Nearly a year since launch, Apple’s Vision Pro still searching for a killer app
Nearly a year since launch, Apple’s Vision Pro still searching for a killer app
Though Apple's expensive headset was been praised for its cutting-edge technology, the device is expensive and hasn't yet been widely embraced at either home or work.
Apple: You don't need a pen for the iPad.
Artists: We need a pen.
Apple: You don't need a pen for the iPad.
Artists: We need a pen.
Apple: OK here's a pen.
Apple: You don't need a controller for VR.
Gamers: We need a controller.
<---- We are here.
Apple: You don't need a controller for VR.
Gamers: We need a controller.
Apple: OK here's a controller.
It's the same story as with all of VR. People don't like to strap shit to their faces, or anywhere else in their bodies. We barely tolerate watches. Every single person who wears glasses would drop them in a second if any other viable and sustainable alternative shows up. People who use and love VR put up with the fact they have to strap stuff to their faces. 3D cinema failed financially because people didn't want to have to use simple basic glasses. Not everyone can tolerate a third of a kilo on their heads for too long.
Every single person who wears glasses would drop them in a second if any other viable and sustainable alternative shows up.
Not really, glasses have long since become a fashion statement and many people wear some without needing them.
I need glasses to correct my heterotropia and even if there was some magic cure for that I'm not sure if I'd stop wearing my glasses to be honest; I kinda like them and how they make me look.
I could get laser surgery, but I choose glasses. I prefer how I look with them than without them, and sometimes they double as eye protection.
I know some people who don't like their glasses, but dislike how contacts feel more. As for me - I don't wear contacts that much because they're a recurring expense.
3D cinema failed financially because people didn't want to have to use simple basic glasses.
I have not heard anyone complain about the glasses, but tons of ppl complaining about the movies and tech quality.
Also btw currently there's currently a 127g VR glasses available for PC, and Pimax is coming out with a set that's some 180 I think (Dream Air) but also has eyetracking and whatnot.
But yeah mostly I do agree. I had the original vive and the annoyance of what were basically ski goggles that weighed a ton without any proper straps even was a bit much. It was cool though, especially once Ingot got the pro strap which had the more helmet config with the wheel at the back.
I'm thinking of perhaps seeing if I'll get a set later this year to see how far it's come in 8 years.
USMC kamikaze drone team pilot app, but apple be sleeping on that.
It's unlikely to find one in this incarnation. It has too many limitations in its current form. Apple knew this when it was releasing it but they had sunk so much resource into it they had to get it out there, at least just to see what people might do. And imagine that, devs didn't want to make apps for it because it's yet another device with a new interface that would need specific attention to make a good app for and with a very small user-base, the return is not there. Chicken or the egg problem which has been very common in the VR/AR realm.
I'm sure Apple will take another crack at the form factor, but it might be another few years down the road. I might've even been interested in this model if it had any momentum at all, but it was mostly dead a month after launch.
It failed, no need to dance around the subject. It was a very expensive demo product, and nobody wants it.
I don’t see how this is a failure, because I don’t see this as a legitimate push for adoption.
This was a device that cost as much as a used car, with no real pre release applications, and virtually no preemptive dev kits. The only thing I can see that as is an attempt to mass test a new device type with early adopters.
There are ways of testing for these things that doesn't involve millions of dollars in marketing events (they did flew a bunch of tech influencers to Cupertino) and millions more in manufacturing (factories are expensive as hell). Apple admitted themselves that the number of sales was even lower than their already limited expectations.
Hey everyone, check out my app, you just need to spend like $3500 on this bespoke hardware first!
What's doublely stupid is that a developer would have to spend the exact same amount of money to be able to develop an app for the headset. They're not going to do that unless they reasonably sure they're going to make their money back.
this does raise a good question, if apple intended this as specifically being for developers, why aren't they marketing it as such and encouraging devs that they will release a cheaper headset later?
If apple would have just supported games from the start and offered optional controls this would be the top vr headset.
No it wouldn't. Meta just stopped selling the very expensive Quest Pro because the very affordable Quest 3 moved massively more units. Almost no one wants a VR headset that costs more than a thousand dollars because the 300 buck devices already do almost the exact same things
In terms of engineering, the Vision Pro is kinda remarkable.
But it's also a extremely dumb product that I'm shocked they thought they could sell, especially with the arbitrary "no gaming!" rod that they made for their own back. Just shows Apple's arrogance, I guess.
I bought it. Only because I have the disposable income and could make it a business expense. That said, I use it as a gaming headset 95% of the time. It has an ALVR app so you can do Steam VR. I play mainly just flight simulator.
It’s good for working and watching entertainment on a plane also tho.
there have always been a subset of vr headsets where the displays and optics are good but are otherwise flawed, that have been relegated to the flight sim and sim racing world lol
(I have a reverb g2 and use it for 'normal' vr games, but I understand its most popular among sim people, I think Pimax headsets generally see similar use)
(also apple has told no one about ALVR and other streaming, the basically only people who will know about it are the people who liked and were using VR already and probably already have a headset they are generally satisfied with, so I doubt it has significantly affected their sales, they still shot themselves in the foot by pretending that Fruit Ninja or whatever was the only game that people would want to play with their headset)
Porn, Porn was the answer... 🤦
Fundamentally the only unique attribute for these goggles is 3D and that comes at a significant expense in terms of user experience. It's the same story as it has been over the last two centuries.
Stereographic photos in the 19th century worked perfectly well but required a special headset and only one person could look at them at a time. Didn't take off. People prefer to be able to look at two-dimensional photos perhaps casually and to be able to point the things to other people looking at the same photo or to compare it with other things at the same time.
3d movies in the 1950s required special red, blue or red green glasses. Didn't take off beyond a gimmick. 3d movies could not be watched without the goggles.
3d movies in the theatre in the early 2000s. Didn't really get beyond the gimmick level. Lots of people complain about headaches.
3d TVs in the early 2000s required special glasses and the 3D could not be used if other people were trying to watch without the glasses.
The conclusion I draw from this is that people don't like having to wear special glasses or a device strapped to their face, even if it is relatively cheap to produce. Although 3D is nice, it simply doesn't seem to be sufficient incentive to put up with the isolation from other people and the surrounding environment that the viewing equipment invariably requires.
Fundamentally the only unique attribute for these goggles is 3D
VR is way more than just "being 3D." The way you interact with things is a bigger influence on what makes it than the visuals. You're not just having things pop out at you off a 2D plane; you're in the thing with them, and you can "touch" them or do pretty much anything you can do with your actual body.
You're right people don't necessarily want to wear a heavy thing on their face for this, though. Especially when there isn't a lot in the way of experiences that actually offer everything the space is capable of and your hardware is almost four-fucking-thousand dollars.
Op is right though. It's still a cost/benefit situation, and the benefit is not enough to justify the cost.
3D is in principle probably about as big a change as color once was. Difference is that color was an instant hit for those who could afford it, because there was no downside other than price. 3D is still not very popular, no matter if you use it for entertainment like movies, VR or augmented reality either for entertainment or productivity.
3D simply isn't very popular even within one of those segmants, and I'd argue @SquiffSquiff is 100% right in his conclusion that it's just too inconvenient.
there is a big difference between those 3d effects and actual vr, where with one you only get the primitive depth idea your brain produces versus actually being able to inspect something from any angle
it also enables very different inputs, like with beat saber or rumble for example, or recently I was imagining a game where you can point at something to grapple on to it while using the other controller to shoot at enemies at the same time which wouldn't really work without vr
unfortunately for me i'm someone who is interested in computer graphics and the difference in immersion from vr is largely offset by the graphics being worse, the screens looking worse and blurrier, the lack of an actual focus depth (I forget what the technical term for this is but most headsets have everything set so your eyes always focus at what would normally by 1-2 meters away), and the new perspective exposing all of the little graphics tricks that don't really work when you can see them in this level of detail
(i'd say an ideal headset would probably have 6x more pixels than my reverb g2 (/3.5 px because it would also have foveated rendering) and be able to render visuals similar to cyberpunk at 'rt ultra', with apparently already gets 90 fps on a 4090 at 1080p, so that would be 7.5x more pixels, you would need a card 7.5x faster than a 4090, so assuming Moore's Law stays accurate that should be around 12 years from now)
so why hasn't vr taken off? I would say (in no particular order) it's because it hurts your eyes, makes you dizzy, is uncomfortable, its expensive, it doesn't have many apps, the controls feel janky for actual ui stuff where a mouse and keyboard is just easier, people are lazy and it requires some physical activity, people don't have all that much free time
don't take this the wrong way, I generally love VR and have probably 150-200 hrs in it over two years (a lot less than a some people, if you look at the reviews for vr chat for example its not uncommon for people to have >5k hours)
Although 3D is nice, it simply doesn’t seem to be sufficient incentive to put up with the isolation from other people and the surrounding environment that the viewing equipment invariably requires.
This is spot on IMO, the technologies are now good enough at producing realistic 3D experiences even interactive, that if there were no inconveniences I'd bet it would be about as popular as color was when that became reality.
The conclusion I draw from this is that people don't like having to wear special glasses or a device strapped to their face, even if it is relatively cheap to produce.
Bingo. I often used the 3D on the 3DS, but that's because I didn't have to do anything other than not move the device around too much. So it worked for gaming at home, not on/in a vehicle.
I feel like that’s saying that my computer monitor needs a “killer app”.
It seemed like a straight forward AR/VR device to me. There’s plenty it can already do… virtual displays and apps in 3d space, privately and on the go is just a start… it’s just WAY too expensive for people to want to do so.
Your computer as set up has enough killer apps to justify its cost. The Apple Vision Pro doesn't have a killer app that justifies its cost over alternatives.
I feel like that’s saying that my computer monitor needs a “killer app”.
That's the thing though, it has piles of them. Steam is absolutely jam packed with them. Additionally things like, video editors, photo editors, browsers, spreadsheets, word processors, code editors, etc, etc. All of these makes a monitor (or laptop screen) something almost everyone owns. All of these apps are best on a monitor.
What is best on a Vision Pro?
It’s just WAY too expensive for people to want to do so
Yep, the price can make or break a product. And the price makes this product......not good. Particularly when people don't see much of a point in the product in the first place. VR headsets are niche as hell, the Vision Pro is a niche of a niche.
What made you buy your monitor?
Having a monitor at all has plenty of killer apps: Anything that it displays that you want to use that you wouldn't be able to do otherwise without a monitor.
But your particular monitor? Well, it looks like the Apple VR thing is about 10x to 20x the price of a basic VR headset. Is your particular monitor 10x to 20x the cost of a regular monitor? If so, there probably is some killer app that made you get a fancy monitor. And maybe it's something that no other monitor can do... otherwise, why spend 10x to 20x as much?
If the Apple VR thing also has a computer built in (and its own specialized software), then comparing it to a monitor isn't accurate. It's not a peripheral when it's a standalone device.
Yeah you'll computer does have killer wraps it's all of the programs that you can install. There isn't anything the headset can do that you can't do better on a desktop.
Is it trying to push the the computing angle they need apps that actually make use of the VR capabilities. As far as I'm aware they still don't have a YouTube app. Even though YouTube has VR and 3D videos
Youtube discontinued their thing for SteamVR, and yet people still use SteamVR.
My monitor only runs its firmware
That F1 prototype app and the PGA app look pretty neat but are definitely a niche.
They should've made it support VRChat
It should have supported VR gaming in general since despite what Apple say it is a VR headset. Pass-Through doesn't make it AR. You need actual glass lenses for that
I think according to basically everyone even something like Pokemon Go counts as AR, but I get your point.
It does, through steamvr with a pc
Isn't a surgeon's "HUD" a killer app?
It's probably a good product, but in niche applications, not for the masses.
Medical industry on the whole try not to use "killer apps". It's sort of defeats the purpose
I mean "groundbreaking".
For $3500 in the medical field having vitals of the patient in front of you while looking at the area you're working and getting complete control of the operation area without having to move your hear sounds like a winning combo.
It's way too heavy for that. Imagine that thing while operating for several hours. It's a sure way of getting neck pain. Early laparoscopic optics used lightweight visors directly on the face, doctors were extremely weary. The tech was dropped almost immediately, instead they now project the image on a big TV screen. The Vision Pro is a non-starter at a surgery room, or even as a remote control for robotics.
it needs an app that spawns a drinkable 3d beer in front of your face or one that spawns a smokable cigarette, these seemed to work for the iphone
Not interested in any fledgeling platform that doesn't have a fart app, sorry
I see it as a new version of a workstation. They need enterprise apps like Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, or game development applications.
for game development apparently godot has a standalone version for Meta headsets, but it doesn't really work on the Vision Pro other than some community version that only allows it to display 3d models in small bounds because of OS restrictions, theoretically it should work immersively with WebXR but I don't really know (and then you have to limit your game to what can feasibly be downloaded in a few seconds)
No, they don't need those apps, they literally just need one app, a well working remote desktop one.
They will never be a workstation because you will never get the amount of power you can get into your desktop, into your ski goggles. They could however, function as a perfectly good wireless monitor solution for an existing desktop. Strip out some of the processing power, make them smaller, lighter, and more comfortable, like the big screen beyond, and then tailor MacOS and iOS to use them as remote displays that let you put windows anywhere and you have your killer app: monitor replacements.
How the hell are you going to work with that?
Is that slab of touchscreen in your pocket a workstation too?
FFS, when I was excited about sensory screens like in sci-fi, I meant electronic notepads (with accumulators lasting a month, probably also usable as hardware authenticators and not too beefy audio and video players, but intentionally weak and without real OS, some kind of electronic paper with a visual PostScript editor, I dunno ; probably functional as remote controllers for something else ; thin reliable cheap devices with wide, but not tall functionality).
That was when iPhones still were some new stupidity and I had a Nokia phone (a good one) with cute nice buttons and Nokia UI design, you know how it all felt then.
EDIT: that association was because I assumed you imagine this like "touching" objects in VR with your fingers and such
I’ve been very happy with mine using it as my external monitor setup with my MacBook, and watching movies and media on it is so cozy. For travel it can’t be beat, it’s nice to tune out all distractions on a plane.
I always thought the entire point of them releasing this was not to make crazy money, but see how to improve upon what they built by having everyone beta test it for them. They really didn't have much info on how to make VR successful since none of them are really big. Sure, there's a market, but they want to know what it will take to get everyone on board not just the enthusiasts. Personally, I think it's going to take more than just an app to get there.
It will be interesting to see what big changes they make to the next version since I bet they are willing to change just about everything if they think the data collected proves it's needed. At that point I feel like version 2 will really be the product I want to see. I'll never buy or own one of these, and I hate apple products, but it's interesting to see what they will bring to the table since they obviously are investing a ton of money into this.
I always thought the entire point of them releasing this was not to make crazy money, but see how to improve upon what they built by having everyone beta test it for them. They really didn’t have much info on how to make VR successful since none of them are really big. Sure, there’s a market, but they want to know what it will take to get everyone on board not just the enthusiasts. Personally, I think it’s going to take more than just an app to get there.
"Let's ignore the entirety of the existing VR market, where Meta sold more Quest's than Microsoft sold Xboxes, and pretend like Tim Apple continues to personally invent everything. "
I always thought the entire point of them releasing this was not to make crazy money, but see how to improve upon what they built by having everyone beta test it for them.
There is plenty of data already available. What people want is a gaming platform, but Apple hates gaming for some reason, so they were already on a loser to start with.