Apple Vision Pro launched at WWDC over a week ago and they showed a lot of clips of normal people wearing it doing (relatively) normal things, like cooking, watching movies, even working at the office.

One clip that really intrigued me was the one where a father was recording his kids in 3D through his Vision Pro. To me, this seemed off at first since to other people, it may not look like you’re present in the moment. But after thinking about it for a while, isn’t it the same as just wearing sunglasses, if not better? Sunglasses block your eyes, but Vision Pro would show your eyes to the outside world.

So I guess the question is, will Apple Vision Pro and subsequent products become widely socially acceptable one day?

  • femboy_link.mp4@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    AR/VR intended for use in public spaces will never take off for as long as the user has to strap an expensive and bulky headset to their face. Things will get interesting once we work out how to get that into the form factor of a pair of regular glasses and bring the price down to under half what Apple is asking now.

  • Wiitigo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am really, really looking forward to AR in general, and I like to think of myself as a proponent and early adopter of new tech.

    That being said, I don’t think we’ll see this gen of Vision take off. In fact, I’m kind of surprised at Apple for even releasing anything. They usually swoop in on newly established tech, do it better, then claim they invented it. Maybe that’s what they’re doing here, but it still feels too early. Until the gear is the size of large-frame sunglasses, I don’t think it’ll be adopted by the masses. Maybe their relegation of this product to the livingroom and workspace will help to prove me wrong.

  • BreakNeckJim@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think if anybody can get VR to be adopted by the masses it would be Apple. However, at this price I just don’t think it’s possible for the majority of people, even Apple Fanboys, to be able to afford.

    If they had released this for $1500 I think that price point would be a lot more enticing for people, especially those who haven’t tried VR before.

  • Monkeyhog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Didn’t we already go through all.of this when Google glasses came out? People were getting their asses kicked for wearing them in public because people didn’t know if they were being recorded or not. It just seems like another instance of Apple taking something that has existed for years and pretend they invented it.

  • OutrageousUmpire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes but give it a few years for the price to come down, and for kinks in the technology to be worked out. The price would need to come down significantly though. They can’t compete with Meta at the price point they are at.

  • mynameisnotdoug@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    isn’t it the same as just wearing sunglasses, if not better?

    Oh man, you just made a bunch of Apple execs have to change their pants.

    No, it’s not. It’s absolutely, 100%, not the same or better. It’s like going to a concert and watching it through your phone as you record it. But worse.

    • 1993_toyota_camry@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree, Doug.

      I think part of the confusion is that it looks like they’re translucent lenses, when in reality there’s no light pass-through.

      What you see while wearing them is video display from the cameras on the front of the goggles. Meanwhile, the cameras inside the goggles capture your eyes and display an image of them on an external screen.

      I think the promotional video is shot in a way that makes this seem a lot less disorienting and creepy than it will be in real life.

  • iraldir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll go against all the comment here and say yes. It looks like apple is delivering a fantastic piece of hardware, and some basic solid features software wise. But the price point also means the user base will be more likely to buy expensive applications, compared to say the Quest. Some predictions

    • Next iPhone will come with dual camera that allow to take 3D scenery, that can only fully be appreciated in the headset.
    • The developer ecosystem will be super active. We know that’s going to be a line of product for at least 10 years, and being the first on the market in your segment can be critical.
    • The price point is of course really high, but a year or so after they’ll announce the Apple Vision (not pro). This will remove some of the decorative feature, such as the outward facing screen that shows your eyes etc. and reduce the price point to maybe 2K. Again, possibly more expensive that people would be ready to pay, but don’t under estimate monthly payment plan elongated over 3 years. In between FOMO, social proof and the actual usefulness it will find its user base.

    And at some point, Samsung, Google, and possibly maybe chinese constructers etc. will come up with their android based alternative. Starting as cheaper / not as good, and slowly catching up and building new features. “Samsung vision, gaming oriented with tracked controllers included”, “Pixel Vision, that integrates with your full suit of google products and give you great quality for less price” etc.

  • Confuzzeled@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s just the way things are going, the problem at the moment is form factor but the end game is to have an ar device that looks as much like a standard pair of glasses as possible.

    I’m old enough to remember what everyone said about the iPhone when it released and I was one of those who scoffed at it, I was using a Nokia maybe the n95 at the time and it could surf the Internet and do everything the iPhone could do and it had a front camera and a keyboard. I thought the iPhone to be an over priced gimmick. Needless to say I was very wrong. Apple have the money and patience to keep iterating on the vision pro to make it cheaper smaller and more accessible. I think it’s great to have them bring so much attention to this space.

  • simple@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Absolutely not. Aside from the fact that it’s a whopping $3500, it’s a first gen product with a 2 hour battery (advertised, probably less in reality) and most of what was shown were gimmicks. Nobody’s going to put on a bulky headset to record videos and browse the internet. If the Meta Quest couldn’t break into the mainstream at less than fifth of the price, this won’t.

    The only reason for the insane hype is “it’s Apple” but I think everyone knows AR headsets aren’t ready for the public yet.

    It reminds me of when people went insane over the Hololens. Granted, this is way more polished, but I see it going in a similar path.

  • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    mass adoption? i doubt it. but it definitely feels like it’s already being taken more seriously than, say, Google Glass was back when. also, if any company was going to break through the stigma (for lack a better word) associated with devices like this, Apple would be one of the first on my list.