I’m not suggesting it as a reason for purchase - just adding to potential use cases. We live in interesting times!
I work for a company that makes big, expensive machinery and has been developing AR software running in Microsoft’s HoloLens as a training tool for field engineers. I had a chance to demo it for just a couple minutes. If AVP is half as good as the first impressions suggest it is, Apple could dominate that market, because the HoloLens experience was pretty bad. Part of this is a basic limitation of AR: it can basically only show a wireframe model. AR can’t make anything in your field of view darker, only lighter. Part of it is intrinsic to the implementation: projected objects bounced when you moved and didn’t respond well to hand gestures.
One thing that Apple didn’t show is people standing up, walking around, and interacting with virtual objects from different angles, which something like this would require. Also probably would need to change the interaction model from gaze-tracking to hand-tracking.
Clearly Apple isn’t interested in trying to make this succeed on industrial applications, but the price tag would be a non-issue for big companies, and once the software exists for putting CAD models into AVP, Apple could probably sell all they could make just to industry.
4 Likes
Plus, I find it off-putting when running to pass people wearing AirPods since they eliminate any chance to connect as people, even if it’s merely saying hello.
FWIW, I always have my Beats Fit Pro in transparency mode, except when large trucks lumber by (not that often on my street, except when the school bus goes by and on trash collection days), so you can always say hi to me. I’ll hear you, interact with you, even stop to chat with the buds in. I can hear you just fine (as well, as birds, dogs, my neighbors calling out hello from the yards, etc.) It’s just as possible the people you are passing are doing the same with AirPods Pro.
2 Likes
Excellent commentary, Adam.
I have some thoughts about the new platform here:
https://brockerhoff.net/blog/2023/06/09/a-vision-of-the-future/
For me, having different vision deficits in each eye, optimizing the views separately would be an enormous plus. Beyond the prescription lens inserts, Apple already has patents for sensing and correcting vision on the fly.
Regarding myopia, remember that the risk is not in having screens close to the eyes; rather, the strain of focusing closely is the main problem. My computer glasses are optimized such that the screen appears at infinity, so the eyes are completely relaxed; and those Zeiss lenses will no doubt be set in the same way.
Finally, many people found the dad filming his children with the AVP “creepy”; I confess that I’m still not used to people constantly using their phones in such a situation! Looking through a camera is oddly enough, not considered creepy.
4 Likes
I always remove my AirPod Pro when speaking to somebody or being spoken to. It’s an overt sign I am listening and/or ready to interact with them.
I would go so far as to say removing your earbuds when approaching someone (or being approached) is just being polite, regardless of how fancy shmancy the tech. The way I see it, it’s basic common courtesy.
1 Like
At first I couldn’t figure out why Adam was being so negative about Vision Pro. Then I realized the problem: he’s reviewing the current device. Not even the device that will be released next year, with software and features that haven’t been written yet, but the prototype unveiled at WWDC last week. He’s also postulating that this version would be mass adopted – used by children and couples and in public, which is extremely unlikely – and all the problems that would entail.
Now there’s nothing wrong with that. I appreciate his viewpoint and I fully agree on most of those points where it’s related to this specific version of VP.
But all of the positive reviews of VP tend to focus not on what VP is now, but what it will be like in the future. That’s a future where most of Adam’s concerns are mitigated: the price comes down, the size/weight is a non-issue, the social concerns are minimized or accepted, and practical use cases for the tech are determined.
I’m looking far into the future when these goggles are the size of reading glasses or the tech is completely invisible (perhaps even embedded into our brains). While that doesn’t erase the problems of isolation or social disintegration, I’m not sure that’s the end of the world. If we could jump back to 2006 and see the future of smartphones after iPhone, would we be horrified or excited? Would we willingly jump to that future despite its problems? I bet most would. The benefits of the tech are too many and too critical.
Right now it’s challenging to see that with VP and spatial computing, but I like that this new experience is utterly unique; it can do things that can’t be replicated any other way. That means if there’s a way to make it practical and useful – and Apple seems pretty close on this first shot – then this tech will be here to stay. Once people get used to doing things spatially, they’ll find there’s no way back to ordinary 2D computing.
I agree the current version is just baby steps and is flawed on many levels; but that’s due to limitation of today’s technology, not problems with the basic concept. There will be early adopters who will pave the way for better versions in the future.
I remember when the iPhone came out I was so excited and I couldn’t understand why regular people weren’t knocking down walls to get the device; it seemed so clear to me it was the future. Yet when it looked at it from their perspective, the thing was “just a phone.” They weren’t that wrong. The camera was terrible, and while it did the internet better than any other mobile device, it was still underpowered and limited (it couldn’t run Flash and tons of the web was Flash back then). That first version would be a terrible flop if released today.
Back then people didn’t even know why they needed the internet on-the-go. Now no one can live without their phone. It has replaced dozens of gadgets we used to think important.
I see VP as similar: from most people’s perspective it’s just a different version of what we already have. (I already have Macs and iPhones and iPads and big screen TVs, etc.) But eventually we’ll see that this device can do things you can’t do any other way… and that’ll be its selling point. By then, maybe even Adam will be converted. 
2 Likes
I would replace TouchBar with HomePod. That’s a more apt comparison for an Apple failure. HomePad had the best tech and sound, but it turned out the market didn’t care about that. They only focused on price.
The key difference with VP is that there’s nothing else like it on the market; a lot of the reason the price is so high is Apple is including extra tech critical to the experience that no regular VR headset includes. Those things aren’t just optional: high-res screens and fluid reality projection is required to prevent nausea and tech like EyeSight helps mitigate key social problems. I predict that anything that doesn’t have those isn’t going mainstream.
TouchBar failed not because it wasn’t a good concept – I loved the idea – but because Apple never followed through. I don’t know if it was created by a small faction without Apple that had no power or if higher heads didn’t get it, but few to none of Apple’s own software ever supported TouchBar, even years after release. That doomed it, as third parties didn’t bother either, and with no apps that used it, consumers didn’t demand it.
1 Like
Asked and answered. 
Jim Cramer has an interesting prognosis about Vision Pro:
Why would anyone pay a lot more for an iPhone, iPad or a Mac when there are literally thousands of other cheaper models of mobile phones, laptops and computers?
1 Like
I mean, I don’t agree with Adam’s negative take here, but I’m not sure we can just say “there will be a future where all the problems will disappear.” You react to what exists at the time it exists, not a magical unicorn that doesn’t.
Which is why I said I understand Adam’s perspective and agree with it.
However, at the same time, I am excited about the potential of this technology. He doesn’t seem to be.
Sure. And I said that you can’t assume a future where all the problems that exist now go away.
First off, it will probably be better at launch, because there will be more and better apps available for it. Hence the need to announce it at WWDC - so developers can get started and have something more than a tech demo ready when the product is released.
And second, we’ve seen big concerns with other products go away after a few subsequent releases. Including iPhone (remember that it had no third-party app support at launch), or Thunderbolt (no peripherals worth speaking about at launch), or iPad (low resolution screens, slow response times).
Of course, there’s no guarantee that all of the problems observed today will be fixed, but it’s also unreasonable to assume that none of them will be.
Yes, which is why I said “you can’t assume a future where all the problems that exist now go away.”
Great analysis, Adam. I want to add a couple of things.
I have written about problems with development of 3DTV and Virtual Reality and one of the key issues is the human vision system, which uses multiple ways to assess distance of objects. It does not depend just on the stereo vision effect from seeing through two separate eyes. Knowing just how far away predators are is very important, so animals have evolved other ways to tell distance, such as how large a predator looks, which tells you how far away they are. Our vision system essentially uses the other indications of distance for error checking, and if the distances don’t agree, you get eyestrain and a headache. 3D and Augmented reality can be useful and fun, but so far we have not found a way to make it comfortable for a long time because we don’t know how to fool all the ways our brain uses to measure distance. That may well be a good thing.
As an old guy who lived with severe myopia and thick glasses for decades before having cataract surgery, I came to appreciate the benefits of having a wide field of view at a distance. I now need glasses to read or do close work, but my far-field vision is good across a wide range of angles rather than the narrow field in focus – a kind of tunnel vision – when I looked through thick glasses. Now that I can see the broader world better, I don’t want to give that up to limit my focus to goggles. I like to be able to turn my head away from work and look out the window, then put my reading glasses back on to go back to work. I also wonder how well AVP could adjust itself so those of us with presbyopia (the inability to adjust our focus between near and distant points which makes it necessary for me to use reading glasses close up).
2 Likes
I think the battery issue will be a concern for the AVP, and few of the reviews so far have mentioned it. (Probably because the trial runs took well less than 2 hours).
First, is the hassle of an external battery pack. If you’re going to be standing or moving, you have to have the battery pack on you somewhere. A pocket is presumably fine, as long as the battery doesn’t get too hot. But not all clothes have convenient pockets.
Second, is the two hour limit. The AVP may be great for movies, but few movies are less than two hours long. Most professional sports games run longer than two hours. And using the AVP in your “office” (real or remote) might be great, but most people work more than two hours per day.
The answer, of course, is that you can use the AVP with the battery pack plugged in. Note that no one in any of the videos Apple showed was using the AVP in this manner - kind of makes the device a bit less “free and easy”. Think of the hassles trying to use the AVP at an airport (say on a long layover when you are participating in a Zoom meeting), when you’re forced to be tethered to one of the few either inconvenient or crowded outlet locations you can find.
Of course, you could probably buy multiple battery packs and switch them every couple hours. (Hopefully without having to restart the AVP). Or maybe Apple or a third-party will offer a 4-hour or 8-hour battery pack - which will likely be larger and heavier and hotter.
Yes, Apple will improve battery life over time, as they have with iPhone and other devices. Digging around, it looks like the iPhone 14 battery lasts about 2-4 times longer than the battery for the iPhone 1. Yay - but that was accomplished over 15 years!
2 Likes
Another experience of the live demo from Federico Viticci of MacStories:
That’s an interesting one because it gets to what I was saying about how little about the Vision Pro actually augments our senses. Obviously, we won’t know until it ships, but the fact that the Vision Pro has LiDAR and infrared light emitters suggests that it might be able to put together some sort of simulated night vision view. It all depends on whether Apple opens those sensors up to developers or not.
As @schinder points out, this likely wouldn’t be a primary use case for the Vision Pro, but it might make for an interesting capability to be used an app with some other use case.
Well, quite a lot, actually, though existing VR headsets aren’t nearly popular enough to be the drivers of it. Most of the negative social and societal effects that concern me are already in play thanks to smartphones and earbuds. Social scientists and psychologists write about this stuff all the time.
@Shamino’s point that the Vision Pro is a standalone device is important too, since it’s the first of the headset-like devices that can be used untethered from a computer or gaming rig. Those were always going to be constrained, whereas the Vision Pro will eventually be the sort thing that could be worn for long periods of time and used for many different purposes.
Wow, I have never heard of this movie before, and I can’t find anywhere it can be streamed online.
Possible, but not likely given either the lack of response or the surprised looks I get most of the time. I haven’t paid that much attention, but my impression is that I mostly see plain AirPods or other earbuds with unknown capabilities. AirPods Pro are less common.
I think your categorization of my article is correct—that I’m writing about what we know to be true about the device at this point in time. That’s intentional because anything else is speculation bordering on science fiction. I regularly speculate on what Apple could do and even suggest concrete things that Apple should do to no effect, but I do it with a firm grasp on what’s technically possible. And little of what I suggest comes to fruition. That’s why I wrote that I’m cynical about grandiose claims.
And yes, I did extrapolate what we know about today’s Vision Pro to the social and societal criticisms that would only come into play if the Vision Pro were to be a mainstream success. That could be seen as logically inconsistent since it’s likely that the Vision Pro model that gains mainstream acceptance would be technologically improved. But will it be that different? It doesn’t seem that Apple is anywhere close to letting you actually look through glasses rather than simulating that act with cameras and screens. And unless it’s that different, I’m not sure I see the criticisms as being mitigated through technology.
We may never know what technologies Apple tried, but what I was more expecting was a pair of regular glasses that could overlay small amounts of information on the real world, much more in the Google Glass category, but done with better, newer technology. You wouldn’t be watching movies on these, and they would rely on a companion iPhone for processing power, much like the Apple Watch. But you could get turn-by-turn directions, names of people you’re talking to, measurements of objects or distances, translation lookups based on text in the view, and so on.
To my mind, that would avoid a lot of the concerns and let Apple work up to something that was more immersive and more capable slowly, rather than going all the way to what the Vision Pro is in the first try. But it’s not like Apple listens to me.
Alas, no. The Vision Pro clearly has a demo mode, since all the journalists were able to use them, but that’s a long way from multi-user support, where each person sees their own setup. You can demo an iPhone or an Apple Watch in an Apple Store too, but they support only a single user in actual use.
Huh. So he’s saying that resellers will discount it, but it’s not clear to me why the cellular carriers would be candidates for that since the Vision Pro doesn’t have cellular connectivity. Nor does the Vision Pro require an iPhone, so I’m not seeing how they make a financial link apart from just “it’s all from Apple and we’re reselling it.”
I’m not sure that’s true, but I don’t see the mainstream potential the way you do. It’s sort of like the iPad, which I thought had huge potential but for the mainstream has largely been just another way of watching videos and browsing the Web. The people who are huge iPad proponents usually talk about specialized uses, and that’s great for them, but clearly not of the level of impact of the iPhone, where putting an Internet-connected supercomputer in your pocket truly did set new paradigms.
The main areas I’m excited about the Vision Pro right now are, like the iPad, quite specialized. Helping those with disabilities and providing focused educational and training experiences are just a few. But if it’s just a different way to watch movies, play games, browse the Web, and check the weather (“fully immersive hurricane warnings!”), I’m less impressed.
2 Likes
I’d say Cramer made this inaccurate statement because his background is trading, not investing.
Traders don’t care much about understanding how businesses and industries work because they make money from movement, not company performance. Plus Cramer has been a cable TV talking–actually, make that screaming–head for decades now, rather than a direct participant in financial markets.
3 Likes