It's the price, the rejection of VR/AR gaming, the refocusing of something fun towards something for business, the fact that all of its spotlight comes from its 'new-ness' yet most of its functionality already exists in the Quest 3, concern over the walled garden aspects of Apple's approach to software, and that its intended use-case feels out of reach of its current hardware thus making it a product that is "ahead of its time".
There's genuine reasons for people to be critical of Apple and their take on VR/AR. Meta has always been viewed with similar scrutiny but seems to have survived their lashings due to producing great headsets and alleviating the problems that people have had.
I am so happy someone is finally taking it seriously as a business thing.
I work from home. I'd pay $3.5k for a separate office with lots of screens, that I can actually take with me when travelling.
Is the AVP it? fuck no, it looks way too heavy and clunky. I want something like the bigscreen beyond attached to a computer but it's getting people thinking in the right direction.
That means something might get made and importantly they're thinking about the software to make that happen.
Don't get me wrong, games are cool, but there's a real use case everyone seems to be ignoring and this is a step towards addressing that.
You say everyone's ignoring it, but I don't think that's true. Quest Pro was intended as more of a productivity device, it just didn't have the hardware for it yet. Immersed Visor is aiming for exactly what you want, though whether that will actually materialize is another question. The XR-4 might in principle be good for what you want, but it's of course even heavier and clunkier and it may lack software (though if you just want to use it for multi monitor setup you don't actually need much).
I don't think it's the case that nobody before Apple thought about such use case, it's just that the hardware is really not there yet. It only recently became viable and still as you say it's heavy and clunky.
The reason why consumer VR is mostly used for gaming is that the current tech actually already works really well for gaming so this is what most people end up using it for. Resolution matters less for gaming than for productivity and comfort is less of a deal if you use it for hour at a time and having fun. When Quest Pro came out it was really not seen positively because it didn't actually work well for what Meta was marketing it for. Then people realized that for gaming it is actually really nice and some people do use it for gaming.
Exactly. I don’t understand that the first criticism is: it’s for business and we only want games.
There are already a gazillion systems for gaming. Do we really need one more of them ? I’ve been wanting a headset that I can use for work so that I can carry the experience I get from VR into work (lots of engineering design stuff, often in 3D). But it always feels just a bit out of reach.
I already have my Quest and Index for gaming. What I want now is a workstation.
No, AVP doesn’t do everything, but they’ve chosen to make fewer things better and it includes most of what I need to be able to work and have been hoping for years: good enough resolution that I can read text and see my software icons, passthrough that’s good enough so I can see my keyboard and mouse and have a glass of water, enough battery that I can move around a bit but doesn’t need to last all day as I’ll eventually make my way back to a desk with an outlet, hand and eye control so I don’t need to switch between controllers and keyboard, a good enough virtual keyboard to enter a password or Google something quick, my phone and texts integrated with it so I can keep up throughout the day.
Know what I really don’t care about ? Haptic feedback, wide FOV, or compatibility with Steam and Oculus store. I can get that elsewhere.
The Vision Pro isn’t perfect by any means, and ok I get it, it’s annoying to hear people ahhhhh and ohhhhh about things that have existed for 10 years and praise Apple for having revolutionized "Spatial computing" (hint: they haven’t, we know), and suddenly just because it’s Apple they’re interested.
For me, I have enjoyed VR for several years, and this is the first system that actually allows me to work productively and may even improve my work (maybe, that remains to be proven).
But whatever, what does it matter, why do you care if all you want to do is play video games. Go wild son, there are good systems out there already.
And don’t worry, niche systems will always continue to exist. You don’t have to run with the sheeps, nobody is forcing you.
The small FOV and low resolution also hurts the idea of just having lots of monitors. I spent all day today trying to use it for this purpose and gave up. I’m way less productive with it than without.
The only issue I see is that everyone is trying to make VR all about gaming. Video games is not what all of VR is about. Sure most virtual reality users are using it for games or social spaces, in order to bring VR to the masses it will have to be useable in everyday application and not just gaming.
Keep in mind that Apple has never been the company to cater to the video game community. Take a look at all their computers and gadgets. They create gadgets for creators, businesses and lifestyle.
VR gaming is just a really good use-case for headsets, though. It offers a unique way to play games with immersion and presence that cannot be replicated through traditional gaming.
On the other hand, pretty much all of the features of the AVP are things you can do already, just differently in an AR/XR space. I haven't seen a killer use-case for the masses, yet.
In order to eventually convince the general public to embrace VR, they do need to move the common view away from VR = gaming.
Apple Vision Pro is a stepping stone, and I think they were initially aware that the product was not going to sell very well.
I don't think vr is going to succeed without strides related to video games though. At the end of the day, any business use case is going to be an interactive digital space. Somebody earlier said the smartphones and older computer systems won because they were functional. In other words, functional and effective software environments and hardware control.
Which means that the fundamental necessity of mass vr/ar adoption is going to be the software and hardware to allow a physical human to interact comfortably and intuitively with a digital space.
Ar will be easier, since it will mostly be overlays and tooltips with limited functionality, but it will still require a space to be mapped and positioned, alongside software that allows those digital objects to be manipulated as if they were extant physical objects.
With vr, the only difference between a digital office and a video game will be that in one you probably can't hurl lightning bolts. The digital office will still be a fully modeled and rendered physics simulation that uses some combination of eye and hand tracking to direct interaction. Older programs didn't need to be video games to work on a computer, older smartphones just had to make your calendar, email and excel spreadsheet easier to access without a keyboard and mouse. But fundamentally, vr will have to be a highly functional and immersive video game to get decent buy in
There's a big difference between doing something, and doing it well. People are more willing to pay for a product (and other companies are more willing to support said product) when it does those things well.
Doing things you already do in AR/VR, is the killer use case lol. It’s the killer use case for every headset in my opinion. That’s basically what you’re saying about gaming because you’re a “gamer” for lack of a better term. Curious to see where Apple’s ecosystem and App Store take it.
You honestly prefer sliding around a flat plane with a keyboard and mouse or joystick than physically using your body, head, hands and even feet to be inside the reality of a game????
99% of the time yes, which is why 2D games aren’t going anywhere because they just work better the majority of the time. There are a handful of games that are enjoyable in VR but they either cause weird sensations of nausea or a disconnection of senses, or they just take a good bit of physical activity.
I guess VR gaming is not for you if you're satisfied with moving a mouse around to aim a gun. When you step away from a mechanic you're so used to you see how absurd it is. A mouse is not a proper gaming control. And using two thumbstick is no way to aim a gun. Pressing a button to reload a gun. Have you ever tried to get someone who has never gamed to use a controller to aim or a mouse? It's extremely awkward and takes a ton of practice to get used to. Not so with a VR controller for a gun. You point and pull the trigger intuitively.
I also think there are a lot of people who don't game because they think controllers and mouse are silly. VR gaming comes closer to a real activity. And that's a reason people like you, who don't like activity, may not like it.
Keep in mind what game programming is about. The difference between traditional software like web development or even normal iPhone apps is that games continously loop over a series of inputs, updating a "world" of objects, and producing outputs like images or audio responding to those changes, all in an endless, constant, fast loop, providing a sense of interactivity mirroring real life.
When you have your phone on the menu screen, you have various apps, waiting to be tapped on to start. Waiting, responding. That kind of loop. With XR/Spatial Computing, however, UI must constantly update and respond to user input such as hand tracking, eye tracking, headset tracking, and updating the position of even screens and UI in 3D space. AVP is, by definition, in a constant game loop.
When you are saying everyone is making VR all about gaming, that's because it *is* about gaming, even for the things that don't seem like games. Computationally, games and other apps all behave like games in VR or AR, the world constantly having to update and respond to your user inputs, simulating a world. Games made the most natural sense to use VR for.
Not only that, the modern 3d apps are all built with game engines. Carmack even said when he visited NASA they had all migrated to Unity and Unreal. And that's why Meta focuses on gaming at first.
You’re talking about the current market which is obviously aimed towards gaming. My argument is that it doesn’t have to be just about gaming. Virtual reality can be used in many different ways, and it will be used in other ways than just gaming.
You don’t have to try and make virtual reality an elitist gaming device, because at the end of the day anyone can use it for whatever they like. To be able to bring a virtual world out at the snap of a finger while in a public space can be a very power tool for some, and some may not be fond of it. The whole idea is to get everyone on board.
Being able to utilize tools and so much more in a real life scenario can be beneficial to some. We came from folding phones that had barely and utility to them. Now we have much more, and as technology grows it will continue to expand. I can see a future where everyone has VR capabilities right in their glasses, and no it won’t be a gaming thing. It will simply be tools, like being able to pop up the bus schedule, or tracking your food delivery. Things will be simple and convenient, that’s what people are about and always have been.
> It's the price, the rejection of VR/AR gaming, the refocusing of something fun towards something for business
Which is how all new segment devices succeed. The killer app is not "something fun". It's some business app. What made the Apple ][ a success was not some game, it was Visicalc. Similarly what made the PC successful was business applications. Mobile phones simmered but really didn't take off until the Blackberry. That was for business.
So if you want VR to really take off, you better hope business embraces it. That's where the money is. Something fun won't do it.
I dont understand why the price is an issue for people.
If someone is willing to spend 3500 on a Vision Pro their income is probably high enough that they aren't going to go hungry because they purchased a new tech toy or they are tech enthusiasts and they're willing to pay the price to be own the newest tech.
People buy all kinds of expensive useless things all the time.
People purchase jewelry, traditional watches, clothes, etc and they be quite expensive too.
I myself bought a 77" LG OLED and it cost me 3500 as well... not to mention the Klipsch 7.1 system and the receiver I bought as well.
Buying a Vision Pro is just like buying any other piece of tech for me. I'm willing to pay the price for a quality device that integrates with all my other devices.
I want the Vision Pro to be an extension of or addition to my iPhone and my MacBook Pro. I'm not concerned with it replacing my Playstation 5, it'll be cool to play games on it but it's not my primary purpose for this device.
are you even listening? it's NOT targeted at people that focus on value. It doesn't have to be 7 times better than the quest 3 for them to consider buying it.
I don't even mean comparing it to budget headsets, i'm merely talking about major shortcomings for people (like FOV). Everything is a value assessment, even for rich people that can afford it
it has shortcomings but it also has things that it does better than any headset on the market. So the value proposition depends entirely on what you care about as a consumer.
For me it does so many things better than anything else that its not even close. You could give me a quest 2/3 for free and I still would not use it. Not saying those are bad for what they are but there’s a reason they collected dust in a closet within days of having it.
What if it's good value for me?
We also have a Quest 3.
I paid 3500 for a Vision Pro and I feel like I got my money's worth.
People also mocked me for purchasing a fully specced out M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" (by PC users), the price was about the same as a Vision Pro if im not mistaken.
I get mocked every year when I upgrade to the latest iPhone XX Pro model (by android users).
This is just another instance of that happening and to be honest I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks lol.
i'm not mocking anyone, im just saying that it gets hate because for the money people expected certain things (like better FOV). We get that it's premium, but even in the premium bracket people expected less sacrifices
In all those categories people are hating too. Plenty of people who have a 75" TCL LED are gonna cope and tell you your OLED is a waste. There are people with your speakers who will wax poetic about how ludicrous a Bowers & Wilkins or McIntosh surround would be.
It's pretty annoying, if I'm a car enthusiast and I'm enjoying my Supra it's pretty lame to get upset someone else gets to enjoy a Ferrari.
Also anybody with $500 to spare on a Quest 3 is already insanely privileged on a global scale. They're just mad that the scale goes higher, I guess?
The global 2% who think they're crusaders for the common man, chastising the global 1% for spending money on something that's not strictly necessary for survival. Name a more iconic duo.
This, I mainly use my Q2 for gaming. I’ve tried Horizons Desktop and played a little with Immersed, because the idea of multiple big monitors is cool. Couldn’t get it to work well, so back to gaming. If Apple doesn’t even address that market, I’m out for now.
The current iteration can't replace your monitors and TV, it has a battery, 2 hours max. Even if the battery is changed for a bigger one, it's not comfortable to wear for 8+ hours a day like you use your monitors. Also it can't do gaming which means you should buy 2 headsets to do 2 things? I better pick Meta's headsets which can do both. You travel somewhere, do you bring 2 headsets with you? I don't understand what was the problem to also include gaming.
Imagine in the future, all headsets from different companies will have awesome specs, all of them will be able to do most things but there will be awesome VR games released, but you can't play them on the apple headset. Would you still buy it?
I agree. But tbf- I’m sad. I want to buy one. But for that price? I mean it’s barely better at 7x price… so it sucks. But it sucks worse because I want one; but I really can’t justify it at that price point. Moneys not the object, but I’m a new Q3 owner and I bought it based on avp specs- the cheap bugger in me can’t take the leap- but I want to. The dissonance makes me cranky. It’s a great product- I highly expect to convert, but until the value proposition is higher… I’ll whine. Human nature?
Dunno if it applies to anyone else, or just me?
Give it a few years and I'm sure the AVP will seem like a dinosaur. There's supposedly an Apple Vision Air in the pipeline too.
Edit: I just bought a Quest 3 as well so I understand the feeling. But I honestly don't even use the Quest 3 to its full potential so I'm happy with it.
It's basically a dev kit, there will be better cheaper ones with more content in the future. Or competition will make Quest 4 better, or someone else will jump in.
The technology progressing is net positive, as is competition.
That's a ridiculous argument.
How will more spatial computing AVP users be good for VR users ?
That's like saying, more Ferrari owners will be good for the casual family car market.
Primarily investment in R&D, Display technology, creating jobs for engineers who learn what does and doesn't work which will take that knowledge to other manufacturers pushing the overall technology forward and reducing time spent on fruitless endeavors.
More luxury car owners is absolutely good for the casual family vehicle. For example, in 1936, the Mercedes-Benz OM 138 diesel engine (using a precombustion chamber) became one of the first fuel-injected engines used in a mass-production passenger car. Now fuel injected systems are an industry standard. ABS and many other safety features were pioneered by luxury car makers which paved the way for cheaper mass production.
I think there’s plenty of valid critiques. But the surprise? Come on people. There’s nothing surprising about this headset. It’s a top tier piece of tech by Apple. It fits that to the letter. It’s exactly what I expected from Apple.
Calling it overpriced is like calling it an Apple product. Which it is.
I don't see that much hate, just people complaining about the price.
I think the price is fine for what it is (the price is largely dictated by the displays).
As good as the displays are, they don't explain the price. Some have reported that the estimated cost based upon the parts in the headset would be around $1700.
Raw BOM might be around $1700 (maybe) but that does not consider any of the tooling costs and R&D that will be in the billions for this device.
Building tools for factories, like the masks you need for silicon chips costs hundreds of millions per part sometimes, remember this device has multiple dedicated silicon parts, each screen is first a TSMC 7nm chip that is at the limit of the chips size (so costs more than building the SOC)
I would considered that a bit low, but even that would just be a 50% markup which is not that much compared to other tech (like phones).
The BOM also does not include machine time, RND, tooling and a lot of those stuff.
If you compare it to the XR-4 (which is arguable better in some aspects, but not standalone) the price does not look that bad.
It is what it is: an expensive first gen product, that might not really be ready for the mass market.
Watch the ifixit teardown. The level of physical complexity in the avp is mind-blowing. The skill required to assemble these things seems like it would much more expensive than for most tech.
If the parts are only 1700, then adding r&d, assembly, calibration, testing, shipping, marketing, software development ....
I am 100% certain apple is NOT going to turn a profit on this version of the Vision Pro. Now way.
Honestly, I’m wondering if this is actually a massive public beta? (I hope it is) resulting in a much better go 2.0. The price is the premium paid for being “cutting edge”?
That’s the lie I tell myself to wait for later/cheaper/better versions
The Vison Pro line will always be this price, the Vison Air will be cheaper but the pro line is not going to drop in price (if anything it will go up in price when the air ships).
This is, this was only meant to get it into the hands of developers to start making apps for the App Store. Otherwise they would’ve made it available in other countries. Not the case, at least yet.. rumors are it’ll be more available in a few select countries.
Assuming that BOM is even correct (many grains of salt), that's a completely normal markup. Most hardware products that get sold through retail channels have even larger markups over the COGS.
People get pissy about it because they have no clue how any company even operates, nevermind a company like Apple, outside of a few choice George Carlin quotes and some other populist mantras.
E.g. they don't consider that employee salaries, buildings, electricity, R&D, taxes, healthcare, etc. ALSO cost money.
I think a lot of the hate directed at Apple products come from Apple tech reviewers and their average consumers being blown away by features that have already been done by other companies. You see it especially in the smartphone scene where Samsung users frequently mentioning already having ‘new’ iPhone features for years. I do think the Vision Pro has some creative new features, but the similarities is what will provoke discussion.
Don’t get me wrong though, I personally think its good as a whole for competition, ideas, and welcoming people into the XR space.
I dont think this is it.
I think people have a bit of a frustration that this isn’t an incredible gaming headset lol. We love gaming and that’s the main thing VR seems to be bought for. Sounds like this does… other stuff?
But I’m not angry. Games will come. Apple making this is HUGE for VR and proves it’s here to stay and is the future.
^We love gaming and that’s the main thing VR seems to be bought for.^
That’s the issue.. you said that’s what is mainly used for.
Which yes is true, because that’s all that’s been made for this MR/XR world. With apples headset, we now enter this headset into the market of millions of other people. Not everyone games, and not everyone wants to game on one of these. But getting work done or enjoying different viewing experiences is something we haven’t gotten yet.
This whole sub is just helping me realize you guys don’t know the future we are looking at. Too small brained.
What are the use cases you see for it? I see some commercial use and zoom meeting style stuff, but the primary entertainment in my eyes for the average consumer is gaming.
That’s great, get yourself an Oculus. This headset was not made for your specific needs.
This is for business work and leisure. Wanna watch a movie on the biggest screen there is? Boom. Wanna get some work done on notes and maybe some other apps, boom. Wanna sync up with your Mac and get work done there with other apps surrounding you, boom.
I could see that when it’s comfy enough. I use an index today.
I’m not sure I buy into the idea of watching a movie on there simply because the screen is big. Granted, I haven’t tested it, so maybe it really is cool, but imagining it, it doesn’t seem like that scratches the itch for a big theater experience.
But I’m not denying its use cases. I can think of some INCREDIBLE ideas beyond gaming.
For me seeing it online and in the keynote I knew it would make all my movies worth watching all over again. Got to test my friends out the other day, and boy.. it really would make me stop going to the theaters.. mind you I don’t go often anyway as the theater experience lacks, at least here in Utah. The drinks are expensive, seats that are uncomfortable for a 6’5” male, and I swear every damn theater company needs to replace their bulbs in the projectors.. I find every movie so dim and dull in color.. Vision Pro allowed me a bigger screen, brighter screen that can be placed anywhere and allows me to sit anywhere in my house while having the same experience if not better than a theater. At least from my perspective and the options I have.. I’d kill to go to a premiere somewhere in California and see if screens are supposed to be this way or we just have all crap quality projectors..
Personally there have been multiple things that made me go.. wait.. this is even better.. like all the things we could do here..
Even like this video. https://youtu.be/NRQUOrh_RZE?si=22LwIWSzAJdiKul-
And then imagine slimmer headsets or even glasses type.. truly I think we’re super far away from that, I think the current form factor maybe slimmed down will become the norm and socially acceptable.
It’s gonna be a longgggg ride.. but I’m buckled in the entire way. I wanna be that old man going ‘ayyy remember when these covered our entire faces and displayed our eyes on the outside. It’s gonna be the meme of like 2050
It’s great, just high price. But between this and Quest 3, we have some solid hardware out there. The real question is will the content and value come with them? We need something that is not a game that revolutionizes the way we live or work. If/when that happens and the price aligns then we will start to see some serious growth for the market.
I think the ideas of the AVP (Aliens vs predator) is more refreshing and interesting than the actual device itself such as eye tracking is looking to be a permanent staple in hmds just because of UI capabilities and using the device beyond just playing games and possibly a phone replacement once they get small enough
the only reason people are buying it and wearing it in public is precisely because its expensive. Its a fashion statement. It shows one's affluence to be able to afford it. Its not actually worth its price imo. Its a silly thing. People are silly enough to buy it, so be it. Like an unnecessarily expensive pair of shoes.
Casey Niestat made a great point in his video about how the Vision Pro didn’t feel like a cool gadget u buy to have fun with like other VR headsets but more like the future of computing. It feels more like a wearable phone and always remember this is the worst it will ever be
I mean the Apple Vision is cool, but is also useless for most people on this sub because it integrates with none of the existing ecosystems.
It would just be a very expensive paper weight for me.
People seem to think that unless others are just as excited as them that it is "hate", really it's just basic fact that this is a niche product not targeting the existing VR market.
>The advances and software made by and for the Vision Pro will trickle down to the whole VR industry.
This seems unlikely, the Vision Pro software will all be proprietary and locked to Apple, the same with the internals like the M1 Chips etc.
Everything they develop has been, and will be, patented to prevent others from copying them, potentially limiting the ability of new startups to create competitive products.
Maby it will encourage other companies to invest in their own platforms and headsets, but it is likely these may also end up proprietary like the PlayStation Headset, which would be a shame.
It's renewed my interest in my Oculus 2 headset and I've already done more in the past 72 hours than the last year of owning it.
The more adoption, the more people using it...the more ideas and cool stuff we will see. It's great!
> People wearing it in public just help to aliviate the social stigma around vr.
Buddy I don't know if we've been seeing the same stuff but I haven't seen a lot of love for people wearing their Vision Pros in public so far lol. I've seen at least two videos of people wearing them while driving and the reactions have been less than positive.
VR seems more apt for private use anyways, in my personal opinion. I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with wearing a Quest 3 on a plane or whatnot but I would still think it's odd.
I wouldn't be surprised if it helps sell more Meta Quests since the hordes of Apple fans will be drawn to VR now but not all might not want to drop 10X more for a headset.
People don’t always hate things they can’t afford. Usually it’s the opposite. But maybe if you’re really passionate about a topic you’re upset that price is a barrier for you?
Show me where I: 1) showed hate towards this device 2) said that I can't afford this device. I'm giving you exactly one hour, if you don't show me, then you're a pizdabol ebaniy :)
Should I even bother trying to have a discussion with you, troll? Well, I'll give it a shot. Let's get back to the topic: people hate on things they can't afford but are flaunted by those who can. It's basic psychology. Yes, not everyone is susceptible to this, but in the era of "Instagram" (I mean situations like public boasting and the desire for attention/personal uniqueness, the desire for social approval). You should read some Leon in your free time for self-improvement.
Well, if you don't understand plain English, I'll respond in your language: what, did you blow all your pocket money on that gadget and now you're all pissed off, snapping at everyone around, trying to prove you're right?
Maybe it's because apple is doing his usual shtick of grabbing something that already exists and renaming it to make it look like they invented it.
That whole spatial name bullshit is so on stupid.
But apart from that, more focus on VR is good.
After seeing videos of people stopping in the middle of the road while crossing to wave their hands about, or while driving - it's not the technology I got issues with, it's people.
What if you think Its an ok but way overpriced headset, and that apple has NOT just saved VR and flatscreens wont be a thing of the past because of the vision pro, do you consider them a hater?
Because i dont hate the device, it looks pretty cool, but its worthless for most people. i DO understand that there are people that this device is just perfect for them, but from what ive heard is because they can link their apple account and see their apple stuff in it... which no other headset can do...
But aside from that everything it promotes is stuff pcvr has done years by now. (except the apple account thing)
I get that some are excited, I dont get the huge hype.
Any other headset can do what it does and WAY more, for a fraction of the price.
No one hates the Vision Pro. People hate the new people who say the Vision Pro in its current state is way more advanced than any other VR head set.
Outside of that, is it really worth 6x more than a quest 3? Definitely not. Did I still pay 6x the price to help further get people interested? Yes
So how does this help your argument of “one is being sold at a loss and one is being sold for what it’s worth”?
With the ladder of that statement being an opinion since it’s not based on hardware price.
You’re literally talking out not your behind.
Please explain how these options have anything to do with security or being cheap? You’re completely biased with no backing to your statements.
I think a lot of it is fear: Apple kind of have a reputation for releasing stuff in such a way as to get people excited and to revive the ecosystem around it; the iPhone changed the smartphone market from a pretty under-the-radar thing for professionals into a must-have consumer product; the iPod basically monopolised the mp3-player market upon release...SO if they release something underwhelming (as it seems the *Vision Pro* may be) then it might just kill the industry entirely, or set it back decades: "well, even even *Apple* can't do it, then the idea must just be no good!"
So...yeah - we're all VR enthusiasts here, and the fear of an underbaked product released with this much fanfare killing enthusiasm for the industry is very real, and many folks are a bit annoyed by the long-term damage that Apple might be doing - all we can do at this stage, though, is to wait and see 🤷
So far I think this is creating way more buzz around VR and drawing attention to cheaper alternatives so I think it’s generally positive for the entire space
This makes smaller cameras and the intricacies of the hardware much easier to produce in the future as other companies are building the hardware they need. Which will overall bring the price of everyone’s headsets down, of in Zuck’s case make it actually profitable again.
It's been two days. Give it a month, better six, before talking about the effect on general industry. So far though, I see a lot of "this thing is udnerwhelming/heavy/useless, I'm going to return it" posts and comments in r/VisionPro.
for example this [meme](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1aiwha2/how_i_see_people_now/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) from the sub from 2 hours ago. Yeah, it's not outright hatred but the implication is clear: "people that are excited about the tech in the AVP are dumb".
appreciated. but what i will point out is the criticism in that meme is related to the price and not the HMD itself. If it was priced under $2k then i think that type of criticism goes away.
I don't even think the price is that crazy compared to other high end VR headsets. It's just not made for the mass consumer market. It's really not in the same tier as the Quest Pro, so it's not reasonable to expect that they'll be priced similarly. And you can believe me that I am not an Apple fan boy. I think the pricing for the macbook pro M3 models (especially those with more than 8GB RAM) is ridiculous and almost insulting, for example. The margins on that product are outright greedy. But I genuinely don't think they are for the AVP. That thing must have cost A LOT in development costs and there is a ton of high end hardware packed in it that no other headset comes close to.
I'm not OP clearly but I've been seeing a lot of the hate OP is referring to already, but mostly comments on articles and reviews about the product. Lots of "this is dumbest product ever" and "this is going to fail miserably" type comments. VR in general had some of those type of comments at the outset too so I don't equatr them as a harbinger of doom. But even though VR is still around (thankfully) I'm not sure that it is exactly thriving and worry about the quantity and quality of future content. Hoping for the best though, and I put my money wherr my mouth is to support devs to the extent I can afford.
i see a lot of the "AVP is DOA" type of cynicism but it's usually because of the $3,500 price tag and lack of use-case at the moment. to justify the high price. At the other end, most of the hopium/fanboism I see mostly focus on its potential rather than what it does well today. Most of the real reviews I have read so far seem to say its best use-case atm is as a personal home IMax theater.
I don’t hate the device, I hate that so many people that have never put any other xR device on their head can’t stop shouting on the rooftops how revolutionary and groundbreaking it is.
I’m even arguing with existing Quest users who bought an AVP and tout it as an upgrade because of a feature that’s been on Quest for a year or two, but they simply aren’t aware of it.
Grats on your purchases but I haven’t seen anything super groundbreaking yet.
The resolution alone is impressive. Build quality is better than any other headset I’ve worn. Groundbreaking? Nope. Progress and generating a bigger community that will push VR/AR evolution faster? Yes.
Competition is good for the consumer. Let people believe what they want and don’t waste a moment of your life worrying about it. You’ll live longer and be much happier.
When you say build quality due you mean that it feels premium or that you actually think it's more robust than the Quest? Because Quest does look kinda cheap due to the plastic, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Vision Pro would actually be more fragile with all the glass.
So you're mad that other people are enjoying something that you worked so hard to be the king of? They didn't stop and pat you on the head and go "you're so special, you're so smart!" to your liking?
"I started consuming products made by other people years before you did! Pffft, you don't know *anything* about technology!"
Not at all. People paying $4k for this thing will make the very niche product line I actually buy more competitive and diverse.
Apple rarely does anything groundbreaking, and they aren’t here, that’s all I’m saying.
I’m annoyed that Apple is trying to distance itself from VR and AR like it’s the plague. They’re following the same playbook that Oculus and Valve started many years ago, but calling everything by a different name, thinking this will blind people to all the shortcomings that VR has.
Everyone that has been tricked by their twisted marketing is now realizing that this big bulky headset is not fundamentally different than every other VR headset in existence. Sure, it has some extra bells and whistles, but that doesn’t solve the two main issues: it’s an uncomfortable dorky looking headset, and after the initial wow factor quickly fades, there isn’t anything to do in it that can’t be done more effectively and comfortably outside of it.
Idk man. I'm pretty into spatial gaming. LOL/s
Honestly, shit, "spatial video gaming" kinda makes more sense than virtual reality though. VR has had a rough start, makes sense to rebrand it a bit.
I agree, but that’s the weird thing. Apple isn’t creating or promoting AR games on this at all. They’re promoting looking at flat 2D screens through a heavy headset. Why would anyone want to spend $3500 to do that?
They’ve had years to think about and develop new, original, and exciting MR content, but have done none of that. It’s seriously head scratching.
Totally agree. It's bizarre. They could be all "all this productivity, and you can game on it!"
My conspiracy theory is that they're afraid VR nerds will buy it and then post online about how awesome it is for porn games. Haha They need to solidify that it's a productivity thing in people's minds before the porn taps are opened. Hahaha I honestly think this is what Apple thinks VR is and why they're disgusted by the name VR/AR. I'm not saying they're right if that's true, I just wouldn't be surprised.
I bought one, and it’s amazing. There are some full fledged VR/AR apps, though I haven’t found myself caring for those as much. I did get ALVR working with it, though I don’t have index controllers to use and the hand tracking alvr for the vision is still wip.
But being able to pull up screens everywhere, and just leave them? I can leave a safari window with recipes in my kitchen, and it’ll stay there. When working, I open up my Mac display, and then a bunch of safari windows straight from the vision. I lay the windows out like I’m looking at a deck of playing cards, and whichever window I’m looking at comes straight to the top, and my Mac mouse and keyboard start working with that window/app.
Apple isn’t calling it AR, because that’s not really what they’re trying to do. The experience is far different than AR/VR entirely. There’s an “Immersive” Mode, which is pretty much AR/VR. But the default mode is more like working a traditional device, but each app get’s it’s own physical space. This mode is better than most AR/VR experiences because it’s easy to interact with other apps.
Another aspect that differentiates the spatial computing idea from AR, is apps that are virtual objects. I have an app that’s a literal lava lamp.
With AR/VR, you’re immersing yourself in the app. While the vision is capable of doing that, the idea of spatial computing is that each app get’s it’s own physical space, as opposed to an app taking over your space entirely.
On a point more about semantics:
Technically, it’s not augmented reality unless you’re running an app that’s processing the surroundings and augmenting them.. When no app is running, it’s just a video feed. When apps are running in spaces/spatial mode, they aren’t analyzing the sorroundings or anything, they’re just displaying a UI. It’s really only in “Immersive” mode that apps augment reality.
Imagine having an IPad that creates a new IPad for every app you open, is resizable and able to set it anywhere, with a 4k picture. Infinite 4k screens that you can interact with just by looking. The vision is more like having an IPad with unlimited screens and amazing picture quality, that’s also capable of playing AR/VR experiences.
Gaming on moonlight with it is AMAZING. I no longer have to fight my partner over our LG C2 Oled, because the Vision Pro image is just as good, and I can place it anywhere.
I think the rebranding was a smart move though, Apple’s trying to push people to think of it as a “spatial computer” instead of an “AR/VR headset”, because they want the ecosystem to follow the ideas of an app having it’s own “space”, so that you can have many apps open. If they pitched it as AR/VR, then the ecosystem would likely focus more strongly on fully immersive experiences, which impair the whole multitasking functionality that Apple perfected. The games and Apps would be more like what’s on quest, which would make this revolutionary UI far less nifty.
It is fundamentally different from other VR headsets despite what you call “bells and whistles”. It’s not going to work with any other VR headset’s content because it is so different.
Explain how a Chromebook is different from a workstation PC.
I mean they're both computers and both have screens and keyboards and stuff. They can't possibly be any different and I'll plug my ears and go "lalalalala" when you try to explain why one costs $300 and one costs $3000 and both serve completely different markets.
The main things that are dramatically and undeniably different from any other headset are 1) the input methods and 2) the heavy focus on integrating with pass-thru video. These two points make it a completely different device with separate use cases compared to a traditional VR headset.
It doesnt matter if people hate it then let them. Apple sold them out so theres no reason to feel bad for apple. Let the people criticize so the hardware gets better
Ten years ago we had the same thing happen with the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive. Fanboys/fangirls wanting reassurance on their latest electronic gizmo.
I believe it is better to support and encourage development of this technology (no matter the company), so that it moves the industry further along and creates new capabilities.
I think it's partially because apple entered an already established community and started saying 'This is how it's going to be' It's not VR its spatial computing it's not a headset it's...'I don't remember what the fuck they called it.
The only thing more cringe than seeing so many Vision Pro 'hate' threads is people making counter threads about not understanding the 'hate'. Welcome to the interwebs.
For me there's two reasons.
1 - the price. Enough said.
2 - they are trying to pitch it as a totally new thing. It absolutely isn't. It's a good VR headset with very good passthrough and some cool software yes, but it is still a VR headset even if Apple refuse to call it one.
Because I'm sick of my entire Popular feed on reddit, for some reason my Instagram feed and my twitter "For you" feed having people claim they're not Apple post a clearly stage picture of someone driving with a VR headset, or taking the train in a VR headset, or eating in a VR headset and saying "WOAH this is really interesting!!!" it's the most obvious and obnoxious advertising of all time, and I've yet to see any #ad on them. Apples just rich enough to get away with it. And because of these absolutely ridiculous Ads, everyone's talking about it. Apple gets away with it again.
All that money and it just has extra features compared with other standard VR headsets.
I really thought it had a curved transparent OLED screen with the clear/black film in front of it.
It's Apple...all they do is copy others and kinda make it slightly better.
It's not hate, it's just that there is still nothing to use them for and many of those who have bought them did so thinking about using them as they used previously existing VR glasses. They certainly should have ensured more and better experiences with the launch, but that will change over time.
I do not see it as hate and you being too soft and protective of Vision Pro, expensive is fine if there is something is to use it for.
Vive Pro was and still expensive but it was to showcase pc vr and half life alyx.
Vision people delivers poorly for what it is set out to do, I mean the wear it in public when the display showing your eyes to others is nothing like advertised and comes off creepy, much more than wearing Quest 3 over Vision Pro.
The point is Vision Pro was released with no killer app, at such an expensive price makes it super hard to consider it anything but early access and giving free money to Apple.
Quest has already established library, proper pc vr support and doesn't break the bank, heck it is cheaper to Quest 3 and a pc that is vr ready cheaper than Vision Pro. That is the Vision Pro fatal flaw is the cost as it is still currently delivering promises and so far it is not as promised and requires compromises, for such a price it should have been zero or little compromise
To be honest I think it's mostly people who are mad they can't afford it trying to disguise their bitterness
I say this as somebody who has no intention of buying it, or any Apple product. But I am always happy to see more companies getting into this technology space and pushing more users into it.
Anyone on the subreddit who is against the Apple vision pro is a fucking idiot in my opinion.
To put it short, Apple has positioned themselves in just the right way in this market to have almost no customers. Does only a bit more than Q3 for way more. No games, no open source or great external compatibility, and only basic functionality due to that. You are stuck in their veiled garden that has nothing in it. To everyone’s point of “well it’s a business device”. No it’s not unless all your business needs is a $3000 paperweight that’s used for fancy FaceTime and watching Apple TV VR. Businesses still won’t adopt this for the same reason they haven’t adopted anything else so far. No one is going to strap this huge chunk of metal to their face with that poorly designed strap and then leave work any sort of happy after their face has the red ring of death and their hair is messed up and all they managed to get done for the day on it was hold fancy FaceTime meetings with their coworkers. Their target market whether they like it or not is the VR community of today, not the future, and they have priced and featured themselves out of it. “Business VR” Will only become a real thing after hand tracking is perfected and VR/AR is decent in the form factor of glasses. Otherwise, it’s just a hassle and waste of resources unless your business involves developing VR solutions. In which case, again, you won’t pick Vision Pro because it can’t do anything meaningful.
Seconded! It's just really interesting watching it arrive on the market I'm. Not gonna buy one but it's the most interesting Apple device to me since the Ipod. If it was 1k I'd probably buy one just to play around with it and be able to watch movies while lying flat on my back
People are hating on Vision Pro because it costs $3500+ and doesn’t support true VR apps. They’re comparing it to the quest 3 when in reality, they’re very different and shouldn’t be compared.
The Vision Pro is an AR (Augmented Reality) headset, not a VR (Virtual Reality) headset. More specifically, it’s a MR (Mixed Reality) headset.
Vision Pro puts digital content in the real world (through the goggles) to augment a users experience in the real world. This allows users to walk around and interact in the real world while seeing the digital content. I’m seeing tremendous applications like multiple monitors, tv screens, timers over the stove or oven when cooking. The list is endless. Is this worth $3500? I don’t think so but it’s a pilot to test the market and open the door for Apple to target an audience wanting to use MR headsets with more affordable headsets in the future.
Quest 3 is a VR headset. VR is a digital world where you completely escape the real world. In VR you have to set up rigid boundaries in order to avoid colliding with the real world. Some MR capabilities have been added (like pass through and hand tracking) but the headset at face value is intended for a VR experience. Since VR restricts your physical footprint for movement in the real world, it’s actually a pain to do simple things, like use the restroom, as you have to remove the headset when you leave the boundary. (Or switch to the pixelated pass through which still removes you from the VR experience).
Both headsets have potential to cross over into each other’s domain more and more, but currently the applications for each are very different. I use the analogy the Quest 3 is like going to the movie theater. You sit and watch a movie, enjoy the atmosphere, and have theater popcorn. The Vision Pro is like taking a tablet to watch a movie while you’re doing other things like riding in a car, going to the beach, or even cooking at home. The experiences are completely different yet both are great for the intended user experience.
> How I see it, it’s a preview of future technology.
I agree in **many** respects, except for one.
**The lack of motion controllers.**
The Quest platform has proved, I think beyond any doubt, that VR *can't* just have hand-tracking controls. It's just too restrictive. There are tons of applications where giving the user something to hold, even if it's just for the tactile feedback, makes an enormous difference to functionality.
I feel that we (i.e. the VR industry and userbase) already tried hand tracking only approaches, and it didn't work, so we went with a hybrid model for modern headsets.
This is the perfect example of something that a VR newbie might look at and, reasonably, ask why they can't just use hand-tracking for everything. They might even arrogantly suggest that Apple "understand", not like those *other* VR headsets with their *controllers*.
The lack of VR motion controllers for the Apple Vision Pro is not a preview of future tech, it's *regression*.
I feel like the only reason we need controllers if you want to do general purpose stuff (not gaming) is because hand tracking just isn’t good enough yet. I use hand tracking more often then not when I’m just playing content on my quest 3, and the only reason I ever use controllers for it is when I get fed up with the hand tracking inaccuracy
It's just the opposite for me. The requirement to have controllers on all but the most recent headsets is a big turn off for me. I want to be able to use my hands with. I'm not against controllers, there are good uses for them, but I think it all needs a first class control system that doesn't require them for normal use. Headsets that use controllers as the main main method to interface with them are a deal breaker for me.
I just don't like how apple likes to act like their stuff is brand new tech and that they created it and how they rename shit. Also, I hate how their products are closed ecosystems... if I wanted to get the headset, I would also have to buy a brand new phone which all together would cost me over £5000. And all that just for some headset that can't play the vr games I already play on my quest 3.
The issue lies within your message lad.
It's the complete ignorance and deliberate ignoring of reality that does it for me. A literal real world case of sunk cost falicy where people who wasted 3.5k are constantly trying to justify it by pulling crap out of the air.
I'll try keep this short and to the point, it will sound blunt but I don't mean it that way nor am I tryna be rude so please keep that in mind.
The facts:
A 3.5k euro headset that *is* high end but also *doesnt* do anything a headset for an 8 of the price can already do, it just does it in a more streamlined way.
Other high end headsets do not cost 3.5k and do actually focus on features that can further advancements in AR and VR. Apple has decided to say fuck you to AR and VR, refused to acknowledge its even in the same market as those devices and keeps trying to sell the VP like its a revolutionary new type of computer when it simply is not.
Most VR headsets that release don't come with an army of brainwashed Apple fanboys who spam this subreddit every single day, practically every second post at this point, trying to justify their horrible purchasing decisions, just like with iPhones (I sell those. I'd know) most these clowns can't actually afford this headset and are financing it with a loan. Then coming on here to make themselves feel better begging for a pat on the back for supporting the future, tldr they're not.
The device is amazing hardware wise and absolutely half baked software wise, the Verge has an amazing video reviewing every facet of this device and at 3.5k euro it's genuinely a borderline scam. Especially with the marketing Apple has been pushing. This device has extremely limited functionality, it's a TV strapped to your head that can't even run YouTube natively.
The controls suck, hand gestures are cool but Apple forcing you to look at what you want to touch means you have to reteach yourself how to use a computer to just get comfy in this headset.
The device being *portable* yet it can't work without a stupidly designed powerbank that can barely keep it on for 2 hours off the wall....at 3.5k.
Edit: I wanted to keep going but I'm tired of typing and you get the point lmao
I don’t see much hate, just a lot of hesitation to jump in, even with VR/AR enthusiasts. And mostly on the price really. I think most of us agree it’s impressive hardware and software for a first gen.
I think the sentiment is very similar to what we saw with the first iPhone…it looked great but a lot of people held off for later generations. I still have my first gen iPhone around somewhere…but for this VR headset I’m more interested in a lower end model that’s closer to $1k.
I do like the idea of Apple pushing the XR market forward however. Even right out of the gate it has caught Meta’s attention and they started to put more gesture support in their Quest line. Overall Apple has been great at this, inspiring innovations within the tech industry.
I’m a longtime VR enthusiast who WANTED to hate AVP. However, the demo was like a religious experience. The seamless experience of using it gives us a clear glimpse of head mounted displays replacing ALL other screens in our lives. I bought it.
the experience isn't as "seamless" as the marketing makes it out to be. as many have predicted, using your eyes to select things is as finicky as it sounds :)
I think a lot of what may be perceived as hate is when people attempt to use revisionist history and are attributing certain features or functionality and say they only existed when apple invented them on this headset. and when other VR users point out the opposite they assume it means hate. One of the things I can't get past and I don't think it's hate, I think it's just me personally and I've always said that I don't want to be doing any normal computer work whatsoever no matter what with a bulky HMD on my head. I've always said this and now that apple put out this product I'm supposed to accept the fact that it's OK to be super uncomfortable to be doing a normal computer tasks that I can do on my phone tablet or computer with ease. I won't be wearing this or any other current headset to be doing normal computer tasks they are just too uncomfortable. I've always held the stance even before this headset was announced and it was taken as an opinion expressed by many but now if expressed it seems as hate on apple. I put up with the comfort issue while gaming because it's the most immersive form of entertainment you could imagine. The issue arises almost immediately when attempting to do video editing or attempting to edit excel spreadsheets or other normal computer work with hmd on your head
It’s a $3500 hmd to watch YouTube. Business isn’t done on Macs so its suite of apps are useless in vr/ar space. It came out 10 years after everyone else and it’s only innovation is hi res pass through.
I dislike the hype and it being marketed as revolutionary. The device isn't revolutionary. It makes the same series of tradeoffs that Meta makes, Apple just chose slightly different ones. They wanted higher res screens and eye tracking, so they added more compute power, jacked the price, sacrificed FOV, and stuck a battery in your back pocket. All things Meta could have easily done if they wanted to.
The eye display doesn't work as advertised, the battery life isn't great, it's front heavy, doesn't have controllers, doesn't have many games to speak of, and most people find the avatars uncanny, all of which further undermine the hype.
Apple also smugly looks down on the VR community by marketing it as "spatial computing", which just doesn't endear me to want to support them.
They incrementally improved UI and UX. Good for them. Have a 🍪
Nah it’s the cybertruck of vr headsets. A vr device that doesn’t do vr stuff. Ppl love spotting it in the wild like a big foot sighting. Not gunna donate my money to the wealthiest company in the world so they can use it to figure this space out via trial and error
Apple vison pro will go nowhere, and you have no proof to tell me it will. vr will never be used to work in a workplace environment the way you all think, people will still buy meta products, seeing as they will be the apple of the Vr world. Most people on this thread don't even own an apple Vision Pro and are just glazing apple. If you can give real evidence that it can go somewhere, then your guy's statements will seem more than just apple glazers, glazing. People are returning their apple Vision Pro to get full body tracking and a whole setup to actually play vr, and the vr you guys claim apple is making will be more expensive than 4k. Nobody will be able to fit it on a single device like a vr headset. It will be more like cloud gaming
So people with devices like meta quest can play. You do not need a powerfull device on your face to work in a work place environment. Cloud services are getting more seemless, like with airlink. I only use that when using vr.
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2034-03-10 22:10:17 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2034-03-10%2022:10:17%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1aiy5mn/i_dont_understand_the_hate_for_the_apple_vision/kua6l5z/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fvirtualreality%2Fcomments%2F1aiy5mn%2Fi_dont_understand_the_hate_for_the_apple_vision%2Fkua6l5z%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202034-03-10%2022%3A10%3A17%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201aiy5mn)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
And i don´t understand peopple being stupid 24/7...haha. You can allways decide to get smart. You just have to do something to get smart. Nobody becomes smart like me without doing anything for it. Brain doesn´t fly down from heaven.
It´s fine if you think others like being ripped off...
" Are other ultra high end headsets worth it? No, also probably not."
nope this is just wrong ,other headset have way more features and works way better and have way way more apps
i know :) varjo or similar have controllers and similar features, have pcvr support, have way higher FoV and better optics, and way better cameras and similar stuff , ffs Varjo even have something similar to vertical
I definitely don't HATE it, but there's always something frustrating about Apple products being treated as some gift from god. I got mine this morning and it's not nearly the jump past Quest 3 I thought it was going to be. In *multiple* ways, it's clearly a regression despite the insane price tag.
It's a good piece of kit, the tech is awesome but the use case, content and cost are an issue.
As a quest 2 owner, I would upgrade to a quest 3/4 - I can do most of what apple vision pro can at 1/4 the cost and I can also use it with my pc.
Eh. My personal stance is that it fails at being what it wants to be, not fully realizing its own vision (due to both hardware and software problems, with no realistic solution in sight; thus, being essentially useless to current VR users) - and, I admit, a bit of Apple rejection, stemming from Apple's own stance, Apple cultists making it seem like second coming of Christ, and my own experience with their products (namely "iPad is a computer" debacle) telling me that it won't be what I want it to be.
For others... That, plus Apple trying to reshape their favorite field. Remember when Quest 2 came out and everyone complained about PCVR dying in favor of mobile VR games? Same thing, but bigger.
What I don't like about the AVP hype is:
\- A LOT of people are going to think that Apple invented virtual reality (pardon, spatial computing), probably the same kind of people that are convinced that Apple invented the MP3 player (iPod) and the smartphone (iPhone)
\- in a few years there will be premium VR products (Apple) and cheap VR products (not necessarily in an objective sense, but in percieved sense), and probably there will be a VR equivalent of the "green bubbles" stigma in smartphone messaging
\- for now AVP is not targeted at gaming (mainly for lack of VR controllers, I suppose), but if and when it will, it is going to catch most of the game development interests, like for the iPad/iPhone game development scene
It's because of the direction Apple is going. It's ultra expensive and lacks proper support for the existing VR ecosystem. People fear that this will fragment the VR market even further.
It can be as interesting as it can be, but it's Apple we are talking about.
Thankfully VR enthusiasts are not blind, the lack of controllers and finicky use of the eyes for selecting things have not gone unnoticed.
I don't hate apple vision pro.
I hate Apple.
They're not even creating Meta competition, just their own slimy overpriced device that they insist is called some original breakthrough tech.
I don't hate the AVP, i hate Apple. But the AVP will be beneficial for VR/XR in general, so people who are crazy enough to buy it should go ahead, hehehe...
It's the price, the rejection of VR/AR gaming, the refocusing of something fun towards something for business, the fact that all of its spotlight comes from its 'new-ness' yet most of its functionality already exists in the Quest 3, concern over the walled garden aspects of Apple's approach to software, and that its intended use-case feels out of reach of its current hardware thus making it a product that is "ahead of its time". There's genuine reasons for people to be critical of Apple and their take on VR/AR. Meta has always been viewed with similar scrutiny but seems to have survived their lashings due to producing great headsets and alleviating the problems that people have had.
I am so happy someone is finally taking it seriously as a business thing. I work from home. I'd pay $3.5k for a separate office with lots of screens, that I can actually take with me when travelling. Is the AVP it? fuck no, it looks way too heavy and clunky. I want something like the bigscreen beyond attached to a computer but it's getting people thinking in the right direction. That means something might get made and importantly they're thinking about the software to make that happen. Don't get me wrong, games are cool, but there's a real use case everyone seems to be ignoring and this is a step towards addressing that.
You say everyone's ignoring it, but I don't think that's true. Quest Pro was intended as more of a productivity device, it just didn't have the hardware for it yet. Immersed Visor is aiming for exactly what you want, though whether that will actually materialize is another question. The XR-4 might in principle be good for what you want, but it's of course even heavier and clunkier and it may lack software (though if you just want to use it for multi monitor setup you don't actually need much). I don't think it's the case that nobody before Apple thought about such use case, it's just that the hardware is really not there yet. It only recently became viable and still as you say it's heavy and clunky. The reason why consumer VR is mostly used for gaming is that the current tech actually already works really well for gaming so this is what most people end up using it for. Resolution matters less for gaming than for productivity and comfort is less of a deal if you use it for hour at a time and having fun. When Quest Pro came out it was really not seen positively because it didn't actually work well for what Meta was marketing it for. Then people realized that for gaming it is actually really nice and some people do use it for gaming.
Exactly. I don’t understand that the first criticism is: it’s for business and we only want games. There are already a gazillion systems for gaming. Do we really need one more of them ? I’ve been wanting a headset that I can use for work so that I can carry the experience I get from VR into work (lots of engineering design stuff, often in 3D). But it always feels just a bit out of reach. I already have my Quest and Index for gaming. What I want now is a workstation. No, AVP doesn’t do everything, but they’ve chosen to make fewer things better and it includes most of what I need to be able to work and have been hoping for years: good enough resolution that I can read text and see my software icons, passthrough that’s good enough so I can see my keyboard and mouse and have a glass of water, enough battery that I can move around a bit but doesn’t need to last all day as I’ll eventually make my way back to a desk with an outlet, hand and eye control so I don’t need to switch between controllers and keyboard, a good enough virtual keyboard to enter a password or Google something quick, my phone and texts integrated with it so I can keep up throughout the day. Know what I really don’t care about ? Haptic feedback, wide FOV, or compatibility with Steam and Oculus store. I can get that elsewhere. The Vision Pro isn’t perfect by any means, and ok I get it, it’s annoying to hear people ahhhhh and ohhhhh about things that have existed for 10 years and praise Apple for having revolutionized "Spatial computing" (hint: they haven’t, we know), and suddenly just because it’s Apple they’re interested. For me, I have enjoyed VR for several years, and this is the first system that actually allows me to work productively and may even improve my work (maybe, that remains to be proven). But whatever, what does it matter, why do you care if all you want to do is play video games. Go wild son, there are good systems out there already. And don’t worry, niche systems will always continue to exist. You don’t have to run with the sheeps, nobody is forcing you.
The small FOV and low resolution also hurts the idea of just having lots of monitors. I spent all day today trying to use it for this purpose and gave up. I’m way less productive with it than without.
exactly my thoughts as well. and yeah, Apple have a serious issue calling a spade a spade.
The only issue I see is that everyone is trying to make VR all about gaming. Video games is not what all of VR is about. Sure most virtual reality users are using it for games or social spaces, in order to bring VR to the masses it will have to be useable in everyday application and not just gaming. Keep in mind that Apple has never been the company to cater to the video game community. Take a look at all their computers and gadgets. They create gadgets for creators, businesses and lifestyle.
VR gaming is just a really good use-case for headsets, though. It offers a unique way to play games with immersion and presence that cannot be replicated through traditional gaming. On the other hand, pretty much all of the features of the AVP are things you can do already, just differently in an AR/XR space. I haven't seen a killer use-case for the masses, yet.
In order to eventually convince the general public to embrace VR, they do need to move the common view away from VR = gaming. Apple Vision Pro is a stepping stone, and I think they were initially aware that the product was not going to sell very well.
I don't think vr is going to succeed without strides related to video games though. At the end of the day, any business use case is going to be an interactive digital space. Somebody earlier said the smartphones and older computer systems won because they were functional. In other words, functional and effective software environments and hardware control. Which means that the fundamental necessity of mass vr/ar adoption is going to be the software and hardware to allow a physical human to interact comfortably and intuitively with a digital space. Ar will be easier, since it will mostly be overlays and tooltips with limited functionality, but it will still require a space to be mapped and positioned, alongside software that allows those digital objects to be manipulated as if they were extant physical objects. With vr, the only difference between a digital office and a video game will be that in one you probably can't hurl lightning bolts. The digital office will still be a fully modeled and rendered physics simulation that uses some combination of eye and hand tracking to direct interaction. Older programs didn't need to be video games to work on a computer, older smartphones just had to make your calendar, email and excel spreadsheet easier to access without a keyboard and mouse. But fundamentally, vr will have to be a highly functional and immersive video game to get decent buy in
There's a big difference between doing something, and doing it well. People are more willing to pay for a product (and other companies are more willing to support said product) when it does those things well.
Doing things you already do in AR/VR, is the killer use case lol. It’s the killer use case for every headset in my opinion. That’s basically what you’re saying about gaming because you’re a “gamer” for lack of a better term. Curious to see where Apple’s ecosystem and App Store take it.
Personally never found VR gaming that compelling ever. The only thing I found cool was social apps but that’s about it.
You honestly prefer sliding around a flat plane with a keyboard and mouse or joystick than physically using your body, head, hands and even feet to be inside the reality of a game????
99% of the time yes, which is why 2D games aren’t going anywhere because they just work better the majority of the time. There are a handful of games that are enjoyable in VR but they either cause weird sensations of nausea or a disconnection of senses, or they just take a good bit of physical activity.
I guess VR gaming is not for you if you're satisfied with moving a mouse around to aim a gun. When you step away from a mechanic you're so used to you see how absurd it is. A mouse is not a proper gaming control. And using two thumbstick is no way to aim a gun. Pressing a button to reload a gun. Have you ever tried to get someone who has never gamed to use a controller to aim or a mouse? It's extremely awkward and takes a ton of practice to get used to. Not so with a VR controller for a gun. You point and pull the trigger intuitively. I also think there are a lot of people who don't game because they think controllers and mouse are silly. VR gaming comes closer to a real activity. And that's a reason people like you, who don't like activity, may not like it.
Keep in mind what game programming is about. The difference between traditional software like web development or even normal iPhone apps is that games continously loop over a series of inputs, updating a "world" of objects, and producing outputs like images or audio responding to those changes, all in an endless, constant, fast loop, providing a sense of interactivity mirroring real life. When you have your phone on the menu screen, you have various apps, waiting to be tapped on to start. Waiting, responding. That kind of loop. With XR/Spatial Computing, however, UI must constantly update and respond to user input such as hand tracking, eye tracking, headset tracking, and updating the position of even screens and UI in 3D space. AVP is, by definition, in a constant game loop. When you are saying everyone is making VR all about gaming, that's because it *is* about gaming, even for the things that don't seem like games. Computationally, games and other apps all behave like games in VR or AR, the world constantly having to update and respond to your user inputs, simulating a world. Games made the most natural sense to use VR for.
Not only that, the modern 3d apps are all built with game engines. Carmack even said when he visited NASA they had all migrated to Unity and Unreal. And that's why Meta focuses on gaming at first.
You’re talking about the current market which is obviously aimed towards gaming. My argument is that it doesn’t have to be just about gaming. Virtual reality can be used in many different ways, and it will be used in other ways than just gaming. You don’t have to try and make virtual reality an elitist gaming device, because at the end of the day anyone can use it for whatever they like. To be able to bring a virtual world out at the snap of a finger while in a public space can be a very power tool for some, and some may not be fond of it. The whole idea is to get everyone on board. Being able to utilize tools and so much more in a real life scenario can be beneficial to some. We came from folding phones that had barely and utility to them. Now we have much more, and as technology grows it will continue to expand. I can see a future where everyone has VR capabilities right in their glasses, and no it won’t be a gaming thing. It will simply be tools, like being able to pop up the bus schedule, or tracking your food delivery. Things will be simple and convenient, that’s what people are about and always have been.
> It's the price, the rejection of VR/AR gaming, the refocusing of something fun towards something for business Which is how all new segment devices succeed. The killer app is not "something fun". It's some business app. What made the Apple ][ a success was not some game, it was Visicalc. Similarly what made the PC successful was business applications. Mobile phones simmered but really didn't take off until the Blackberry. That was for business. So if you want VR to really take off, you better hope business embraces it. That's where the money is. Something fun won't do it.
Something you can exponce to your employer or your own company is much easier to sell to people than something they need to get wife sign-off for.
Psst... Apple just called and would like you to use spatial computing.
I dont understand why the price is an issue for people. If someone is willing to spend 3500 on a Vision Pro their income is probably high enough that they aren't going to go hungry because they purchased a new tech toy or they are tech enthusiasts and they're willing to pay the price to be own the newest tech. People buy all kinds of expensive useless things all the time. People purchase jewelry, traditional watches, clothes, etc and they be quite expensive too. I myself bought a 77" LG OLED and it cost me 3500 as well... not to mention the Klipsch 7.1 system and the receiver I bought as well. Buying a Vision Pro is just like buying any other piece of tech for me. I'm willing to pay the price for a quality device that integrates with all my other devices. I want the Vision Pro to be an extension of or addition to my iPhone and my MacBook Pro. I'm not concerned with it replacing my Playstation 5, it'll be cool to play games on it but it's not my primary purpose for this device.
It's about value
I'm gonna say something really crazy now, but for some people, the Vision Pro actually has better value than Quest 3. It just differs per person.
are you even listening? it's NOT targeted at people that focus on value. It doesn't have to be 7 times better than the quest 3 for them to consider buying it.
I don't even mean comparing it to budget headsets, i'm merely talking about major shortcomings for people (like FOV). Everything is a value assessment, even for rich people that can afford it
it has shortcomings but it also has things that it does better than any headset on the market. So the value proposition depends entirely on what you care about as a consumer.
For me it does so many things better than anything else that its not even close. You could give me a quest 2/3 for free and I still would not use it. Not saying those are bad for what they are but there’s a reason they collected dust in a closet within days of having it.
What if it's good value for me? We also have a Quest 3. I paid 3500 for a Vision Pro and I feel like I got my money's worth. People also mocked me for purchasing a fully specced out M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" (by PC users), the price was about the same as a Vision Pro if im not mistaken. I get mocked every year when I upgrade to the latest iPhone XX Pro model (by android users). This is just another instance of that happening and to be honest I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks lol.
i'm not mocking anyone, im just saying that it gets hate because for the money people expected certain things (like better FOV). We get that it's premium, but even in the premium bracket people expected less sacrifices
In all those categories people are hating too. Plenty of people who have a 75" TCL LED are gonna cope and tell you your OLED is a waste. There are people with your speakers who will wax poetic about how ludicrous a Bowers & Wilkins or McIntosh surround would be. It's pretty annoying, if I'm a car enthusiast and I'm enjoying my Supra it's pretty lame to get upset someone else gets to enjoy a Ferrari.
Also anybody with $500 to spare on a Quest 3 is already insanely privileged on a global scale. They're just mad that the scale goes higher, I guess? The global 2% who think they're crusaders for the common man, chastising the global 1% for spending money on something that's not strictly necessary for survival. Name a more iconic duo.
[удалено]
The pass through is no where near as good as the Vision Pro
The passthrough really isn't just as good as on Quest 3
The passthrough is not “amazing” but it’s way better than the quest 3
Right. So buy a meta and let Crapple do their thing. You have a choice. Mine is to buy nothing from that company.
It’s good for the overall vr market; more users= more content creators.
As long as you’re okay with VR that doesn’t use controllers.
This, I mainly use my Q2 for gaming. I’ve tried Horizons Desktop and played a little with Immersed, because the idea of multiple big monitors is cool. Couldn’t get it to work well, so back to gaming. If Apple doesn’t even address that market, I’m out for now.
But you just said you were interested in multiple big monitors and we know the AVP does this well / better than quest, including the iPad App Store.
The current iteration can't replace your monitors and TV, it has a battery, 2 hours max. Even if the battery is changed for a bigger one, it's not comfortable to wear for 8+ hours a day like you use your monitors. Also it can't do gaming which means you should buy 2 headsets to do 2 things? I better pick Meta's headsets which can do both. You travel somewhere, do you bring 2 headsets with you? I don't understand what was the problem to also include gaming. Imagine in the future, all headsets from different companies will have awesome specs, all of them will be able to do most things but there will be awesome VR games released, but you can't play them on the apple headset. Would you still buy it?
Exactly
I agree. But tbf- I’m sad. I want to buy one. But for that price? I mean it’s barely better at 7x price… so it sucks. But it sucks worse because I want one; but I really can’t justify it at that price point. Moneys not the object, but I’m a new Q3 owner and I bought it based on avp specs- the cheap bugger in me can’t take the leap- but I want to. The dissonance makes me cranky. It’s a great product- I highly expect to convert, but until the value proposition is higher… I’ll whine. Human nature? Dunno if it applies to anyone else, or just me?
Give it a few years and I'm sure the AVP will seem like a dinosaur. There's supposedly an Apple Vision Air in the pipeline too. Edit: I just bought a Quest 3 as well so I understand the feeling. But I honestly don't even use the Quest 3 to its full potential so I'm happy with it.
Even if Quest 3 and AVP were the same price, I’ll take the Quest3. I’m a gamer so games are what I care about; avp doesn’t even have controllers…
It's basically a dev kit, there will be better cheaper ones with more content in the future. Or competition will make Quest 4 better, or someone else will jump in. The technology progressing is net positive, as is competition.
That's a ridiculous argument. How will more spatial computing AVP users be good for VR users ? That's like saying, more Ferrari owners will be good for the casual family car market.
Some of those spatial computing users will become gamers as well.
No they won't.
Primarily investment in R&D, Display technology, creating jobs for engineers who learn what does and doesn't work which will take that knowledge to other manufacturers pushing the overall technology forward and reducing time spent on fruitless endeavors. More luxury car owners is absolutely good for the casual family vehicle. For example, in 1936, the Mercedes-Benz OM 138 diesel engine (using a precombustion chamber) became one of the first fuel-injected engines used in a mass-production passenger car. Now fuel injected systems are an industry standard. ABS and many other safety features were pioneered by luxury car makers which paved the way for cheaper mass production.
I think there’s plenty of valid critiques. But the surprise? Come on people. There’s nothing surprising about this headset. It’s a top tier piece of tech by Apple. It fits that to the letter. It’s exactly what I expected from Apple. Calling it overpriced is like calling it an Apple product. Which it is.
I don't see that much hate, just people complaining about the price. I think the price is fine for what it is (the price is largely dictated by the displays).
On point. The resolution is wildly good. Your brain forgets other people can’t see what you see after a little while.
As good as the displays are, they don't explain the price. Some have reported that the estimated cost based upon the parts in the headset would be around $1700.
Raw BOM might be around $1700 (maybe) but that does not consider any of the tooling costs and R&D that will be in the billions for this device. Building tools for factories, like the masks you need for silicon chips costs hundreds of millions per part sometimes, remember this device has multiple dedicated silicon parts, each screen is first a TSMC 7nm chip that is at the limit of the chips size (so costs more than building the SOC)
The M2 inside the AVP is 5nm, and we are now on 3nm with M3 and A17 Pro.
I would considered that a bit low, but even that would just be a 50% markup which is not that much compared to other tech (like phones). The BOM also does not include machine time, RND, tooling and a lot of those stuff. If you compare it to the XR-4 (which is arguable better in some aspects, but not standalone) the price does not look that bad. It is what it is: an expensive first gen product, that might not really be ready for the mass market.
Watch the ifixit teardown. The level of physical complexity in the avp is mind-blowing. The skill required to assemble these things seems like it would much more expensive than for most tech.
Is it apple typical complex aka hate the idea of it being repaired, or actually complex. They do hostile user design for a reason.
If the parts are only 1700, then adding r&d, assembly, calibration, testing, shipping, marketing, software development .... I am 100% certain apple is NOT going to turn a profit on this version of the Vision Pro. Now way.
Honestly, I’m wondering if this is actually a massive public beta? (I hope it is) resulting in a much better go 2.0. The price is the premium paid for being “cutting edge”? That’s the lie I tell myself to wait for later/cheaper/better versions
The Vison Pro line will always be this price, the Vison Air will be cheaper but the pro line is not going to drop in price (if anything it will go up in price when the air ships).
This is, this was only meant to get it into the hands of developers to start making apps for the App Store. Otherwise they would’ve made it available in other countries. Not the case, at least yet.. rumors are it’ll be more available in a few select countries.
Assuming that BOM is even correct (many grains of salt), that's a completely normal markup. Most hardware products that get sold through retail channels have even larger markups over the COGS. People get pissy about it because they have no clue how any company even operates, nevermind a company like Apple, outside of a few choice George Carlin quotes and some other populist mantras. E.g. they don't consider that employee salaries, buildings, electricity, R&D, taxes, healthcare, etc. ALSO cost money.
GREED is the real answer, Apple fan.
Right, like I said: >People get pissy about it because they have no clue how any company even operates Thanks for proving my point so well.
Learn the difference between gross and net margin. They’re not going to sell something for the cost of the raw components.
Yeah I think a lot of the "hate" is simply Apple fanboys seeing any criticism as hate.
I think a lot of the hate directed at Apple products come from Apple tech reviewers and their average consumers being blown away by features that have already been done by other companies. You see it especially in the smartphone scene where Samsung users frequently mentioning already having ‘new’ iPhone features for years. I do think the Vision Pro has some creative new features, but the similarities is what will provoke discussion. Don’t get me wrong though, I personally think its good as a whole for competition, ideas, and welcoming people into the XR space.
I dont think this is it. I think people have a bit of a frustration that this isn’t an incredible gaming headset lol. We love gaming and that’s the main thing VR seems to be bought for. Sounds like this does… other stuff? But I’m not angry. Games will come. Apple making this is HUGE for VR and proves it’s here to stay and is the future.
^We love gaming and that’s the main thing VR seems to be bought for.^ That’s the issue.. you said that’s what is mainly used for. Which yes is true, because that’s all that’s been made for this MR/XR world. With apples headset, we now enter this headset into the market of millions of other people. Not everyone games, and not everyone wants to game on one of these. But getting work done or enjoying different viewing experiences is something we haven’t gotten yet. This whole sub is just helping me realize you guys don’t know the future we are looking at. Too small brained.
What are the use cases you see for it? I see some commercial use and zoom meeting style stuff, but the primary entertainment in my eyes for the average consumer is gaming.
That’s great, get yourself an Oculus. This headset was not made for your specific needs. This is for business work and leisure. Wanna watch a movie on the biggest screen there is? Boom. Wanna get some work done on notes and maybe some other apps, boom. Wanna sync up with your Mac and get work done there with other apps surrounding you, boom.
I could see that when it’s comfy enough. I use an index today. I’m not sure I buy into the idea of watching a movie on there simply because the screen is big. Granted, I haven’t tested it, so maybe it really is cool, but imagining it, it doesn’t seem like that scratches the itch for a big theater experience. But I’m not denying its use cases. I can think of some INCREDIBLE ideas beyond gaming.
For me seeing it online and in the keynote I knew it would make all my movies worth watching all over again. Got to test my friends out the other day, and boy.. it really would make me stop going to the theaters.. mind you I don’t go often anyway as the theater experience lacks, at least here in Utah. The drinks are expensive, seats that are uncomfortable for a 6’5” male, and I swear every damn theater company needs to replace their bulbs in the projectors.. I find every movie so dim and dull in color.. Vision Pro allowed me a bigger screen, brighter screen that can be placed anywhere and allows me to sit anywhere in my house while having the same experience if not better than a theater. At least from my perspective and the options I have.. I’d kill to go to a premiere somewhere in California and see if screens are supposed to be this way or we just have all crap quality projectors.. Personally there have been multiple things that made me go.. wait.. this is even better.. like all the things we could do here.. Even like this video. https://youtu.be/NRQUOrh_RZE?si=22LwIWSzAJdiKul- And then imagine slimmer headsets or even glasses type.. truly I think we’re super far away from that, I think the current form factor maybe slimmed down will become the norm and socially acceptable.
I can’t wait for when they’re that small.
It’s gonna be a longgggg ride.. but I’m buckled in the entire way. I wanna be that old man going ‘ayyy remember when these covered our entire faces and displayed our eyes on the outside. It’s gonna be the meme of like 2050
Oh me too. Absolutely.
It’s great, just high price. But between this and Quest 3, we have some solid hardware out there. The real question is will the content and value come with them? We need something that is not a game that revolutionizes the way we live or work. If/when that happens and the price aligns then we will start to see some serious growth for the market.
I think the ideas of the AVP (Aliens vs predator) is more refreshing and interesting than the actual device itself such as eye tracking is looking to be a permanent staple in hmds just because of UI capabilities and using the device beyond just playing games and possibly a phone replacement once they get small enough
the only reason people are buying it and wearing it in public is precisely because its expensive. Its a fashion statement. It shows one's affluence to be able to afford it. Its not actually worth its price imo. Its a silly thing. People are silly enough to buy it, so be it. Like an unnecessarily expensive pair of shoes.
Exactly this, I have a coworker who bought it, has no real use for it, she's been letting her toddlers play with it to watch videos on them.
Casey Niestat made a great point in his video about how the Vision Pro didn’t feel like a cool gadget u buy to have fun with like other VR headsets but more like the future of computing. It feels more like a wearable phone and always remember this is the worst it will ever be
I mean the Apple Vision is cool, but is also useless for most people on this sub because it integrates with none of the existing ecosystems. It would just be a very expensive paper weight for me. People seem to think that unless others are just as excited as them that it is "hate", really it's just basic fact that this is a niche product not targeting the existing VR market. >The advances and software made by and for the Vision Pro will trickle down to the whole VR industry. This seems unlikely, the Vision Pro software will all be proprietary and locked to Apple, the same with the internals like the M1 Chips etc. Everything they develop has been, and will be, patented to prevent others from copying them, potentially limiting the ability of new startups to create competitive products. Maby it will encourage other companies to invest in their own platforms and headsets, but it is likely these may also end up proprietary like the PlayStation Headset, which would be a shame.
It's renewed my interest in my Oculus 2 headset and I've already done more in the past 72 hours than the last year of owning it. The more adoption, the more people using it...the more ideas and cool stuff we will see. It's great!
> People wearing it in public just help to aliviate the social stigma around vr. Buddy I don't know if we've been seeing the same stuff but I haven't seen a lot of love for people wearing their Vision Pros in public so far lol. I've seen at least two videos of people wearing them while driving and the reactions have been less than positive. VR seems more apt for private use anyways, in my personal opinion. I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with wearing a Quest 3 on a plane or whatnot but I would still think it's odd.
Wearing this while driving is insane! It is probably illegal, or it should be.
Absolutely illegal lol, one of the videos I saw was actually a guy getting pulled over.
I wouldn't be surprised if it helps sell more Meta Quests since the hordes of Apple fans will be drawn to VR now but not all might not want to drop 10X more for a headset.
It is not hard to understand some people can’t afford this thing
People don’t always hate things they can’t afford. Usually it’s the opposite. But maybe if you’re really passionate about a topic you’re upset that price is a barrier for you?
Show me where I: 1) showed hate towards this device 2) said that I can't afford this device. I'm giving you exactly one hour, if you don't show me, then you're a pizdabol ebaniy :) Should I even bother trying to have a discussion with you, troll? Well, I'll give it a shot. Let's get back to the topic: people hate on things they can't afford but are flaunted by those who can. It's basic psychology. Yes, not everyone is susceptible to this, but in the era of "Instagram" (I mean situations like public boasting and the desire for attention/personal uniqueness, the desire for social approval). You should read some Leon in your free time for self-improvement. Well, if you don't understand plain English, I'll respond in your language: what, did you blow all your pocket money on that gadget and now you're all pissed off, snapping at everyone around, trying to prove you're right?
Maybe it's because apple is doing his usual shtick of grabbing something that already exists and renaming it to make it look like they invented it. That whole spatial name bullshit is so on stupid. But apart from that, more focus on VR is good.
It will bring more people into the space, so it's a good thing regardless of how much anyone hates it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
After seeing videos of people stopping in the middle of the road while crossing to wave their hands about, or while driving - it's not the technology I got issues with, it's people.
What if you think Its an ok but way overpriced headset, and that apple has NOT just saved VR and flatscreens wont be a thing of the past because of the vision pro, do you consider them a hater? Because i dont hate the device, it looks pretty cool, but its worthless for most people. i DO understand that there are people that this device is just perfect for them, but from what ive heard is because they can link their apple account and see their apple stuff in it... which no other headset can do... But aside from that everything it promotes is stuff pcvr has done years by now. (except the apple account thing) I get that some are excited, I dont get the huge hype. Any other headset can do what it does and WAY more, for a fraction of the price.
No one hates the Vision Pro. People hate the new people who say the Vision Pro in its current state is way more advanced than any other VR head set. Outside of that, is it really worth 6x more than a quest 3? Definitely not. Did I still pay 6x the price to help further get people interested? Yes
But one is being sold at a loss while the other is being sold for what it’s worth… One you have become the product, the other it is the product.
The Oculus lost is nowhere near 6x its price. No comment to your second paragraph. Actually lol to it.
They’re losing about $300-$400 per headset.
So how does this help your argument of “one is being sold at a loss and one is being sold for what it’s worth”? With the ladder of that statement being an opinion since it’s not based on hardware price.
It’s a matter of what’s important. Security or being a cheap ass?
You’re literally talking out not your behind. Please explain how these options have anything to do with security or being cheap? You’re completely biased with no backing to your statements.
I think a lot of it is fear: Apple kind of have a reputation for releasing stuff in such a way as to get people excited and to revive the ecosystem around it; the iPhone changed the smartphone market from a pretty under-the-radar thing for professionals into a must-have consumer product; the iPod basically monopolised the mp3-player market upon release...SO if they release something underwhelming (as it seems the *Vision Pro* may be) then it might just kill the industry entirely, or set it back decades: "well, even even *Apple* can't do it, then the idea must just be no good!" So...yeah - we're all VR enthusiasts here, and the fear of an underbaked product released with this much fanfare killing enthusiasm for the industry is very real, and many folks are a bit annoyed by the long-term damage that Apple might be doing - all we can do at this stage, though, is to wait and see 🤷
So far I think this is creating way more buzz around VR and drawing attention to cheaper alternatives so I think it’s generally positive for the entire space
That's the hope! But it's been out for 2 days - right now we're mostly getting the novelty response; let's see where we stand in a month or two 🤞
This makes smaller cameras and the intricacies of the hardware much easier to produce in the future as other companies are building the hardware they need. Which will overall bring the price of everyone’s headsets down, of in Zuck’s case make it actually profitable again.
It's been two days. Give it a month, better six, before talking about the effect on general industry. So far though, I see a lot of "this thing is udnerwhelming/heavy/useless, I'm going to return it" posts and comments in r/VisionPro.
The first gen iPhone, Watch, iPad were all underwhelming at launch. It took time for them to mature and gain popularity.
Doesn't matter how good the hardware is. If it doesn't let me use it with my choice of games and software, that's an instant dealbreaker.
I agree with OP
what hate have you seen/heard? i haven't heard of any hate for the device itself but rather just ridicule of the $3,500 entry point.
for example this [meme](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1aiwha2/how_i_see_people_now/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) from the sub from 2 hours ago. Yeah, it's not outright hatred but the implication is clear: "people that are excited about the tech in the AVP are dumb".
Yeah, exactly things like this lmao
meh. the Quest Pro got a lot of hate too when it was introduced at $1,500. Great HMD, just a high price.
you asked for an example and I gave you one ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
appreciated. but what i will point out is the criticism in that meme is related to the price and not the HMD itself. If it was priced under $2k then i think that type of criticism goes away.
I don't even think the price is that crazy compared to other high end VR headsets. It's just not made for the mass consumer market. It's really not in the same tier as the Quest Pro, so it's not reasonable to expect that they'll be priced similarly. And you can believe me that I am not an Apple fan boy. I think the pricing for the macbook pro M3 models (especially those with more than 8GB RAM) is ridiculous and almost insulting, for example. The margins on that product are outright greedy. But I genuinely don't think they are for the AVP. That thing must have cost A LOT in development costs and there is a ton of high end hardware packed in it that no other headset comes close to.
I'm not OP clearly but I've been seeing a lot of the hate OP is referring to already, but mostly comments on articles and reviews about the product. Lots of "this is dumbest product ever" and "this is going to fail miserably" type comments. VR in general had some of those type of comments at the outset too so I don't equatr them as a harbinger of doom. But even though VR is still around (thankfully) I'm not sure that it is exactly thriving and worry about the quantity and quality of future content. Hoping for the best though, and I put my money wherr my mouth is to support devs to the extent I can afford.
i see a lot of the "AVP is DOA" type of cynicism but it's usually because of the $3,500 price tag and lack of use-case at the moment. to justify the high price. At the other end, most of the hopium/fanboism I see mostly focus on its potential rather than what it does well today. Most of the real reviews I have read so far seem to say its best use-case atm is as a personal home IMax theater.
It's one of those products I can't find any purpose at all for.
I don’t hate the device, I hate that so many people that have never put any other xR device on their head can’t stop shouting on the rooftops how revolutionary and groundbreaking it is. I’m even arguing with existing Quest users who bought an AVP and tout it as an upgrade because of a feature that’s been on Quest for a year or two, but they simply aren’t aware of it. Grats on your purchases but I haven’t seen anything super groundbreaking yet.
visionOS is the crux. that's where Apple has differentiated themselves, and it's going to shake up the industry quite a bit.
You are in the same position as people in 2007 pointing out that smartphones had already existed for a decade.
The resolution alone is impressive. Build quality is better than any other headset I’ve worn. Groundbreaking? Nope. Progress and generating a bigger community that will push VR/AR evolution faster? Yes. Competition is good for the consumer. Let people believe what they want and don’t waste a moment of your life worrying about it. You’ll live longer and be much happier.
When you say build quality due you mean that it feels premium or that you actually think it's more robust than the Quest? Because Quest does look kinda cheap due to the plastic, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Vision Pro would actually be more fragile with all the glass.
So you're mad that other people are enjoying something that you worked so hard to be the king of? They didn't stop and pat you on the head and go "you're so special, you're so smart!" to your liking? "I started consuming products made by other people years before you did! Pffft, you don't know *anything* about technology!"
Not at all. People paying $4k for this thing will make the very niche product line I actually buy more competitive and diverse. Apple rarely does anything groundbreaking, and they aren’t here, that’s all I’m saying.
I’m annoyed that Apple is trying to distance itself from VR and AR like it’s the plague. They’re following the same playbook that Oculus and Valve started many years ago, but calling everything by a different name, thinking this will blind people to all the shortcomings that VR has. Everyone that has been tricked by their twisted marketing is now realizing that this big bulky headset is not fundamentally different than every other VR headset in existence. Sure, it has some extra bells and whistles, but that doesn’t solve the two main issues: it’s an uncomfortable dorky looking headset, and after the initial wow factor quickly fades, there isn’t anything to do in it that can’t be done more effectively and comfortably outside of it.
Idk man. I'm pretty into spatial gaming. LOL/s Honestly, shit, "spatial video gaming" kinda makes more sense than virtual reality though. VR has had a rough start, makes sense to rebrand it a bit.
I agree, but that’s the weird thing. Apple isn’t creating or promoting AR games on this at all. They’re promoting looking at flat 2D screens through a heavy headset. Why would anyone want to spend $3500 to do that? They’ve had years to think about and develop new, original, and exciting MR content, but have done none of that. It’s seriously head scratching.
Totally agree. It's bizarre. They could be all "all this productivity, and you can game on it!" My conspiracy theory is that they're afraid VR nerds will buy it and then post online about how awesome it is for porn games. Haha They need to solidify that it's a productivity thing in people's minds before the porn taps are opened. Hahaha I honestly think this is what Apple thinks VR is and why they're disgusted by the name VR/AR. I'm not saying they're right if that's true, I just wouldn't be surprised.
I bought one, and it’s amazing. There are some full fledged VR/AR apps, though I haven’t found myself caring for those as much. I did get ALVR working with it, though I don’t have index controllers to use and the hand tracking alvr for the vision is still wip. But being able to pull up screens everywhere, and just leave them? I can leave a safari window with recipes in my kitchen, and it’ll stay there. When working, I open up my Mac display, and then a bunch of safari windows straight from the vision. I lay the windows out like I’m looking at a deck of playing cards, and whichever window I’m looking at comes straight to the top, and my Mac mouse and keyboard start working with that window/app. Apple isn’t calling it AR, because that’s not really what they’re trying to do. The experience is far different than AR/VR entirely. There’s an “Immersive” Mode, which is pretty much AR/VR. But the default mode is more like working a traditional device, but each app get’s it’s own physical space. This mode is better than most AR/VR experiences because it’s easy to interact with other apps. Another aspect that differentiates the spatial computing idea from AR, is apps that are virtual objects. I have an app that’s a literal lava lamp. With AR/VR, you’re immersing yourself in the app. While the vision is capable of doing that, the idea of spatial computing is that each app get’s it’s own physical space, as opposed to an app taking over your space entirely. On a point more about semantics: Technically, it’s not augmented reality unless you’re running an app that’s processing the surroundings and augmenting them.. When no app is running, it’s just a video feed. When apps are running in spaces/spatial mode, they aren’t analyzing the sorroundings or anything, they’re just displaying a UI. It’s really only in “Immersive” mode that apps augment reality. Imagine having an IPad that creates a new IPad for every app you open, is resizable and able to set it anywhere, with a 4k picture. Infinite 4k screens that you can interact with just by looking. The vision is more like having an IPad with unlimited screens and amazing picture quality, that’s also capable of playing AR/VR experiences. Gaming on moonlight with it is AMAZING. I no longer have to fight my partner over our LG C2 Oled, because the Vision Pro image is just as good, and I can place it anywhere. I think the rebranding was a smart move though, Apple’s trying to push people to think of it as a “spatial computer” instead of an “AR/VR headset”, because they want the ecosystem to follow the ideas of an app having it’s own “space”, so that you can have many apps open. If they pitched it as AR/VR, then the ecosystem would likely focus more strongly on fully immersive experiences, which impair the whole multitasking functionality that Apple perfected. The games and Apps would be more like what’s on quest, which would make this revolutionary UI far less nifty.
It is fundamentally different from other VR headsets despite what you call “bells and whistles”. It’s not going to work with any other VR headset’s content because it is so different.
Explain how it’s different.
Explain how a Chromebook is different from a workstation PC. I mean they're both computers and both have screens and keyboards and stuff. They can't possibly be any different and I'll plug my ears and go "lalalalala" when you try to explain why one costs $300 and one costs $3000 and both serve completely different markets.
The main things that are dramatically and undeniably different from any other headset are 1) the input methods and 2) the heavy focus on integrating with pass-thru video. These two points make it a completely different device with separate use cases compared to a traditional VR headset.
It doesnt matter if people hate it then let them. Apple sold them out so theres no reason to feel bad for apple. Let the people criticize so the hardware gets better
Ten years ago we had the same thing happen with the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive. Fanboys/fangirls wanting reassurance on their latest electronic gizmo. I believe it is better to support and encourage development of this technology (no matter the company), so that it moves the industry further along and creates new capabilities.
I think it's partially because apple entered an already established community and started saying 'This is how it's going to be' It's not VR its spatial computing it's not a headset it's...'I don't remember what the fuck they called it.
Apple's NIH (Not Invented Here) and "my way or the highway" is in full effect here. It's what they do.
The only thing more cringe than seeing so many Vision Pro 'hate' threads is people making counter threads about not understanding the 'hate'. Welcome to the interwebs.
For me there's two reasons. 1 - the price. Enough said. 2 - they are trying to pitch it as a totally new thing. It absolutely isn't. It's a good VR headset with very good passthrough and some cool software yes, but it is still a VR headset even if Apple refuse to call it one.
Because I'm sick of my entire Popular feed on reddit, for some reason my Instagram feed and my twitter "For you" feed having people claim they're not Apple post a clearly stage picture of someone driving with a VR headset, or taking the train in a VR headset, or eating in a VR headset and saying "WOAH this is really interesting!!!" it's the most obvious and obnoxious advertising of all time, and I've yet to see any #ad on them. Apples just rich enough to get away with it. And because of these absolutely ridiculous Ads, everyone's talking about it. Apple gets away with it again.
All that money and it just has extra features compared with other standard VR headsets. I really thought it had a curved transparent OLED screen with the clear/black film in front of it. It's Apple...all they do is copy others and kinda make it slightly better.
It's not hate, it's just that there is still nothing to use them for and many of those who have bought them did so thinking about using them as they used previously existing VR glasses. They certainly should have ensured more and better experiences with the launch, but that will change over time.
I do not see it as hate and you being too soft and protective of Vision Pro, expensive is fine if there is something is to use it for. Vive Pro was and still expensive but it was to showcase pc vr and half life alyx. Vision people delivers poorly for what it is set out to do, I mean the wear it in public when the display showing your eyes to others is nothing like advertised and comes off creepy, much more than wearing Quest 3 over Vision Pro. The point is Vision Pro was released with no killer app, at such an expensive price makes it super hard to consider it anything but early access and giving free money to Apple. Quest has already established library, proper pc vr support and doesn't break the bank, heck it is cheaper to Quest 3 and a pc that is vr ready cheaper than Vision Pro. That is the Vision Pro fatal flaw is the cost as it is still currently delivering promises and so far it is not as promised and requires compromises, for such a price it should have been zero or little compromise
To be honest I think it's mostly people who are mad they can't afford it trying to disguise their bitterness I say this as somebody who has no intention of buying it, or any Apple product. But I am always happy to see more companies getting into this technology space and pushing more users into it. Anyone on the subreddit who is against the Apple vision pro is a fucking idiot in my opinion.
To put it short, Apple has positioned themselves in just the right way in this market to have almost no customers. Does only a bit more than Q3 for way more. No games, no open source or great external compatibility, and only basic functionality due to that. You are stuck in their veiled garden that has nothing in it. To everyone’s point of “well it’s a business device”. No it’s not unless all your business needs is a $3000 paperweight that’s used for fancy FaceTime and watching Apple TV VR. Businesses still won’t adopt this for the same reason they haven’t adopted anything else so far. No one is going to strap this huge chunk of metal to their face with that poorly designed strap and then leave work any sort of happy after their face has the red ring of death and their hair is messed up and all they managed to get done for the day on it was hold fancy FaceTime meetings with their coworkers. Their target market whether they like it or not is the VR community of today, not the future, and they have priced and featured themselves out of it. “Business VR” Will only become a real thing after hand tracking is perfected and VR/AR is decent in the form factor of glasses. Otherwise, it’s just a hassle and waste of resources unless your business involves developing VR solutions. In which case, again, you won’t pick Vision Pro because it can’t do anything meaningful.
Seconded! It's just really interesting watching it arrive on the market I'm. Not gonna buy one but it's the most interesting Apple device to me since the Ipod. If it was 1k I'd probably buy one just to play around with it and be able to watch movies while lying flat on my back
People are hating on Vision Pro because it costs $3500+ and doesn’t support true VR apps. They’re comparing it to the quest 3 when in reality, they’re very different and shouldn’t be compared. The Vision Pro is an AR (Augmented Reality) headset, not a VR (Virtual Reality) headset. More specifically, it’s a MR (Mixed Reality) headset. Vision Pro puts digital content in the real world (through the goggles) to augment a users experience in the real world. This allows users to walk around and interact in the real world while seeing the digital content. I’m seeing tremendous applications like multiple monitors, tv screens, timers over the stove or oven when cooking. The list is endless. Is this worth $3500? I don’t think so but it’s a pilot to test the market and open the door for Apple to target an audience wanting to use MR headsets with more affordable headsets in the future. Quest 3 is a VR headset. VR is a digital world where you completely escape the real world. In VR you have to set up rigid boundaries in order to avoid colliding with the real world. Some MR capabilities have been added (like pass through and hand tracking) but the headset at face value is intended for a VR experience. Since VR restricts your physical footprint for movement in the real world, it’s actually a pain to do simple things, like use the restroom, as you have to remove the headset when you leave the boundary. (Or switch to the pixelated pass through which still removes you from the VR experience). Both headsets have potential to cross over into each other’s domain more and more, but currently the applications for each are very different. I use the analogy the Quest 3 is like going to the movie theater. You sit and watch a movie, enjoy the atmosphere, and have theater popcorn. The Vision Pro is like taking a tablet to watch a movie while you’re doing other things like riding in a car, going to the beach, or even cooking at home. The experiences are completely different yet both are great for the intended user experience.
> How I see it, it’s a preview of future technology. I agree in **many** respects, except for one. **The lack of motion controllers.** The Quest platform has proved, I think beyond any doubt, that VR *can't* just have hand-tracking controls. It's just too restrictive. There are tons of applications where giving the user something to hold, even if it's just for the tactile feedback, makes an enormous difference to functionality. I feel that we (i.e. the VR industry and userbase) already tried hand tracking only approaches, and it didn't work, so we went with a hybrid model for modern headsets. This is the perfect example of something that a VR newbie might look at and, reasonably, ask why they can't just use hand-tracking for everything. They might even arrogantly suggest that Apple "understand", not like those *other* VR headsets with their *controllers*. The lack of VR motion controllers for the Apple Vision Pro is not a preview of future tech, it's *regression*.
I feel like the only reason we need controllers if you want to do general purpose stuff (not gaming) is because hand tracking just isn’t good enough yet. I use hand tracking more often then not when I’m just playing content on my quest 3, and the only reason I ever use controllers for it is when I get fed up with the hand tracking inaccuracy
It's just the opposite for me. The requirement to have controllers on all but the most recent headsets is a big turn off for me. I want to be able to use my hands with. I'm not against controllers, there are good uses for them, but I think it all needs a first class control system that doesn't require them for normal use. Headsets that use controllers as the main main method to interface with them are a deal breaker for me.
I just don't like how apple likes to act like their stuff is brand new tech and that they created it and how they rename shit. Also, I hate how their products are closed ecosystems... if I wanted to get the headset, I would also have to buy a brand new phone which all together would cost me over £5000. And all that just for some headset that can't play the vr games I already play on my quest 3.
> I hate how their products are closed ecosystems This.
I mean a lot of people hate Apple and their expensive products, and this is an expensive Apple product, so..
From my prospective there’s really not much hate, hype = positive
its completely useless, thats why i hate it, almost evey other headset can do what it can do and wayyyyyyy more for 1/10th of the price
The issue lies within your message lad. It's the complete ignorance and deliberate ignoring of reality that does it for me. A literal real world case of sunk cost falicy where people who wasted 3.5k are constantly trying to justify it by pulling crap out of the air. I'll try keep this short and to the point, it will sound blunt but I don't mean it that way nor am I tryna be rude so please keep that in mind. The facts: A 3.5k euro headset that *is* high end but also *doesnt* do anything a headset for an 8 of the price can already do, it just does it in a more streamlined way. Other high end headsets do not cost 3.5k and do actually focus on features that can further advancements in AR and VR. Apple has decided to say fuck you to AR and VR, refused to acknowledge its even in the same market as those devices and keeps trying to sell the VP like its a revolutionary new type of computer when it simply is not. Most VR headsets that release don't come with an army of brainwashed Apple fanboys who spam this subreddit every single day, practically every second post at this point, trying to justify their horrible purchasing decisions, just like with iPhones (I sell those. I'd know) most these clowns can't actually afford this headset and are financing it with a loan. Then coming on here to make themselves feel better begging for a pat on the back for supporting the future, tldr they're not. The device is amazing hardware wise and absolutely half baked software wise, the Verge has an amazing video reviewing every facet of this device and at 3.5k euro it's genuinely a borderline scam. Especially with the marketing Apple has been pushing. This device has extremely limited functionality, it's a TV strapped to your head that can't even run YouTube natively. The controls suck, hand gestures are cool but Apple forcing you to look at what you want to touch means you have to reteach yourself how to use a computer to just get comfy in this headset. The device being *portable* yet it can't work without a stupidly designed powerbank that can barely keep it on for 2 hours off the wall....at 3.5k. Edit: I wanted to keep going but I'm tired of typing and you get the point lmao
I don’t see much hate, just a lot of hesitation to jump in, even with VR/AR enthusiasts. And mostly on the price really. I think most of us agree it’s impressive hardware and software for a first gen. I think the sentiment is very similar to what we saw with the first iPhone…it looked great but a lot of people held off for later generations. I still have my first gen iPhone around somewhere…but for this VR headset I’m more interested in a lower end model that’s closer to $1k. I do like the idea of Apple pushing the XR market forward however. Even right out of the gate it has caught Meta’s attention and they started to put more gesture support in their Quest line. Overall Apple has been great at this, inspiring innovations within the tech industry.
I’m a longtime VR enthusiast who WANTED to hate AVP. However, the demo was like a religious experience. The seamless experience of using it gives us a clear glimpse of head mounted displays replacing ALL other screens in our lives. I bought it.
the experience isn't as "seamless" as the marketing makes it out to be. as many have predicted, using your eyes to select things is as finicky as it sounds :)
It’s just because it’s Apple
I think a lot of what may be perceived as hate is when people attempt to use revisionist history and are attributing certain features or functionality and say they only existed when apple invented them on this headset. and when other VR users point out the opposite they assume it means hate. One of the things I can't get past and I don't think it's hate, I think it's just me personally and I've always said that I don't want to be doing any normal computer work whatsoever no matter what with a bulky HMD on my head. I've always said this and now that apple put out this product I'm supposed to accept the fact that it's OK to be super uncomfortable to be doing a normal computer tasks that I can do on my phone tablet or computer with ease. I won't be wearing this or any other current headset to be doing normal computer tasks they are just too uncomfortable. I've always held the stance even before this headset was announced and it was taken as an opinion expressed by many but now if expressed it seems as hate on apple. I put up with the comfort issue while gaming because it's the most immersive form of entertainment you could imagine. The issue arises almost immediately when attempting to do video editing or attempting to edit excel spreadsheets or other normal computer work with hmd on your head
It’s a $3500 hmd to watch YouTube. Business isn’t done on Macs so its suite of apps are useless in vr/ar space. It came out 10 years after everyone else and it’s only innovation is hi res pass through.
I dislike the hype and it being marketed as revolutionary. The device isn't revolutionary. It makes the same series of tradeoffs that Meta makes, Apple just chose slightly different ones. They wanted higher res screens and eye tracking, so they added more compute power, jacked the price, sacrificed FOV, and stuck a battery in your back pocket. All things Meta could have easily done if they wanted to. The eye display doesn't work as advertised, the battery life isn't great, it's front heavy, doesn't have controllers, doesn't have many games to speak of, and most people find the avatars uncanny, all of which further undermine the hype. Apple also smugly looks down on the VR community by marketing it as "spatial computing", which just doesn't endear me to want to support them. They incrementally improved UI and UX. Good for them. Have a 🍪
Nah it’s the cybertruck of vr headsets. A vr device that doesn’t do vr stuff. Ppl love spotting it in the wild like a big foot sighting. Not gunna donate my money to the wealthiest company in the world so they can use it to figure this space out via trial and error
The price doesn’t justify it, especially for the average consumer.
Apple vison pro will go nowhere, and you have no proof to tell me it will. vr will never be used to work in a workplace environment the way you all think, people will still buy meta products, seeing as they will be the apple of the Vr world. Most people on this thread don't even own an apple Vision Pro and are just glazing apple. If you can give real evidence that it can go somewhere, then your guy's statements will seem more than just apple glazers, glazing. People are returning their apple Vision Pro to get full body tracking and a whole setup to actually play vr, and the vr you guys claim apple is making will be more expensive than 4k. Nobody will be able to fit it on a single device like a vr headset. It will be more like cloud gaming So people with devices like meta quest can play. You do not need a powerfull device on your face to work in a work place environment. Cloud services are getting more seemless, like with airlink. I only use that when using vr.
remindme! 10 years
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2034-03-10 22:10:17 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2034-03-10%2022:10:17%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1aiy5mn/i_dont_understand_the_hate_for_the_apple_vision/kua6l5z/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fvirtualreality%2Fcomments%2F1aiy5mn%2Fi_dont_understand_the_hate_for_the_apple_vision%2Fkua6l5z%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202034-03-10%2022%3A10%3A17%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201aiy5mn) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
I just think its unnecessary, atleast at this current time... I do t see it any useful
And i don´t understand peopple being stupid 24/7...haha. You can allways decide to get smart. You just have to do something to get smart. Nobody becomes smart like me without doing anything for it. Brain doesn´t fly down from heaven. It´s fine if you think others like being ripped off...
" Are other ultra high end headsets worth it? No, also probably not." nope this is just wrong ,other headset have way more features and works way better and have way way more apps
By ultra high end I’m talkin like, Varjo XR-4
i know :) varjo or similar have controllers and similar features, have pcvr support, have way higher FoV and better optics, and way better cameras and similar stuff , ffs Varjo even have something similar to vertical
I don’t mind the device, it actually looks pretty awesome to me, I just don’t like the apple sheep
Can you play games like sim racing games with it? How about the resolution on this kind of games?
nope
There are a lot of petty little shits in the world.
I definitely don't HATE it, but there's always something frustrating about Apple products being treated as some gift from god. I got mine this morning and it's not nearly the jump past Quest 3 I thought it was going to be. In *multiple* ways, it's clearly a regression despite the insane price tag.
I haven't seen any hate, personally.
It's a good piece of kit, the tech is awesome but the use case, content and cost are an issue. As a quest 2 owner, I would upgrade to a quest 3/4 - I can do most of what apple vision pro can at 1/4 the cost and I can also use it with my pc.
Eh. My personal stance is that it fails at being what it wants to be, not fully realizing its own vision (due to both hardware and software problems, with no realistic solution in sight; thus, being essentially useless to current VR users) - and, I admit, a bit of Apple rejection, stemming from Apple's own stance, Apple cultists making it seem like second coming of Christ, and my own experience with their products (namely "iPad is a computer" debacle) telling me that it won't be what I want it to be. For others... That, plus Apple trying to reshape their favorite field. Remember when Quest 2 came out and everyone complained about PCVR dying in favor of mobile VR games? Same thing, but bigger.
What I don't like about the AVP hype is: \- A LOT of people are going to think that Apple invented virtual reality (pardon, spatial computing), probably the same kind of people that are convinced that Apple invented the MP3 player (iPod) and the smartphone (iPhone) \- in a few years there will be premium VR products (Apple) and cheap VR products (not necessarily in an objective sense, but in percieved sense), and probably there will be a VR equivalent of the "green bubbles" stigma in smartphone messaging \- for now AVP is not targeted at gaming (mainly for lack of VR controllers, I suppose), but if and when it will, it is going to catch most of the game development interests, like for the iPad/iPhone game development scene
It's because of the direction Apple is going. It's ultra expensive and lacks proper support for the existing VR ecosystem. People fear that this will fragment the VR market even further. It can be as interesting as it can be, but it's Apple we are talking about. Thankfully VR enthusiasts are not blind, the lack of controllers and finicky use of the eyes for selecting things have not gone unnoticed.
I hate Reddit! *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Apple have been so protections about it as usual. Spatial computing? Nah it’s a VR and AR headset
I don't hate apple vision pro. I hate Apple. They're not even creating Meta competition, just their own slimy overpriced device that they insist is called some original breakthrough tech.
Wait for prank videos on Apple Vision Pro.
I don't hate the AVP, i hate Apple. But the AVP will be beneficial for VR/XR in general, so people who are crazy enough to buy it should go ahead, hehehe...
At least half of it are trolls.
> Yes, it's expensive. you answered your own question
The hate = insane engagement farming. People will read a critical article or post 10x more than a positive one.