News Apple Shows Off Vision Pro XR Headset at WWDC

[Sippincider]

And Microsoft has its Office apps ready to go

Heh, spreadsheets and PowerPoint for a $3500 headset is exactly something MS would do.

Besides maybe in-house apps in Fortune 50 companies, who's really going to develop for what'll be a very niche and low-volume platform?

 

[bit_user]

the only reason the Index is not XR is because Valve never officially developed anything for the front cameras.

You can't possibly presume Valve's AR to be perfect, absent any data to the contrary. A lot of ingredients are needed to make AR good. Maybe the reason Valve didn't provide AR functionality is that they were missing some of those key ingredients.

Apple has been pouring absolutely astounding amounts of resources into AR, for like the past 5 years. Their AR Kit on iPhones shows how advanced their tech is. The article mentioned how their AR object pick up natural lighting and shadows from the environment. Such features require highly sophisticated algorithms and implementations.

I has full 3D pass-through with depth in it, which is more than other headsets released earlier and after can say.

Merely pass-through? That's just a matter of having 2 cameras instead of one. It says nothing about how good their AR would be.

So, if you want to be pedantic, Valve already put an XR headset in 2018, but with zero support.

Doesn't show AR being occluded by objects in the real world. Toy feature.

If that's your standard for AR, then I guess Apple could've saved some money by leaving out the LIDAR sensors.

 

[baboma]

As the saying goes, if you have to talk about price, it's not for you. Move along.

To anyone who has been following this, it's long been known that this particular iteration is not a (mainstream) consumer device, not at $3.5K. So stop with the price wrangling.

What it is, is a first necessary step. To get developers onboard, to start creating stuff and build out the ecosystem. To get early adopters & influencers onboard, to start to createmindshare for AR/VR (XR) outside of gaming. It's not the device itself that matters, but the follow-up work to build up the platform. We'll see if Apple can do it. Meta has pretty much flopped with its Metaverse.

Every other company have taken the same steps. Google Glass, at $1500, was also a developer's device. Meta Quest Pro (its main foray outside of the gaming market) was priced at the same $1.5K. Microsoft HoloLens 2 was also $3.5K. The main distinction between these and the sub-$500 ones are that they aim for more than gaming--a general-purpose tech device that aspires to be next computing platform, after the smartphone. None have yet succeeded. Apple probably has the best shot.

If Apple does manage a breakthrough in mainstream XR headsets, my sentiment is that others (those above) can and will quickly follow with their own ecosystems, given that they have substantial investments and existing products in that field.

Personal thoughts:

I think one critical factor is whether the headset is high-res enough to allow multiple (computer) screen use with text, as touted in the demo. That would be the first killer-app use in my mind, outside of any other use.

>Except for movie watching at home, which admittedly does look like a great experience.

Some of the enjoyment from watching movies at home is the communal experience with the family. That would be lost with a headset. OTOH, we need to weigh it against the positives of surround/3D audio and video that replicates the theater experience.

As has been pointed out, the 2-hr battery limit is a constraint, as some movies are longer. But it's a solvable problem.

 

[bit_user]

As has been pointed out, the 2-hr battery limit is a constraint, as some movies are longer. But it's a solvable problem.

They said you can plug it in to get around battery life limitations, which is probably what you'd do when watching movies.

 

[-Fran-]

You can't possibly presume Valve's AR to be perfect, absent any data to the contrary. A lot of ingredients are needed to make AR good. Maybe the reason Valve didn't provide AR functionality is that they were missing some of those key ingredients.

Apple has been pouring absolutely astounding amounts of resources into AR, for like the past 5 years. Their AR Kit on iPhones shows how advanced their tech is. The article mentioned how their AR object pick up natural lighting and shadows from the environment. Such features require highly sophisticated algorithms and implementations.


Merely pass-through? That's just a matter of having 2 cameras instead of one. It says nothing about how good their AR would be.


Doesn't show AR being occluded by objects in the real world. Toy feature.

If that's your standard for AR, then I guess Apple could've saved some money by leaving out the LIDAR sensors.

Come on... I never said anything remotely close to qualifying the "AR" experience with the Index. I even said THEY SHIPPED WITH NOTHING DEVELOPED FOR IT. Why are you making such a gigantic logical leap? Don't be disingenuous.

My point revolves around what you bring up next: Valve has already had experience building an AR device, even if they didn't actually [officially] release software to make use of the AR capabilities in-house. If you watch the video I linked, the AR experience offered by regular people using the API Valve released for interfacing with the cameras and a dropped project from Google, you get quite a good amount of AR functionality with, what I'd like to say, little effort. Then there's more things with the trackers functionality to convert objects in the real world into the VR environment:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXK0BDMGa_Q


I've already posted that one, but here we go again.

And finally: keep in mind time. The Index released in 2019 (4 years ago; FOUR YEARS AGO) and Valve wanted to add AR, but for some reason didn't (I have an idea why though: not their core audience/market). All leaks and rumours about the next HMD from Valve points to be full XR with an open ecosystem for people to build into it, supporting Linux and Windows. Maybe even MacOS/iOS if Apple wants, but we'll see.

If you ask me, I do believe, quite strongly, Valve has a better chance at putting something way more compelling than most companies out there because of how friggen good the Index was on release and how they've been building on top of it, little by little. And keep in mind the HMD, while it needs the lighthouse system (base stations) to operate, it's a $500 USD unit by itself and they may keep using the base stations for the next iteration and support a stand-alone mode.

I'll stop here, as I believe I made my points.

Regards.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

Apple has unveiled its new VR/AR headset, Vision Pro, at WWDC23.

Apple Shows Off Vision Pro XR Headset at WWDC : Read more

Unimpressive piece of tech as far as AR or VR go but I'm sure enough Apple converts will buy one to justify this.

Yep. Hahah... $3500. That's Apple... I'm sure the same guys who buy the iMacs with 1TB SSDs for $4000 will be buying this headset. 🤣 🤣 🤣

These goggles read good on paper, just not $3.5K good.

Eye tracking, the OLED panels and their pancake lenses are topnotch, but that's basically what you'd expect for any headset nowadays north of $1.5K and the Quest Pro has most of these features for half the price, including the "no controller" support while still able to support them.

Agreed... I just got the Quest Pro a couple weeks ago... $999 was definitely pricey but it's a solid upgrade over the Quest 2. Way cheaper than this too.

$3500 for the Apple headset? Hahahah!

 

[TheOtherOne]

And just like that, Apple has "invented" Virtual Reality!
And since they are the first one to do it, the price is not only justified but also adds to the excitement of something fresh, new and innovative.

 

[Giroro]

As the saying goes, if you have to talk about price, it's not for you. Move along.

To anyone who has been following this, it's long been known that this particular iteration is not a (mainstream) consumer device, not at $3.5K. So stop with the price wrangling.

What it is, is a first necessary step. To get developers onboard, to start creating stuff and build out the ecosystem. To get early adopters & influencers onboard, to start to createmindshare for AR/VR (XR) outside of gaming. It's not the device itself that matters, but the follow-up work to build up the platform. We'll see if Apple can do it. Meta has pretty much flopped with its Metaverse.

Every other company have taken the same steps. Google Glass, at $1500, was also a developer's device. Meta Quest Pro (its main foray outside of the gaming market) was priced at the same $1.5K. Microsoft HoloLens 2 was also $3.5K. The main distinction between these and the sub-$500 ones are that they aim for more than gaming--a general-purpose tech device that aspires to be next computing platform, after the smartphone. None have yet succeeded. Apple probably has the best shot.

If Apple does manage a breakthrough in mainstream XR headsets, my sentiment is that others (those above) can and will quickly follow with their own ecosystems, given that they have substantial investments and existing products in that field.

Personal thoughts:

I think one critical factor is whether the headset is high-res enough to allow multiple (computer) screen use with text, as touted in the demo. That would be the first killer-app use in my mind, outside of any other use.

>Except for movie watching at home, which admittedly does look like a great experience.

Some of the enjoyment from watching movies at home is the communal experience with the family. That would be lost with a headset. OTOH, we need to weigh it against the positives of surround/3D audio and video that replicates the theater experience.

As has been pointed out, the 2-hr battery limit is a constraint, as some movies are longer. But it's a solvable problem.

Imagine if the first ipod cost $2000, with the intention to "build mindshare" and "attract developers"... And also the main sales pitch was "you can store and view text documents, and we hope some third party figures out how to make this play music, someday".

It would have flopped so hard that the consumer version, and every competing mp3 player, would have been cancelled. It would have set digital media back by at least 5 years. Mini Disc would have been a big deal. We wouldn't have found out about mp3s until after we all bought PSPs specifically for it's UMD player.

That is what makes this Apple headset problematic, especially for people who like VR. It's certain doom for VR/AR for at least the next 5 years. VR headsets as we know them are probably never going to get another generation. Every major investor in the tech is going to look at this and pull out, saying "if Apple can't turn this into a marketable product, then nobody can".
Somebody will figure it all out eventually, but now it's going to take way longer.

 

[baboma]

>Imagine if the first ipod cost $2000, with the intention to "build mindshare" and "attract developers"

Poor comparison. The iPod is built on an existing use case--MP3 players are already in abundance by then. It doesn't need to create a market, or wrangle developers to build out an platform/ecosystem for it. The iPod is cheap because it is a simple single-purpose device (remember: cheap MP3 players), not a general-purpose device whose tech is still not yet fully realized, and requires billions of dollars in R&D.

There is a reason full-function AR/VR headsets cost thousands, not just for Apple, but for every company who has tried. They have to first build out the tech. That's why the Apple demo focuses not just on entertainment/gaming, but also work/productivity. The audience for this iteration will be devs, and business/enterprise. If the use case is solid enough, $3.5K is reasonable.

Your (and others') issue with the price is that you are looking at this as the average consumer. That audience is not yet there.

>That is what makes this Apple headset problematic, especially for people who like VR.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and many others, pundits and otherwise, have made theirs known. I don't think opinions matter much here, just execution. If Apple can execute and deliver on some of its touted features, then it has a good chance. Apple users are usd to paying a premium for their products, and whatever consumer-level device that will come out will undoubtedly cost a premium. (I'm thinking $1K to $1.5K, on par with iPhone Pro.) But the use case has to be compelling, and the user experience has to be good.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

I don't think opinions matter much here, just execution. If Apple can execute and deliver on some of its touted features, then it has a good chance. Apple users are usd to paying a premium for their products, and whatever consumer-level device that will come out will undoubtedly cost a premium. (I'm thinking $1K to $1.5K, on par with iPhone Pro.) But the use case has to be compelling, and the user experience has to be good.

I got an iPod many years ago... first iPhone was the iPhone 5... AirPods... most recently AirPods Max... iPhone 14 Plus...

They do make quality products. I don't see a $3500 VR headset taking off though... much like I didn't see the Disney Galactic Starcruiser Hotel in Orlando taking off either... and after less than 2 years it's closing because paying $6000 for a 2 night stay at a hotel is out of the budget for most. Disney for whatever reason thought otherwise and their cash grab failed at a historic level.

I don't see anyone in their right mind paying $3500 for a VR headset when pretty much every other headset out there costs way less and has similar/same features. I paid $1000 for the Quest Pro recently and I thought that was a bit much but considering it was $1500 a few months ago I felt a lot better about it.

Yes, I have a 4090... but this isn't the same comparison and that's because the 4090 I paid $1700 for is much better than anything else on the market. Why would I paid $3500 for a VR headset when I can get the Quest Pro for $1000?

I could be way off though. I mean... we have guys paying $4000 for their iMac or MacBook Pro with 16GB of ram and a 1TB SSD where there are so many cheaper alternatives with better parts out there be it laptops or a PC you build yourself. 🤣 🤣 That's a big premium to pay for a product with an Apple logo on it... which is the same thing that would happen with this $3500 VR headset.

 

[JamesJones44]

I think one critical factor is whether the headset is high-res enough to allow multiple (computer) screen use with text, as touted in the demo. That would be the first killer-app use in my mind, outside of any other use.

The devil is for sure in the details of this. I could be revolutionary or it could be Microsoft Bob. It's really hard to say until we can experience it.

 

[baboma]

>I don't see a $3500 VR headset taking off though...

I don't disagree, and neither would Apple (per its internal messages.) This first product doesn't need to sell well, it just need to sell well enough to establish a foothold with devs, and form a nascent ecosystem. Think of it as a stepping stone toward an actual consumer product.

>I don't see anyone in their right mind paying $3500 for a VR headset when pretty much every other headset out there costs way less and has similar/same features.

What other headsets are there that have most of the features touted in the Apple demo?

Reviews of the Quest Pro pegged it as a meh product. I think most damning is that nobody bought into Zuckerberg's vision of the metaverse. It was actually ridiculed. Meta employees don't use it. There is no compelling use case, aside for gaming--which means it's basically a better-specced, overpriced Quest. That's why its price dropped.


We can ask the question, "why now?" And the answer is the same as Meta's. Every big tech co is looking for the Next Big Thing, and AR/VR computing is the most obvious solution. That, or AI.

Meta needs it because it needs to own its own platform, to avoid becoming dependent on other platform owners for its revenue. Apple needs it because the smartphone is no longer a growth market, and Cook wants his own imprint on Apple. Google and MS, who've both dabbled with AR headsets, are looking toward generative AI to rejuvenate their platforms.

As said, I think Meta flopped hard on its metaverse bit. MS and Google are up next with AI. Then, it'll be Apple's turn in '24-25 with AR.

 

[bit_user]

My point revolves around what you bring up next: Valve has already had experience building an AR device, even if they didn't actually [officially] release software to make use of the AR capabilities in-house. If you watch the video I linked ...

You can't qualify it as an AR device, just because it has a pair of pass-thru cameras. For proper AR, you need good depth extraction and the video you showed (which I had already watched before my last reply) gives no evidence of that.

As I said, by your standards, Apple could've simply left off the LIDAR sensors and saved a bunch of money.

you get quite a good amount of AR functionality with, what I'd like to say, little effort.

AR is not simply VR + showing pass-thru for the background, which is all they showed. AR is having virtual objects appear to exist and interact with objects in real space, which means having high-quality SLAM (with loop closure), good depth extraction, good geometry reconstruction, and (ideally) light modeling. These are hard problems, and that video provides no evidence that Valve is anywhere close to solving any of them.

And finally: keep in mind time. The Index released in 2019 (4 years ago; FOUR YEARS AGO) and Valve wanted to add AR, but for some reason didn't

Apple's AR Kit is much older than that. Last I checked, you don't get credit for merely "wanting" to do something or I'd have credit for doing so much more in my life.

I'll stop here, as I believe I made my points.

Yes, that you believe being a VR geek makes you an AR expert. Clearly, it doesn't.

 

[bit_user]

Imagine if the first ipod cost $2000, with the intention to "build mindshare" and "attract developers"

Bad analogy. iPod didn't run 3rd party apps. VR/AR does. iPod was a platform for software that already existed - music. xR is a platform that mostly requires either new software to be developed, or existing software to be adapted.

VR headsets as we know them are probably never going to get another generation.

VR has its niche uses and those are probably enough to sustain it. VR has been around for 30 years, at least. Each time it improves a little, and broadens its reach. Apple can't kill VR if it wanted to.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

What other headsets are there that have most of the features touted in the Apple demo?

Reviews of the Quest Pro pegged it as a meh product. I think most damning is that nobody bought into Zuckerberg's vision of the metaverse. It was actually ridiculed. Meta employees don't use it. There is no compelling use case, aside for gaming--which means it's basically a better-specced, overpriced Quest. That's why its price dropped.

I didn't watch the demo... I saw the $3500 price tag and I didn't waste my time. I was just going by a comment upthread where someone mentioned the Quest Pro having a lot of the same features and costing a lot less.

I bought the Quest Pro and I could care less about Zuckerberg and his metaverse. I bought it because it was a long overdue upgrade to the Quest 2... and an even longer overdue update to the Rift. What the hell is a metaverse anyway? Just more leftist name changing BS... it was so much better when it was called Oculus.

At any rate... the Quest Pro is a nice headset. Pancake lenses... eye tracking... better controllers with better tracking. Worth $1000? I dunno... I'd say it's easily a $750 headset given the current market. $1000 might be pushing it but I still paid it.

$3500 for the Apple headset? Yeah... good luck with that. It could have a dozen extra features and I still wouldn't pay 3 1/2 times the price of the Quest Pro. As said though... the Apple fanbois who buy their garbage $4000 computers that contain $1500 in hardware just because it has an Apple logo on it will probably make the Apple headset a success.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

VR has its niche uses and those are probably enough to sustain it. VR has been around for 30 years, at least. Each time it improves a little, and broadens its reach. Apple can't kill VR if it wanted to.

1992

View: https://youtu.be/wfHMSqQKg6s


👍 👍

 

[baboma]

>The devil is for sure in the details of this. I could be revolutionary or it could be Microsoft Bob. It's really hard to say until we can experience it.

Yeah, hard to say without a hands-on. Basically, all we have now is based on a well-crafted demo. But we can say that it's Apple, with its reputation backing it up, and that it looks to be a serious effort, with its untold billions backing that up. So, it's worthy of attention on those bases alone. At least until the next major news cycle.

As a tech guy, I'm optimistic for any tech advance, be it AI or AR. That notwithstanding, I do think Apple has a good chance of sticking the AR landing, better than any of the previous entrants so far. I also think that if Apple AR breaks through, those others will jump on the bandwagon fast enough. As with ChatGPT, success breeds a crowd.

 

[bit_user]

I don't see anyone in their right mind paying $3500 for a VR headset when pretty much every other headset out there costs way less and has similar/same features.

It's not just a VR headset, of course. Only true AR headsets have comparable features.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

It's not just a VR headset, of course. Only true AR headsets have comparable features.

The price isn’t right for me… and that’s the first time in a very long time that I’ve said that regarding computer stuff. 🤣🤣

 

[bit_user]

What the hell is a metaverse anyway?

I think of it as something like Second Life. At a corporate level, I think it's seen as a VR-based successor/adjunct to Facebook that's focused on live interaction and experiences.

it was so much better when it was called Oculus.

For me, Oculus died when Facebook bought it and nullified Oculus' promise of openness. I will never develop any apps for Oculus, because I won't join the Facebook walled garden. The only HMD I ever bought was OSVR HDK2, but then OSVR basically fizzled out shortly thereafter.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Reuters got a sneak peek, here are their takeaways as some of this was not covered by Tom's:

- The real world and other people are always present. The default mode while wearing the device is to see the outside world in full color. Even when fully immersed in a virtual world, exterior cameras keep an eye out for other humans. If another person approaches the user, that person starts to materialize through the virtual world.


- Hollywood will likely take an interest. Apple demonstrated a series of "immersive videos", shot on special proprietary cameras where the viewer can step inside and look around.

- The sense of place can be startling. In one video, a tightrope walker suspended between two mountains edges toward the viewer, creating an unsettling urge to look down at an intimidating chasm below. At the same time, the realism can make mundane details look out of place in a polished production, like a cheap plastic water bottle sitting on the piano during a recording session with a famous singer.

- From the outset, Apple has focused on the business case for Vision Pro, demonstrating how to use multiple apps at once in the headset, which is akin to having several high resolution displays. It also showed how two users could share, and manipulate, three-dimensional virtual objects during a conference call. Both are functions that could find some use in the corporate world, where Vision Pro's price tag would sit on cost centers rather than household budgets.

- Video calls will take some getting used to. Apple showed a FaceTime video call between two people wearing the headset. The experience is similar to a standard video call, but uses complicated technology to project an image of the caller, not a conventional face-pointing handset or monitor camera.

- To construct a virtual "persona" of the caller that shows their facial expressions, the system uses pre-loaded pictures combined with data from the Vision Pro's interior eye-tracking system and exterior hand-tracking cameras. But the net effect is human-but-not-quite, a phenomenon robotics experts call the "uncanny valley" effect where faces that resemble humans but are slightly off can make users feel uneasy.

 

[baboma]

Apple did allow a few select bloggers and journalists to have hands-on with the Vision Pro (VP):

I wore the Apple Vision Pro. It’s the best headset demo ever.

Apple’s new don’t-call-it-a-VR-headset is the best riff on some very familiar ideas, but still searching for a purpose.

theverge.com

Apple Vision Pro hands-on: A new milestone for mixed reality, but issues remain

The Vision Pro is undoubtedly the best VR/AR experience we've seen yet, but it still has issues.

engadget.com

In short, some of the salient features, eg being able to read texts on virtual screens, the gradated switching between AR & VR, are as claimed. No mention of screen door effect or FOV limitations. Prelim hands-on consensus is that the VP is indeed the best AR headset to date. Whether that's good enough is still an open question, but at least the hype has substance behind it.

Taking a pulse of the vibe in some of the forums, I do sense some enthusiasm amongst the crowd. The price is a large deterrent, of course. But assuming the hands-on are as positive as the ones above, I could see the VP making penetration into the high-end user demo despite the $3.5K cost. Yes, that means you TravisPNW. For this group, the key isn't really the price, but having them getting excited about one or more features. Excitement trumps cost prudence.

 

[ilukey77]

Totally agree. Except for movie watching at home, which admittedly does look like a great experience, I can't picture anyone walking around while wearing a cumbersome pair of goggles.

not sure $5000aud to watch movies fancy is a great buy but its got me interested only issue is like everything Apple its a throw away product ..

 

[Deleted member 14196]

They should make it look like those googly glasses that you wear for a joke with the huge eyeballs so that others can see your huge eyeballs lol this stuff is ridiculous and nobody’s gonna use it

The Dreidel Company Halloween Drooping Googly Spring Eyes Glasses, Costume, Funny Halloween Dress-Up, Pretend Play Decoration (Single)
https://a.co/d/68fr8Kh

 

[-Fran-]

Great take from Marques:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFvXuyITwBI


Regards.