News Apple Releases visionOS SDK to Get Developers Amped for Vision Pro

[Admin]

Developers can now start making apps ahead of Vision Pro's official launch next year.

Apple Releases visionOS SDK to Get Developers Amped for Vision Pro : Read more

 

[bit_user]

If they offered a degree of interoperability between their iPhones and Vision Pro, that would be ideal.

According to this, you can at least use their existing AR Kit (i.e. their AR API for iPhone) to develop apps for Vision Pro:

"Developers can use frameworks like xCode, Reality Kit, AR Kit, and SwiftUI to develop apps within visionOS."

What is visionOS? The New Apple Operating System - XR Today

XR Today reports on the latest extended reality news from around the globe, including virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality.

www.xrtoday.com

 

[baboma]

>If they offered a degree of interoperability between their iPhones and Vision Pro, that would be ideal.

Per Apple, iPhone/iPad apps will be compatible with VP, presumably with a simple port. Likewise, it's safe to predict that stereoscopic (3D) imaging will get downstreamed to iPhones, given the most criticized aspect of the demo is the dad being cocooned in a headset to record his kid's b-day.

I've been gauging dev/creator interest for VP, and enthusiasm level is universally high, from gaming to 3D content to productivity. Anticipated ccosystem support looks strong. I think VP will live up to its name and become a full-fledged computing platform. The only unknown is how fast Apple can get its BOM down to make the $1-2K pricing possible for mass market.

High-end (folding) phones are already close to the $2K mark. Given VP's superior versatility and presumed ecosystem strength, $2K is doable for the majority of early adopters.

From my perspective, it's not if, but when. My ballpark guess is 2-3 years, but again, depends on how fast Apple can bring down price. My curiosity at this point isn't on Apple, but Google/Microsoft/Meta's reactions. Meta is closest competitor, but it doesn't have a platform to leverage. MS just decommissioned its Hololens team.

Regardless of their fixation with AI, I think all three will need to step into the HMC (head-mounted computing) race. A new platform is too important to leave it all to Apple. My SWAG is they'll face a 2-year gap.

 

[bit_user]

MS just decommissioned its Hololens team.

Microsoft will just piggyback on whatever Apple and Google build, like they currently do with phones. The platform they're most invested in is Azure, and they'll probably do whatever it takes to offer Azure apps and services on any client device.

Regardless of their fixation with AI, I think all three will need to step into the HMC (head-mounted computing) race. A new platform is too important to leave it all to Apple. My SWAG is they'll face a 2-year gap.

Well, I'm thinking it'll be Meta and Google stepping up to challenge Apple.

I wonder if someone will finally buy Magic Leap. Maybe Samsung?

 

[baboma]

>Microsoft will just piggyback on whatever Apple and Google build, like they currently do with phones.

I don't think the hardware is the main obstacle. VP isn't revolutionary hardware-wise, it just take hardware to the next level, in both functionality and cost. With sufficient motivation (read: racing to win the next computing platform), VP's hardware edge can be matched.

IMO, Apple's aces are in its vision, and execution (read: software). VP's presented use cases of content consumption (3D and 2D), personal productivity and remote work, and 3D recording, all have widespread, mainstream appeal. VR gaming by itself can't bring HMDs to mainstream. Zuckerberg likely realized this when he positioned Quest Pro for metaverse & work. But there was no public buy-in for metaverse, and WorkPlace was horrifically bad, as to wit the Verge's review.

View: https://youtu.be/WqY1ZNTaHyo


In short, Meta failed at both its vision and execution for Quest Pro. The $500 price drop 6 months post-launch means QP flopped, even before the VP launch. I'm curious how Zuckerberg will pivot, now that he's seen the competition's different vision, and the high acclaim for it. I'm pessimistic on Meta's chances, as even if it can match Apple's vision/execution, it doesn't have Apple's platforms and the developer base. VP will have a functional ecosystem on day one. After 4 years, Meta Quest still has only a handful of productivity apps in its store.

Ditto Google Glass. Google didn't really have a vision for it. The company made the hardware and basically handed it over to devs and let them figure out the use cases. Implications like privacy were never considered. Then the narrative got sidetracked into "glassholes" and the product could never get traction among the public. It never had a compelling use case. Cool hardware alone isn't enough.

Speaking of compelling use cases, I think 3D video recording will be big. By this I don't mean VP will be successful because of it, as I think it'll be on high-end phones as well as most future headsets. The ability to record memories of loved ones for posterity, and replaying them "as if you were there," is, if not priceless, worth at least a considerable amount. I'm surprised not more AR products have considered this angle.

>Well, I'm thinking it'll be Meta and Google stepping up to challenge Apple.

As said, I'm not big on Meta's chances. If the tens of billions spent can only result something as bad as WorkPlace and amputated cartoony avatars, and as anemic an app library as the Quest Store, I don't think any amount of hardware can make a difference.

Google is the obvious choice, to repeat its Android to Apple's iPhone moment. Apple's premium leaning will always mean there needs to be somebody to serve the "non-premium" segment. There's already reports that Samsung is developing a headset to compete with VP, and Google is collaborating. I hope to see some smoke.

Will Samsung unveil its new VR headset before the end of 2023?

Samsung, Google and Qualcomm are working together on an XR headset. There was news about the date and operating system at the IO conference.

mixed-news.com

I'm not counting Microsoft out. MS missed the boat on smartphones and spent years trying to find the Next Big Thing. Nadella is more competent than Ballmer and Gates, and I expect a more proactive approach this time around.

>I wonder if someone will finally buy Magic Leap. Maybe Samsung?

Samsung is buying a micro-OLED vendor called eMagin that "SadlyItsBradley" is hyped about.

View: https://youtu.be/eOtuMMi9LX4

 

[bit_user]

VP isn't revolutionary hardware-wise, it just take hardware to the next level, in both functionality and cost.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. AR is very hard to do really well, and it seems like Vision Pro does exactly that. However, it sounds as though they're not using lightfield displays, making it less revolutionary than something like Magic Leap.

As for cost, it's right there with Hololens 2, Magic Leap 2, and several commercial-grade VR HMDs. The reason everyone's mind is blown is that they're mistakenly comparing it to consumer VR HMDs. Most people don't know much (or anything) about Hololens or Magic Leap, making this seem like a unicorn, but it's not.

With sufficient motivation (read: racing to win the next computing platform), VP's hardware edge can be matched.

Not easily. Maybe Meta can do it, with all the experience and resources they have, but they seem to have cut way back on their metaverse ambitions and so I'm not convinced there's budget or appetite to make the investments needed to do so.

As for Google, I could see them partner with someone like HTC, Lenovo, or maybe Samsung. I think Google doesn't want to develop the hardware, but their AR Core is probably the strongest competition Apple has.

Ditto Google Glass. Google didn't really have a vision for it.

That's a completely bogus comparison. It was a research project, made in very limited quantities. Never sold to the general public, and not AR in any real sense.

The company made the hardware and basically handed it over to devs and let them figure out the use cases.

Yes, that was exactly the point of it.

Implications like privacy were never considered.

Unlikely. It did have a LED that indicated when video was being recorded.

Perhaps they had internal disagreements about other aspects, and just decided to commence with their project as a way to help inform future decisions.

Speaking of compelling use cases, I think 3D video recording will be big.

Why? It's pretty useless unless mass adoption of HMDs takes off, or maybe 3D TVs make a comeback (on a cold day in hell, no less).

Lytro made lightfield cameras that could do a limited amount of after-the-fact refocusing and reframing. It wasn't enough, and they went belly-up in pretty short order.

The ability to record memories of loved ones for posterity, and replaying them "as if you were there," is, if not priceless, worth at least a considerable amount.

Playing them on a 2D screen won't offer much you don't already get with a 2D recording.

I'm surprised not more AR products have considered this angle.

Don't they? Doesn't Hololens offer video recording? It's not like there are a ton of other AR products of that caliber, you know?

I'm not counting Microsoft out. MS missed the boat on smartphones and spent years trying to find the Next Big Thing. Nadella is more competent than Ballmer and Gates, and I expect a more proactive approach this time around.

It doesn't make sense that they would kill off their Hololens team, only to do a 180 and bring them right back. Vision Pro was like the worst-kept secret in Apple's history. Everyone knew it was coming, and that it'd be good when it finally launched. It seems implausible that its utterly predictable and well-predicted launch would change Microsoft's calculus.