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.
