpods since I haven’t tried them, but the Pros are unparalleled. Impossible to offer anything near that kind of transparency mode without custom silicon, the competition is stuck with what they can get off the shelf.
I understand all of those words but not the sentence.
I know there are differences in sound replication quality, but the difference between high end and cheap kit has eroded over the last 10 years.
Its like comparing 720p to 1080p, sure there is a difference and 1080p is better, but not 10 times the cost improvement. 4k is having the same issues selling itself atm.
No, it’s not about sound replication, that is the easy part. AirPods have both really good active noise canceling, and a transparency mode that does completely lag-free filtered pass thru, meaning that you can hear everything around you and follow a podcast at the same time. They even switch between ANC and transparency if you start speaking to someone. Nobody has anything similar except on paper, everyone else does it with so much lag that it’s useless.