Apple hopes to convince people to buy its $3,500 Vision Pro headset using free 25-minute in-store demos::undefined

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      It is not meant for the end consumer at this stage, it is a tech demo and development kit.

      The real consumer variant will probably be released in a year or two.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It should be marketed as a dev kit, but they’re marketing it for consumers

        • stoy@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well, why not capture some consumers at the same time?

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

              So?

              They need to build hype, and if that means they are pushing a demo on walk-ins,then I don’t have an issue with it as long as they accept a “No thank you” from the customer.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        Did they say this or is this your pet theory? I don’t feel like that is necessarily the best strategy, since people won’t develop for it, when there’s no users and no users will appear when no one develops an ecosystem for this thing…

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          11 months ago

          This isn’t really a “pet” theory — just economics. VR represents an entirely new product line, and with Apple’s expansion into services, a whole new way to value-add to those services and entire ecosystem; capturing more recurring revenue. This price point is based on new manufacturing costs at a much smaller scale than their other product lines.

          It’s Apple, so it’ll never be “cheap”, but it can’t remain at this price point and stave off competition for long. Within 3 years they’ll either drop the price and introduce a pro version, or release an SE version, that’ll still probably be around $2000-2500 — but bringing it within reach of the people who’d normally buy “pro” devices.

        • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          You have to start somewhere. The iPhone was a game changer so it took of instantly. Something like an AR/VR headset is still pretty niche even today about 10 years after VR really became a thing.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        So… I can’t buy it? If I can, you’re either lying, wrong, or have an agenda.

        • stoy@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          So… I can’t buy it?

          If you can afford it you can buy it, the purpose of a product does not need to affect availablility.

          you’re either lying

          Why go straight into calling me a liar? This just shows that you don’t want to have a proper discussion.

          wrong,

          This is quite possible, I have been wrong before, and I will be wrong in the future, it happens, and is not the end of the world unless you realy fuck up.

          or have an agenda.

          I can’t figure out any agenda that I would push regarding the Vision Pro.

          In the end, it is a theory, based on resonable data available to me.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’d buy it if it was the kind of tool that earned me $5000… but it’s still really hard to justify the business use case for VR these days.

      • fluxion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        If I can lie on my couch while typing away on my custom virtual workspace it might be worth it but the resolution requirements make that unlikely any time soon

        • darth_helmet@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          This thing is overpriced but there’s no way Apple ships it if they don’t have the pixel density to render text in a way that doesn’t make your eyes bleed. It’s being marketed as a work device, after all.

    • weirdo_from_space@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      It also has basically no battery life and once that mostly useless battery becomes completely useless you are never unplugging that thing from the wall because you bet Apple made that battery impossible to replace!

      • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Shit I’ve bought MacBooks for work that cost as much as that headset, and my current laptop costs about as much as this.

        $3500 is nothing for a computer, let alone a prosumery AR/VR heatset with a computer built in.

          • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            My work PC costs twice that. There’s Apples influence has nothing to do with my Thinkpad.

            I’ve worked on workstations that cost as much as a nice car. Apples pricing only comes close because they charge so much for storage. When you’re working with triple digit gigabytes of ram machines it ain’t cheap.

            Apple makes by far the best laptop out there. No machine comes close when it comes to performance and battery life. Intel has a decent performance per watt under load, but under light non idle loads it’s not even close. My Thinkpad is incapable of getting decent battery life. Lenovos 10 hour battery life is a damn lie. I get 30 minutes to 3 hours at best. Our work MacBook pros easily get 10+ doing the exact same workload. AMD gets close, but they’re falling down the same trap Intel has been for the last 10 years.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      A lot of tech, including computers, commonly cost that much for a long time. It’s not a totally outrageous for consumer tech.

      • lovesickoyster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        They could have made it stream wirelessly from your MacBook

        yeah, no. People really don’t understand how much bandwidth you actually need to stream even normal 4k 60hz video, let alone something like this. For reference, when I was figuring out how to dump my pc in the basement and have my monitor in my office, I had to run 12-strand fiber cables to do it.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    11 months ago

    take a deep breath and realize; if you cannot afford this, you are not rich enough to be part of apples target audience.

    no matter how much you want to tell yourself that you are.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      I didn’t know apple target audiance was a total of 400.000 people which is the total amount the’ll make of these.

      Seriously this is a proof of concept for rich kids children to be test users. I doubt it will visible move the needle on their profits.

      You have some strange ideas, do android users enjoy being the “target audience” of google?

      I am loyal to no brand, own a mix of devices and boycot some. Love tech, fuck capitalism.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Isn’t that kind of like saying that if you can’t afford 2024 MB S63 AMG then you’re not in Mercedes Benzs’ target audience? I bet the profit Apple makes from selling iPhones dwarfs the earnings from selling these goggles even if they’re successful.

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

        iOS doesn’t run android apps. I don’t think many people will care. Most apps can be ported.

        • Euphoma@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The apple vision pro doesn’t have motion controllers like the quest line of headsets, so apps would have to be redesigned for hand tracking instead.

          Also, apple said recently that devs have to cannot describe their apps using the words VR, AR, or XR on any platform it is on, they have to be called spacial computing apps, so anything with VR in the title like VRChat can’t get ported without a full rebrand.

        • yhvr@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I think what was meant here is that it won’t run apps designed for the Oculus Quest lineup (which is based on Android), not the actual Facebook application

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Half of the US can’t afford a $1000 emergency. $3500 for a toy seems steep in that context.

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Half of the US is over a hundred million people. The rumours are Apple has supply constraints that will limit global sales to about a million devices for now.

      This can’t possibly be a mass market device - it’s just not possible right now to manufacture that many. The tiny screens are 3,400 DPI and 5000 nits (that’s about 10x brighter than a typical TV or computer screen). It’s going to be a while before tech like that can be mass produced.

      They named it Vision “Pro” which in Apple marketing speak basically means “the really expensive one”. Their “Pro” desktop PC tower has a baseline price of $7k and fully upgraded it comes in at almost $13k which is actually cheaper than they were when they used Intel Xeons a couple years ago (those could hit something like $80k).

      There will probably be a non-pro equivalent one day, which will be far cheaper.

    • Untitled4774@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yea what kind of privacy and amenities are provided?

      Is this going to introduce “body tracking” similar to oculus hand tracking so it knows where the body is for it to become an AR wank? That’d be a game changer if VR wank.

    • naught@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Norm from Tested on yt had good things to say after his hands-on with the headset iirc a while back. This is just the price of a flagship VR device ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It feels very much like most stuff that’s likely to be developed for it will have the feel of “museum exhibit at home” or AR-ified iOS app.

      The inability to use any controller is going to lose them a lot of latency and precision sensitive usecases. It is very Apple to make it totally standalone, but it’s going to cost them a fair bit.

      A lot of real time remote control usecases will be impossible for latency issues alone, it won’t be a good solution in most multiuser environments (both due to no relative tracking, but also cost and hygiene issues for shared devices), it won’t be great for bringing into public spaces (poor long range tracking, etc) or small spaces (limits gestures), hand tracking camera position means you have to hold your hands up and mostly open (accessibility issues), etc.

      Even if the hardware can do more, Apple won’t give developers access to more.

      • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        All it has to do is impress people enough that they hear about the 500 dollar headsets that are almost as good. Or the 250 dollar headsets that are almost as good as those. As long as they don’t go as low as the 50 dollar headsets that are not as good relatively as being worth 50 dollars compared to the other headsets.

        By getting it in the hands of a bunch of influencers, it’ll do what Apple devices always do, make stuff look like a good idea for normal people to use too, not just nerds. Just to show normal people, who have probably had limited or bad experiences with VR, that there is “a” price point that solves almost all their problems with it.

        Most will balk at the price, but have their perspective changed anyway. And some of them will look into or passively hear about other cheaper options. And then practically priced headsets will gain more marketshare and software will be worth the financial investment to make. It’s unfortunately not a quick process, and it’s only one part of that same process. But it’s a pretty important part.

        VR software has already been in a pretty good place for a few years, but it can always use “more and better”, as with any software ecosystem.

  • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Id buy it right now if it was maybe $500.

    Spatial computing is the future.

    I don’t need 3 screens. I need a pair of spectacles.

    Screens have always been the bottleneck. The phone tablet monitor tv.

    Glasses can do entire field of vision.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      It doesn’t even do spatial computing well. It can simulate a single 4k display and that’s it. You can have some other apps floating around you, but not much.

      If I could simulate 8 4k displays all around me, or freely float my full blown Mac OS programs and resize them to infinity then I’d be cool with this. But I’ve got more screen in front of me right now than the vision could ever hope to do. And Apples “apps” are far too gimped to be useful. Notes and email are cool, but not much else.

      • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Then it’s not spatial. Maybe they will bring that to the table.

        That’s what we need. I agree if it’s a downgrade from your Mac.

        It’s an upgrade from my Thinkpad.

        But price is the issue.

        Once devs get it. They can improve.

      • darth_helmet@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It uses foveated rendering, so yeah it is effectively close to looking at a hidpi display across your entire field of vision, in a sphere around you. And you can use it effectively as a virtual monitor with a Mac, but you really have to design for the interface for a good experience

  • erranto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I don’t believe Apple made this product to sell. it might be just marketing ploy to keep people talking about Apple and how they are always ahead of the curve. they have a brand reputation to maintain.

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

      They don’t care if it sells or not. It shows the tech industry that they are still “at the forefront” and “relevant”. Apple can’t appear to be left behind. This is also a way for developers to jump in and start making things for Apple’s inevitable AR glasses that this thing was supposed to be. In 5 years, they’ll use all the data and development they’ve collected from this headset for their newer devices.

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

        This is exactly right. They did the same thing with the iPhone. Launched with minimal features, riddled with bugs, the butt of every joke and cynical opinion, and let the consumers tell them exactly what was wrong with it in excruciating detail. 5 years later, a literal majority of all human beings alive had one in their hands (or similar products from their competitors). Will this specific product be any good? No, probably not. But in 10 years or so, it may very well be the next thing everybody has to have in order to function in society

  • Yewb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 months ago

    If its amazing like revolutionary amazing it would change my mind, if it’s just a vr headset nope.

    • rickdg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s a mixed reality headset that works. Still too expensive for consumers.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s whatever you need it to be, baby. Just hand over the cash and Apple will make your dreams come true.

    • DrinkMonkey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      To give a non-snarky answer, it does AR with external cameras and an incredibly low lag such that those who have tried it have said makes it almost natural (the resolution apparently isn’t perfect, but there is no discernible input lag when looking around which happens on other similar devices). But you can dial up the opacity to wind up in a fully VR environment. So, it is in fact, both.

      Your question about software is a big one. Apple is advertising 1M apps available at launch (good) but these are iPad apps, which can run on Vision OS without any modifications by the developers (not so good). That does not mean it will be a good experience. I was listening to a podcast today where a developer clearly stated that after getting a chance to try their app on device at a lab, they totally stopped development because they missed the mark completely with their imagination and the simulator on how it should work. You’ll still be able to run their iPad app, but until they get their hands on their own hardware to iterate more rapidly, they’re giving up.

      All that to say it’s unclear how many apps will be natively designed to work with it on launch, and if these will be any good.

      Thankfully I don’t live in the US so I am immune to this particular reality distortion field. For now…

    • And009@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      How’s it not useful? It provides an additional display to the ecosystem and a kind of immersion that is simply unrivaled unless you’re with friends and family (weirdos)

      The cost here is a bigger decisive factor, it’s meant for early adopters, developers and tech entrepreneurs who will actually influence how the general public ends up using it for.

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

        I don’t think they were saying it’s not useful. Personally I can’t see myself wearing this often enough to justify the cost

  • rekabis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    A $2k CAD phone I can justify if it’s going to hold me in good stead over the next 6 years and have another 6 full OS upgrades straight from the manufacturer. My iPhone X held up great for 6 years, and only started struggling in 2013.

    A $3,500 USD fashion accessory? What are they smoking, and can I have some?

  • ExLisper@linux.community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Can’t wait to see people wearing those around the office. Thinking about it. if you remove the desk, monitors, keyboard, mouse and just sit down bunch of programmers next to each other with those goggles it can actually be cheaper for the company to run an office even at 3.5k per headset.

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

      Imagine how many people you can pack in a small space. You only would need 2ft x 2ft space per person and you can put the entire company on a single floor!

      /s

  • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s Apple. I expected nothing less than the most ridiculously priced products to be produced by them. So the figure is eye watering but expected. If these sellout, as some predict, it proves unequivocally that Apple fanboys are the most rabid idiots in existence.

    • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      For a high end enterprise geared headset that functions as its own standalone device and doesn’t require any connection to any other computer to work, this isn’t even expensive.

      This isn’t meant to compete with something like a Quest. It’s meant to compete with something like the Varjo Aero, which goes from $5-10k.

      For a company deciding on implementing AR/VR, the cost to get a Quest Pro for $800 plus a $2500 workstation to power it, vs a $3500 Vision Pro that doesn’t need a workstation, it’s pretty comparable.

      • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        For a high end enterprise geared headset

        That Apple wants to sell to John, Martha and their 2.5 children.

        • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Company sells goods to consumers, more at 11.

          There’s always people out there that want to be on the bleeding edge. People spend $2000+ on just a 4090 card, or $2000 on a stupid folding phone that breaks from a grain of sand.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      Microsoft’s HoloLens 2 does less than Apple’s Pro Vision and it costs the same. Is it really that overpriced? And the cost goes way way up from there.

      it proves unequivocally that Apple fanboys are the most rabid idiots in existence.

      Maybe you should look inward before making silly comments like these.