No matter if you feel the price tag is too high, or feel it’s a gimmick that won’t appeal to many, the Vision Pro will usher in a new era of apps and products.

To me, this is similar to when the iPhone was getting ready to be released. Many said it was expensive, had no keyboard, was too big and wide to be comfortably held, and would never sell. That all started to change once people got their hands on the device.

I feel that the Vision Pro will have the same effect, but this is one device you’ll truly need to test out and experience. Based on those that have been fortunate enough to actually use it, it’s not a gimmick.

  • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    These goggles are not replacing or upgrading anything.

    Um. Yes they are. Meta Quest, Microsoft HoloLens, etc.

    Sure - those might be products you don’t currently use… but I’d argue that’s likely because they’re not very good. A lot of people didn’t use smartphones either before the modern smartphones became a thing.

    • spacecowboy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah I’m sorry to tell you that it’s just not a big thing. Is it cool? Sure. But I don’t need it, won’t buy it, and probably wouldn’t even if it was affordable (which it isn’t).

      I’m not going to argue with you about this, so we’ll just have to wait and see who’s more “correct”.

      Cheers.

      • paraphrand@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yeah. I don’t think any of this has been proven out. There is a lot of wait and see still to come in the world of VR/AR.

        I’m really curious what the tipping point will end up being. It does not feel like Apple Vision Pro is locked in to be that thing. But it will position Apple well if something does come along that is the tipping point.

        • spacecowboy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s a fair take.

          As for your other comment in here somewhere… did Suckerberg not spend billions on his metaverse? It’s not that there isn’t money being put into it, it’s just that the interest isn’t there. VR has been a “thing” for decades already, it isn’t new.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            He spent billions on a platform for which the primary audience (techie people) is not interested because his privacy and data position is a non-starter.

            Most big tech like this takes off because techy people buy it and then show their friends. They help them buy and set up their own version of it to start until these companies eventually make it simple enough for non-techies. That’s how the game works.

            Zuck made it completely unpalatable for those early adopters and he tied it to Facebook, a platform that young people despise. It was never going anywhere to begin with.

          • paraphrand@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            The metaverse is a whole other ball of wax. Thats virtual social environments.

            VRChat is thriving. They hit a new 100k concurrent users record over new years.

            Apple is also specifically not worrying about “the metaverse” or “SocialVR” either. Yes, they have video calls. And group calls. But, they don’t have full on Memoji Land Social VR Or anything like it.

            SocialVR/VRChat is actually the most popular use for people who are VR enthusiasts. AFAIK.

            It’s yet to be seen if VRChat, or similar will make it to Vision Pro. The lack of vr controllers may be an awkward situation there.

            Oh, and to your point about Metaverse failing. That’s a hard one to crack unless you are open to allowing everything to be totally free form like VRChat. Making a safe metaverse with clean public spaces that people also want to use is difficult.

            Oh, and for me, “Metaverse” is only framed as SocialVR. Not the expansive all-inclusive omni thing definition. The whole word has been muddied.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        A big part of the reason it’s not a big thing is because of how fucking disgustingly bad the hardware is.

        You can ignore the fact that you can see pixels on other headsets a lot of the time, but pretty much only for games. You can’t for very many of the use cases Apple has been showing. They kill text clarity, and they (and latency, and smashing the color space) kill passthrough.

        Apple waited until they could make something over the bare minimum threshold for actually using it for things that aren’t games.

        • spacecowboy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          But what need or use does it fulfill? Other than being a neat piece of technology, what use does the average person have for it?

          • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            There are plenty of people with several physical monitors, because having information immediately accessible in a concrete location is simply easier and more efficient than toggling virtual work spaces on one desktop. Our brains work in 3D physical space. Presenting information and work spaces the same way has loads of value before the actual objects are also 3D.