Vision Pro's page is live! : apple

[–] Iwamoto@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some of my thoughts:

It's a very exciting product, I think this is the thing Meta wants to be but doesn't have the "clout" for to ask.

I have a Quest 2 and tried using it for this kind of stuff, it wasn't great, reviews for the Quest pro said the same. Now, maybe the Quest 3 will come closer to this, but I feel Apple is willing to up the price to give you the best product.

At first, I wasn't happy with the external battery, but I get it, it's not meant to be super mobile, but to be used at a desk or other stationary position with maximum comfort, being light and easy to use.

I think the eye tracking is fantastic, since reaching forward all the time is the exact same reason apple never made a touchscreen iMac, it just makes your arms tired.

I felt the last bit of the presentation was a bit like what I'd say when I was selling macs "it's quite a bit of money, but it's not expensive for what you're getting", and there's some merit in that.

Furthermore, I can see this living side by side with a quest 3 though, having one for everyday life and then the other for games, since, as much as Meta wants it to be a pro product, it's just a game machine, a very fun game machine though, but not the most amazing office application.

In conclusion, I'll see if I can get one through my employer, otherwise, well, let's see.

[–] DudeDad@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

This is my take as well. $3,500 has me out priced right now. I could get it, by my wife would kill me if I chose this over some new furniture we need.

If they indeed deliver what they’re promising, the price is justified.

But, I would need the world to look real when in the headset, not like a 3D video.

I’d use this for work and video entertainment/3D experiences.

My Quest for games that work better with controllers, when my hands need that tactile feel.

[–] harbo@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I haven’t wanted anything this bad since the original iPhone but I’m making myself wait for the third version. It looks so fucking cool. The haters’ takes are gonna age like milk.

[–] smallerdemon@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I feel this. iPhone 4 was when I finally replaced my Blackberry.

[–] DudeDad@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Yep. It wouldn’t be wise for me to get one right now at that price point, and I make we’ll into the 6 figures.

I’d like to wait a generation or two before shelling out that cash.

But yes, I will have one at some point.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

the presentation was amazing, but $3500 is a ridiculous price.

[–] smallerdemon@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I found someone that posted this: "In 1985, I bought a Mac 512K and Apple dot matrix printer for $2500. $3500 for Vision Pro seems like a bargain." $2500 then is $7442 now. If it lives up to its hype, it will find its niche and its market.

I saw another post that pointed out "This technology has already been around for 10 years." But you know, so had MP3 players and mobile phones by the time Apple had come to the market with their products and they did end up dominating those markets.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

then again, i had a tiny, protable minidisc player in 1998, and that never took off, despite being around for years and far superior to CDs-- they even played mp3s in a similar way to iPods. cheaper. years earlier. it ran off a single AA battery that lasted weeks. weeks. but they were a niche product...

then again, when was thee last time an apple product failed to launch?

[–] smallerdemon@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

G4 Cube was the last big flop I remember that was an actual product release as opposed to a part of something else that sucks (butterfly keyboards, C port only charging, the current mouse having the battery charger port on the bottom). The Home Pod wasn't a success on launch for the some cost reasons that people are citing as what will kill the Vision Pro, but the mini version has been a great success. AirPower didn't flop as much as it just... never existed. But in regards to recent products, they have been significantly more thoughtful in creating and launching them.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

hesitant upvote just because the G4 Cube didn't so much flop as much as it just didn't "blow up" and, also, it wasn't a "new product". it wasn't very popular and didn't last long, though, so you're right about that. Oddly, they're one of the ost sought-after collecter's items, like the Newton, another famous Apple flop-- although I loved that, too, as I loved the G4 Cube.

[–] ZippyZiggurat@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Apple doing Apple things.

Though, it's made of aluminium and glass, the headband looks 1000% times better than the Quest's, the battery being external is what I've wished the Quest to have, it does have an M2 in it like a whole macbook and there's an extra screen to show your eyes.

The joke is the 2h battery life and of course the price would have been more reasonable at $2500 though I'm sure it'll sell out regardless, I want one way more than any Quest but I'm not spending that kind of cash on it.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

it's a luxury device for early adopters and devs to flesh out the tech in Gen 1 for later iterations. I'm sure it will be popular in a few years, but, now, it's more of a novelty. I'm excited to see where it goes, though.

[–] TheYang@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

So, first of all, I do think that Apple entering the AR/VR Space will change it significantly.

But I also think in a lot of ways, this is the worst Display Apple has released in quite a while.
I'm being a little unfair, because it's still (one of) the best in the market, but even if it's the best, being the best doesn't necessarily make it good.

assuming they have the same FOV as the Meta Quest 2 (106° horizontal and 96° vertical), fixing the resolution to the same aspect ratio I get 33.6px/°. The Information's Wayne Ma claimed 120° horizontal months ago, which would be ~28,3px/° (depending on vertical FoV, I'm assuming 120° as well for this)
Typically Apple was going for >50px/° to consider something "retina"
It seems that generally speaking you'd need roughly 60px/° or 1px per arcminute or 1px per 60arcseconds for Displays in which you can't discern pixels any more.
furthermore (same source, further up) the average projected distance between cones in your eyes is ~30arcseconds, so while it seems impossible to discern Pixels starting at ~60px/°, the overall image clarity should still go up notably until ~120px/° (that seems a lot like the old Nyquist showing up again, at least to me).
Accounting for higher peak densities in cones which can reach roughly double the average density, some people should notice significant improvements up until ~240px/°, while some will only get significantly diminishing returns from effectively just "super-sampling" their eyes.

And given the fact that Apple is trying to make this (in my view) fundamentally VR Headset an AR one with Camera passthrough, requirements for exceptional Displays are high, because suddenly it's not a game looking slightly pixelated, but the real world (even your Children, in their own Demo).

But I'm excited what will happen with this in the next 10 years, when we may get really good, reasonably cheap VR/AR devices.

[–] DudeDad@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed. That scene and the one where he’s trying to bond with his kids while recording them just didn’t feel like a “human experience”.

Even watching him do it, I felt disconnected.

But I mean, I get it. Recording 3D video of my precious family time is a very valuable prospect.

[–] yaniv@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A bit dystopian tbh. But that’s our future, I guess.

[–] TheBelgian@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was going to say that. Older I get and less I want to use such devices, it's really alienating. And don't forget the all subscribe/telemetric/closed ecosystem. nope

I could totally play a VR game sometime but not making a lifestyle of it.

[–] MonkeyLord@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah this is exactly how I feel. I love VR for the purpose of gaming, video content, and social applications. All the attempts to make people live their day to day lives in VR that these corporations keep pushing are disturbing to say the least of the matter.

[–] Disgusted_Tadpole@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The part where the father was cooking and playing with his child with the headset was quite disturbing.

[–] smallerdemon@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I am guessing Apple will completely shy away from this in the next marketing iteration.

[–] koncertejo@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At $3500 the Meta Quest lineup of products immediately looks better in comparison.

I feel like so many of these companies doing XR are trying to lean out of the fact that wearing a headset like that is inherently isolating, all because they want to sell to anyone other than the market of people that created these devices in the first place and gave VR its initial groundswell in the early 2010s, people who want to play games alone in their rooms who are completely fine with that. If these XR companies just accepted that that's a really great market for these devices and then actually focused on them being a gaming platform I feel like the XR market would be a lot healthier overall. But instead we have to swing for the fences because these tech companies want to compete with smartphones(?) instead of with the PlayStation 5.

These devices are made worse because of that.

[–] darkkite@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

apple is cheaper compared to https://b2b-store.varjo.com/product/varjo-xr-3 half as much

load more comments (1 replies)