I love contrarian takes but I don’t love uninformed cynical takes not backed up by data or experience, especially the kind we’ve been seeing the past few days with Apple Vision Pro. (John C Dvorak was also commenting about the unreleased iPhone at the time of writing)
Reality is the best teacher and cynics (as opposed to honest critics) are best disregarded and downvoted. When unsure, I remind myself it’s best to reserve judgement and see how things play out and not overgeneralize from my own limited preferences. I tell myself that I am one small speck in the market — i do not represent the market.
Because even if cynics turn out to be right, their reasons for being right are random and we learn nothing from them. In financial market for instance it’s not enough to be right (it’s a coin toss) but to have the right reasons for being right.
> but I don’t love uninformed cynical takes not backed up by data or experience
Here's some data: When the iPhone was introduced, the global mobile phone market moved over a billion devices a year. The iPhone solved very real problems that people were having, and delivered a device that did everything better than the competition. They put a real browser in the thing, removing the need for WAP and other shitty technologies for consuming content on mobile. They got the form factor and keyboard right. It was expensive, but not 10x more expensive. The iPhone replaced a device that everyone was already willingly carrying around in their pockets, and had been carrying around for over a decade at that point.
The global VR headset market moved 20 million devices last year. For most people, VR headsets are a gimmick, a novelty, they bought one, tried it, put it on a shelf. People aren't carrying one around, people aren't using it as their main computing interface, people aren't throwing away their monitors or TVs or gaming consoles. If someone has a VR headset, it's a non-essential plaything.
The Apple Vision is ~10x as expensive, in a market that's 1/50th of what the mobile phone market was in 2007, and it's still not solving obvious pain points that are stopping people from getting a VR headset. What problems does it solve? What device does it replace?
> When unsure, I remind myself it’s best to reserve judgement and see how things play out and not overgeneralize from my own limited preferences. I tell myself that I am one small speck in the market — i do not represent the market.
"God^H^H^HApple moves in mysterious ways, it's best not to question The Lord!"
Come on. Apple Vision entering the VR market is fundamentally different from the iPhone entering the mobile phone market, which is why posts like this, trying to make Apple Vision criticism equivalent to iPhone criticism, are completely wrong.
All that says is that the iPhone was a uniquely good business and opportunity that will likely never be matched by any product for the next few decades. There isn't anyone claiming the Apple Vision Pro will be as big as the iPhone in terms of sales or importance. It could however be a new modern computer that takes over many functions performed on a Mac today. The TAM will expand based on its capability, much like it did for the PC during the 70s and 80s.
In 2007 carriers were giving away phones for free to those signing up for a plan, and the initial $500 price tag was mocked and lambasted as being way too expensive. There were all kinds of phones that it was far more than 10x pricier than.
> VR headsets are a gimmick, a novelty, they bought one, tried it, put it on a shelf.
Most shelf ridden cast off Quest 2s are there because they were found to be grainy and nausea inducing. A leap in latency and resolution could very well prompt revaluation in the space.
You assume Apple is entering the VR market. I already think this is the wrong take.
To me the market is still being discovered. There are many products whose business models are not what is apparent. We make category mistakes when we pigeonhole new products into known existing categories. Right off the bat for me the Vision Pro is a multi monitor replacement that you can travel with — that’s just the one thing that hits my gut.
The *WHOLE POINT* of this HN post is to poo-poo Dvorak's take on the iPhone *AS IF* the introduction of Apple Vision is comparable to the iPhone's introduction.
"iPhone critics were wrong then, therefore Apple vision critics are wrong now" is *NOT AN ARGUMENT*. It's emotional manipulation where you are supposed to reminisce about the glorious smartphone revolution that Apple ushered in, and apply that to this product launch. That is what is going on here.
And every time I press the point on what the hell the Apple Vision thing is for, the only thing I get back is mealy-mouthed corporate bullshit like what you just wrote.
"It's gonna be revolutionary, trust me, bro"
No. There is zero reason to believe that these things won't end up collecting dust on a shelf somewhere, just like the majority of VR headsets are already doing.
> The WHOLE POINT of this HN post is to poo-poo Dvorak's take on the iPhone AS IF the introduction of Apple Vision is comparable to the iPhone's introduction.
Not completely. This article is a great example of how meaningless unsubstantiated analysis is. The author makes a lot of anecdotal claims similar to the ones made regarding VR (“one time gimmick, a shelf decoration”)
I don’t think we’ve seen the complete potential of VR/AR technology and Im looking forward to see if Apple stepping in can normalize it.
I think the higher price tag is them signaling they know they won't move as many units like they did with the iPhone. It's economies of scale: if you can move huge volumes, you can afford smaller margins per unit, and vice versa.
The data does not have the growth of the ar market or that the current trend without Apple in it, so it is way underestimating it. If Apple continues to refine it, you bet the market is enormous. People love entertainment/work/social networks and this is just bringing it in a new level of immersion, experiences not possible with typical physical screens and convinence(once they down size it enough)
I joined Nokia in 2008 about a year after the iPhone launch, and even at that late date, the general consensus was that it wasn't a big deal and/or just an American thing, similar to Japan's i-mode.
For those of us who knew what a leap ahead it was - the capacitive touch screen alone changed everything, let alone the usability and functionality like the physical mute switch - it was an uphill battle to convince decision makers how much of a paradigm shift it was. In fact my first boss, the CTO based in Palo Alto where I worked - had a boardroom showdown about it and lost, resigning immediately after.
Dvorak wasn't the only one with his head stuck in the sand. A lot of actual industry players just couldn't get it either. Blackberry for example.
The most amazing thing to me, honestly, is how quickly Google shifted gears. Android first launched with an emulator that looked exactly like the Nokia E71, Symbian phone with the exact same UX. I posted a video of it on Vimeo back then [1] (it's still there!!!). Within the year they had turned 90° and copied the iPhone in almost every way. That's Silicon Valley flexibility and drive which Nokia and other established mobile companies just couldn't match.
> On February 19, 1984, in an article in The San Francisco Examiner, Dvorak listed the mouse as one of many reasons Apple Inc.'s Macintosh computer might not be successful: "The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a ‘mouse’. There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
So tasty. And useful, to remind us what “smart” “sober” commentary looks like in tech — mostly negative, mostly missing the mark.
> What Apple risks here is its reputation as a hot company that can do no wrong. If it's smart it will call the iPhone a "reference design" and pass it to some suckers to build with someone else's marketing budget. Then it can wash its hands of any marketplace failures.
Oh come on now that's not fair. No matter how utterly woeful and corrupt tech journalism had been (and horrific is the adjective I'd use) drawing parallels to Jim Kramer is just unseemly.
John C. Dvorak is famous for bad takes. But if you’re alluding to Apple Vision being successful because he was an iPhone naysayer, you’re wrong. Reality doesn’t work that way. The jury is still out on VR and it changes little when Apple enters the market at that price point and there’s not a killer problem for it.
I agree. The iPhone came out in 2007, and that year over a billion cell phones were sold. That's a solid market that Apple entered, and the iPhone brought obvious improvements over existing devices. Apple solved the problem of wanting a large screen, a full keyboard, in a small device. That was an existing pain-point, they solved it, everyone understood that this was the future of cell phones.
In 2022, there were 20 million VR devices sold globally. Apple has now entered this market with a device that's 10x as expensive as the competition, and one that doesn't solve any existing obvious pain points.
The iPhone out-competed dumb phones and communicators and blackberries and stylus notepads and, eventually, pocket cameras. It did all of that, better, in one device.
What exactly is the Apple Vision replacing in an obviously better way? If I buy one, what device can I throw away? I have yet to see an answer to that question.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but by talking about the size of the market, you do realize you're committing the exact same mistake as Dvorak, but in reverse:
>Apple Inc.'s past successes have been in markets that were emerging or moribund. Its biggest hit has been the iPod.
Recency bias aside, Apple clearly has experience to take on markets like this.
>doesn't solve any existing obvious pain points.
I mean, if you pay attention to any of the people that have tried hands-ons, they all say the UI interaction is leaps and bounds better than anyone else. Hand tracking, clarity, and pass-through too - this isn't a Meta Quest competitor, it's an improved Varjo XR3 for half the price. This price isn't really a blunder as much as a signal as to who this is for.
But really, the point is that this isn't the device Apple wanted to make. They wanted to wait another 5-10 years to get the miniaturization and price down so it can just be a pair of glasses. But they don't have that luxury; Zuck is trying to own the market, and Apple needs developers now rather than later. They know this device won't have high volume (and they've told shareholders that for months) but they're investing for 5-10 years from now when the tech is at the point where it does.
>If I buy one, what device can I throw away?
I mean from the way Apple is currently marketing it, the answer is "Your tablet, probably laptop, and even TV, (and eventually, your phone)"
> They wanted to wait another 5-10 years to get the miniaturization and price down so it can just be a pair of glasses. But they don't have that luxury; Zuck is trying to own the market, and Apple needs developers now rather than later. They know this device won't have high volume (and they've told shareholders that for months) but they're investing for 5-10 years from now when the tech is at the point where it does.
This is the best defense of the device that I've seen. I can absolutely see the appeal of AR in a pair of glasses, that's a form factor and convenience that makes sense.
But how will Apple retain excitement for this device and retain developers doing stuff for it, if the install base is tiny compared to the competition? Over ten years? Once this thing ends up on people's shelves, why should any company develop for it? "Trust me bro, Apple Vision Air 5 is finally going to kick off!"
The iPhone introduced the app store, which allowed for a literal gold rush, it suddenly became a whole lot easier for developers to earn money for their software, of course developers flocked to it, even though the install base was small. There's no such mechanism in place this time, all the other VR headsets have app stores. So what's the draw? All the Apple Vision owners are rich, so you can price your apps higher?
I understand the long term goals of Apple, they have to make this bet in case VR becomes the next revolution, but VR has been a solution looking for a problem for thirty years now at least, and this product is not going to become successful, and yet this thread, and every other one like it, is full of people predicting the VR revolution.
> Apple has now entered this market with a device that's 10x as expensive as the competition, and one that doesn't solve any existing obvious pain points.
1X - they’re in the same market as the HoloLens, not low-end gaming VR like Oculus, which is why the hardware costs more. It’s definitely far from a proven market but I would treat this class of device as the first serious contender — for example, the infinite display concept is appealing but a device like the Oculus Pro doesn’t have the resolution to make sharp text or refresh quickly. If this lives up to the promise, it might tempt anyone who wants a portable or private alternative to setting up a bunch of external displays, especially if they work on 3D things or collaborate. It’s not going to be an instance best selling gadget but I think a lot of the people I’ve known who have jobs involving things like mechanical engineering, architecture, interior design, medical or scientific imaging, data visualization, modeling, etc. are going to consider it and these devices are cheap when you’re paying more than that annually for software licenses and it’s a few days billable time.
> That was an existing pain-point, they solved it, everyone understood that this was the future of cell phones.
Not everyone. The article being discussed is an extreme, but there were many similar opinions along these lines, for example form people claiming the lack of a physical keyboard would kill this as a business phone.
When I first saw the Apple Vision my first thought was that this isn't a new form of VR headset as much as it is a new type of display device. My work environment is somewhat space constrained and I would welcome having what is effectively a massive monitor without any space requirement. Imagine working in a (stationary) car, in a hotel room, anywhere you can't carry a massive monitor and this becomes an attractive idea. Whether that is what this device offers remains to be seen.
Apple solved the problem of wanting a large screen,
a full keyboard, in a small device
I... find this a little revisionist and/or reductionist.
Yes, Apple did those things. I disagree that they only solved "pain points." They took the concept of a smartphone into a new direction by in many cases explicitly disregarding what the public wanted. I don't love the iPhone, actually. I wish it was open instead of closed. This is not meant as a defense of Apple per se but I feel you've got the history a bit wrong.
Generally speaking, folks did not want a large screen. A lot of people, particularly men, explicitly wanted the smallest phone possible.
Many "power users" were hardcore members of the Blackberry camp. They didn't really care about fancy screens. They wanted hardcore messaging devices geared toward people who needed to be in constant communication via text, email, etc.
There were also hacker types who wanted to use their phones as open software platforms, SSH terminals, etc.
Apple disregarded all of them and did something different. Love them or hate them they did a lot more than just "solve pain points."
> The iPhone came out in 2007, and that year over a billion cell phones were sold.
Most of which were dumbphones — in 2007, 122 million smartphones were sold worldwide, which represented only about 10.6% of cell phones. In other words, the iPhone entered a product segment in its infancy, then helped define and grow it just as Apple Vision will.
> What exactly is the Apple Vision replacing in an obviously better way?
This sounds like Dvorak in 2007, who clearly looked at the iPhone as a "faster horse". Like the iPhone in 2007, Apple Vision will never have greater unrealized potential than it has today. This first Apple Vision Pro will sell fewer units than any subsequent generations, and that's fine — it's a line in the sand, a call to arms, and a place for innovators to play.
Apple isn't there right now, but the ultimate goal appears to replace computers, phones, and monitors, which is why Vision has a laptop card and operates independently. It's not born of the same concept as eg, a Meta quest which is more gaming oriented.
> but the ultimate goal appears to replace computers, phones, and monitors
This is a completely empty statement. That's a flimsy corporate wish.
Do you not understand how completely different the introduction of the iPhone into the mobile phone market was, compared to the introduction of Apple Vision to the VR market?
The iPhone introduced with concrete examples of what it could do that the competition could not, it wasn't half-baked and aspirational, it solved existing problems, it was better than the devices that billions of people were already carrying around in their pockets from the start.
I'm writing this comment from my home office. To my right is a window where I can look out on the street below, I see cars and people, I see birds flying over the trees, and a couple of blocks away is the beach and the ocean. It's a pretty view. I can relax my eyes and my brain and look away from work or HN for a bit. How does Apple vision improve this experience?
I agree that the Vision is half baked right now, but the point is they aren't seeking to compete with the VR headsets or market today. Unlike other VR headsets, Apple seeks to augment, eg your home office by replacing your TV, laptop, etc. I haven't used the headset yet as it will be released next year, but first impressions uniformly attest that the headset is concretely able to perform those functions. If the execution is there over the next years, I would expect this to greatly improve every experience that is screen-related, such as having a 3D IMAX screen in your house instead of a TV
Many analysts and pundits aren't acting like the jury's still out, though. Similarly to the iPhone, many who haven't touched it are reporting it DOA, even as some people are leaving actual demos with intensely positive reviews.
The iPhone solved an incredibly useful problem because it put the internet in your pocket. No one has a “computer room” at home. What is the problem that the vision solves? I can watch TV on a huge screen in my living room? I already have a large screen in my living room. It’s like stuff I can already easily do but with extra steps and a $3500 US price tag.
I have both a media room and work computer room. My parents have two computer rooms. My sister want a room when she can get a house. Many of my friends have dedicated rooms for computers.
I’m at a job where, for the first time in my life, I’m desperate for screen real estate. Up until now I’ve been quite happy with a 15” laptop, I never even felt the need to have a bigger screen than that let alone multiple monitors, but just yesterday I set up a third 24” monitor because the two my job started me with didn’t feel like enough.
Replacing those with a headset would not only give me even MORE room to work with, but it would also save room and clutter in my home because I have a small desk in a small space.
As for TV, it doesn’t matter how big your screen is… a headset can always go bigger, give you better 3D, and do better sound as well unless you already have a surround sound setup. Which you may, but many of us don’t have any of those things. The only real downside I see is the inability to watch with someone, but if my wife and I could both wear headsets and sit on the couch together while ALSO both being in a shared virtual space, somewhere exotic with a giant theatre-size screen? Sounds pretty compelling to me.
But are you willing to wear a front-heavy pound of tech on your head all day for that? Maybe you are, but I wager few will. The counter then is that the tech will get more compact and lighter. Well, maybe, or maybe not as much, let’s see in a couple of years.
If there’s a good “why”, the “how” is merely iteration and execution. Apple has been known to be extremely good at materials science and hardware engineering so if it’s within the bounds of physics and economies I don’t think that’s remotely a concern.
It's the next step in Apple's consistent strategy to diminish the physical device and enhance its services (computing). iMac: where did the computer go? Vision: there is no TV, but the TV watching experience is great.
Let’s assume it’s comfortable to wear (Oculus and Quest weren’t for the long run), works without issues and smooth and that I would expect at least from Apple even though it seems that they put every year a little less attention to detail (okay it’s still 90% better than anything else but i think this matters for a device and state of this category really a lot) it will have a good chance to replace all my screens (3 plus laptop and tv) and I’ll get very excited and buckle up the hefty price…
It's not out yet, anyway. Dismissing something that won't ship for another 8 months is not useful. The Dvorak article was likewise before shipping. I've heard this for everything Apple ever did since the Bondi iMac.
I don't look at it as a headset but as a new kind of computer-like device with included display, and it's not even 1.0 yet. The cost seems crazy, but my Mac Studio+Display cost me more. If you think of it as equivalent to that, it's not all that out of line.
Now imagine what it will become, similar to how the iPhone changed massively over the years.
Off topic, but this site has literally 6 advertising blocks in the article and still it asks for a subscription.
I am running a multi million user platform, but in no way i need to have such a destructive monetization model. My users would flee. My platform would die quickly.
In 2007 the question was "can Apple compete with other cell phone makers". The market for cell phones (even smart phones) was already well established, but Dvorak here says the iphone "will be passé within 3 months". What he didn't know is that Apple had made something far better than all the competition.
Now, with AR/VR I think the skeptics aren't saying Apple's product won't be good, but that even if it's the best product in the category there's still just not much of a market for it.
People who are crazy enough that think they can change the world are only the ones who do, so when Steve Jobs has to deal with these non-sense so he never said what he is working on, he focused on shipping great products: "There is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in a business this competitive. Even in the business where it is a clear pioneer, the personal computer, it had to compete with Microsoft and can only sustain a 5% market share."
Competitors at the time included Nokia (Symbian OS), Palm, Windows Mobile, Blackberry, OpenMoko, and Android; but not Apple Newton OS (1987-1998).
Cisco IOS (for network gear) was created in the 1980s.
It was possible to run Linux on the 1st gen iPod (2001). IIRC the Archos Jukebox also had a 2.5" drive enclosure with audio (and then video on a color LCD) decoding.
> Now compare that effort and overlay the mobile handset business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it's gone so far that it's in the process of consolidation with probably two players dominating everything, Nokia Corp and Motorola
I've never seen someone be so right and so wrong at the same time.
This one was not John Dvorak's best predictions, and he really should have seen this one coming.
The PC was a general purpose device that replaced a whole office full of fairly expensive specialty devices (word processor, fax, teletype, calculator, intercom system, etc...). iPhone was no different. General purpose that could replace a bunch of expensive specialty devices (anyone else have a PDA, phone, music player, camera, GPS, etc...) at a personal level. It was obvious iPhone would succeed and it was equally obvious that Android was running the Wintel play and Apple was playing the Apple play with iPhone.
Reality is the best teacher and cynics (as opposed to honest critics) are best disregarded and downvoted. When unsure, I remind myself it’s best to reserve judgement and see how things play out and not overgeneralize from my own limited preferences. I tell myself that I am one small speck in the market — i do not represent the market.
Because even if cynics turn out to be right, their reasons for being right are random and we learn nothing from them. In financial market for instance it’s not enough to be right (it’s a coin toss) but to have the right reasons for being right.