That imo has been the issue with VR/AR for a while now. The Hardware as you said is pretty good by now and looking at something like the quest even afforable. What’s lacking is content and use cases.
Smartphones had an easier time being adopted, since it was just moving from a larger to a smaller screen. But VR/AR actually needs a new type of content to make use of it’s capabilities. And there you run into a chicken/egg problem, where no one is putting in the effort (and vr content is harder to produce) without a large user base.
Just games and some office stuff (that you can do just as well on a regular pc) aren’t cutting it. You’d need stuff like every major sport event being broadcast with unique content, e.g. formula one with the ability to put yourself into the driver seat of any car.
You’ve nailed it. Ordinarily, Apple is good at throwing its weight (money) around to make things like this happen, but it seems like there weren’t many takers this go-round, so we just got an overpriced, beautiful and fascinating paperweight.
That’s why the biggest use case for VR has been gaming and metaverses. It’s a ready-to-go thing that adapts well, but it’s certainly not for everyone. For my part, I’m saving up for a PS VR2, because it’s adding PC support soon and I already own a PS5 as well. Far, far cheaper than Apple’s device, and likely quite good still.
Ordinarily, Apple is good at throwing its weight (money) around to make things like this happen, but it seems like there weren’t many takers this go-round, so we just got an overpriced, beautiful and fascinating paperweight.
Yeah normally Apple is maybe the only company that has the scale and control over their ecosystem to force rapid adoption. But this was clearly not a consumer product aimed at capturing the masses, but more or less a dev kit sold to anyone willing to shell out the price.
The PS VR2 sounds nice, but feels like it is only aimed at the gaming market and even there sony only captures a fraction.
The Quest as a standalone device imo really would have the best shot at mass market adoption, but Facebook rightfully has an image problem. And despite spending so much on development doesn’t seem to create any content or incentivize others to do so.
Edit: actually kind of forgot “bigscreenVR”. I am somewhat surprised that the default is to cram all hardware into the headset making it much bulkier instead of a seperate piece on a belt, back, or maybe strap on your upper arm.
Yeah, I’m pretty convinced we need to be able to make the headsets lighter, and put more compute in an accessory and have the headset just do low complexity stuff like low latency last-millisecond angle adjustments to frames as you move.
To be fair, they have a similar problem with iPad, but they can flog those at a price point where many people are happy to grab one to see how they can make it fit.
The overarching opinion of iPads is that they’re just big iPhones, and because they can share apps, it took a long time to get to where we are now, where most iPad apps are actually developed for it. But ultimately, they’re still iPhone apps, just rejigged to take advantage of the bigger screen. As someone with an iPad and a MacBook, who’s had a really good go at making an iPad my main computer, the platform just isn’t there. So if I do use it, it’s always in the knowledge that what I’m doing is probably easier on my Mac.
VisionPro feels the same to me. Sure, I could surround myself with work, but pinching and tapping nothing in the air has zero tactility and is far less satisfying than clicking a mouse and typing on a keyboard. And comes with having to wear a headset. So in the end, most people will just do the work on their Mac.
When the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift first came out, the rift didn’t yet have full-room support. You had to sit facing the base station and use a video game controller. Meanwhile, on Vive, you could stand up, walk around, and manipulate the world with two tracked remotes.
One pro-con comparison I read at the time actually listed needing to walk around the room as a con against HTC. That is the whole point of VR.
I think the core issue is that every piece of new technology so far has helped us get lazier. People used to walk around an office, then they sat at a computer, now they carry their computer with them and do things from the couch.
Nobody wants to get up to do things if they can avoid it, and that’s the only real benefit VR/AR provides.
Meanwhile, on Vive, you could stand up, walk around, and manipulate the world with two tracked remotes.
Issue is that if I remember correctly the vive was an outside-in concept that required base stations to be setup. So you lose the cable, but are still bound by location. And importantly also needs a pc aswell. So still far away from standalone.
I think the core issue is that every piece of new technology so far has helped us get lazier. People used to walk around an office, then they sat at a computer, now they carry their computer with them and do things from the couch.
Nobody wants to get up to do things if they can avoid it, and that’s the only real benefit VR/AR provides
But I think VR/AR could make us lazier:
For VR the promise is immersion. You get to experience a concert, sport event, unique experience or exotic place from your own living room. And for many of that it is just fine to sit on a couch and still have a benefit from the technology.
For AR i think it’s a bit more productivity focused. For example less need to train personel, if you can project every instruction into their field of view.
Issue is that if I remember correctly the vive was an outside-in concept that required base stations to be setup
But that wasn’t the complaint levied. They were literally complaining about needing to walk around.
And for many of that it is just fine to sit on a couch and still have a benefit from the technology.
But everyone knows the people watching at home on traditional 2D TV get the best view. Zooms on the players/performers, slow-mo recap, etc. I can’t imagine the nausea of having your entire field of view warped across the court to see every special angle. Not to mention, until whatever VR app has a plug in for every thing you’d want to do on your phone while you’re watching the game, you’re stuck paying 100% of your attention to the sport.
Hell, even the people at the concert or sporting event spend half their time on their phone.
That would actually be super interesting. Yeah, let me switch between cams on cars, pit crews, stands, helicopter etc., with real sound where possible. Hell yeah.
This may be true for AR, but it is emphatically not true for VR. There are dozens of amazing games that are extremely addictive and fun. Steam VR is no joke, it’s a very solid store these days.
Compare it to an industry that publishes over 10 thousand games every year, on Steam alone. Then you start to understand how VR is just a niche hobbyist toy. Not a mainstream product. Making VR experiences is several times harder while also aiming at a minuscule tiny market. VR is perhaps today on par to where general computing and gaming was in the 70s. Neat concept, not enough use cases and product development, still way too cumbersome and expensive.
as a VR enthusiast: if the had just added controllers it would have made it so much more useable.
No matter how good your gesture controlls are, it still greatly limits its use. Theres a reason we use mice and styluses with computers, instead of touch and mid-air gestures!
Are there still no 3rd party controllers? It seems like controllers like the quest pro has (that can track themselves) would be an easy match. I guess meta is spending millions on development though, so it’s probably not something easily made by a small company.
I would think Bluetooth should provide enough bandwidth, but IDK if apple’s OS is configurable enough to support something like that.
It’s quite predictable. This is the same story that’s been told over and over: “it’s really cool but not really practical”. Pick it up and play with it for a few weeks, then get bored and never touch it again. iVR certainly moved VR forward but it didn’t solve any of the fundamental problems that VR has had since its inception.
VR has 1 practical application, and that is gaming, and Apple has very little in the world of gaming outside of super basic 2D games.
VR in its current form, I agree, has only one real use.
But when improved upon and made smaller, I could easily see it being used to watch TV or similar. I’ve done that on a few flights and it was decent.
Not to mention, VR is a necessary step to get to AR, and AR has many more applications. Screens with anything anywhere, for one. Imagine a computer with one monitor, but numerous virtual monitors. Or a TV on your ceiling.
It’s iterative. Gaming just happens to be the current driver.
Human will immediately adopt anything they can carry with them. But humans have a very strong repulsion to adopting anything they have to wear or in general have permanently on them. It is uncomfortable, it is hot, it is annoying, it is visible, it is a wall between them and the world. There are people who don’t wear their correction glasses because they don’t like having something on their faces. There are people who don’t even withstand contact glasses. There are deaf people who refuse to use hearing implants. Wrist watches are tolerated because they are more peripheral and easier to remove.
This is a way more fundamental flaw on the concept of VR than technology, applications, software availability, etc. You can make VR as tiny and practical as contact glasses and people will still refuse to adopt it.
I use mine daily… primarily as a monitor for my laptop.
Now you might think that’s dumb, but I can go sit outside in the backyard, park, beach, coffee shop, wherever and work on a big, totally private, crisp and clear, glare-free anywhere monitor. I can bring it to the in-laws or on trips and even use it as a monitor for my Steam Deck. Or I can lay in bed or on the sofa or on a lawn chair and use the Steam Link app to play games from my PC.
Taken purely as a private, portable, omni-monitor, it’s absolutely worth the price for me.
As an AR/MR/XR device, it has some MAJOR software problems. Honestly, it makes sense they’d pause hardware development… it’ll be a couple years before there’s anything worth upgrading and they have a long way to go on UX, gestures, inputs, and even basic real-time object recognition and tracking. I bought mine knowing it was a Development Kit and planning to use it to get ahead on AR development experience, but I hit major roadblocks so frequently I’ve just about given up on every interesting use-case I went into this with.
VisionOS 2 is a baby step forward, but Apple has a long, long way to go before it makes sense for regular people. Heck, they aren’t even including all the cool new AI features in VisionOS 2, and it’s the one device that could benefit from that stuff the most.
So, yeah… it can still be worth it to certain people with specific use-cases, but I think it’ll be a solid 5 years before the software and hardware can reach a “normal consumer” level of quality and value.
This is the reason I want one. I really want to take a long haul flight with one paired to my wireless keychron with Mx blue switches, and proceed to code for the entire flight.
Used or owned? I own one and bought several for my company and they’re not useless at all. They’re just limited in the AR/VR experiences you can do right now. As a computer, productivity, and production device, it’s far from useless.
DARPA is going to have to play with this for a while before it gets to a point where it’s actually useful to the general public. And they are playing with it.
“Hey look what we could do at six times the price point” isn’t a flex, it’s stupidity.
Like why not just release Apple brand Skis, or team up with Nike and make some shoes, or Jewelry if you want to do high priced stuff rich idiots pay for.
It’s a flex because the vision pro has the best optics and display technology ever made. It’s stupid because it has no use. It’s not a flex because it’s expensive, it’s expensive because it’s a flex, if that makes sense.
Everyone I’ve talked to that has used a Vision Pro has said it’s an incredible piece of magical technology, but it’s utterly useless.
It’s literally just Apple flexing.
That imo has been the issue with VR/AR for a while now. The Hardware as you said is pretty good by now and looking at something like the quest even afforable. What’s lacking is content and use cases.
Smartphones had an easier time being adopted, since it was just moving from a larger to a smaller screen. But VR/AR actually needs a new type of content to make use of it’s capabilities. And there you run into a chicken/egg problem, where no one is putting in the effort (and vr content is harder to produce) without a large user base.
Just games and some office stuff (that you can do just as well on a regular pc) aren’t cutting it. You’d need stuff like every major sport event being broadcast with unique content, e.g. formula one with the ability to put yourself into the driver seat of any car.
You’ve nailed it. Ordinarily, Apple is good at throwing its weight (money) around to make things like this happen, but it seems like there weren’t many takers this go-round, so we just got an overpriced, beautiful and fascinating paperweight.
That’s why the biggest use case for VR has been gaming and metaverses. It’s a ready-to-go thing that adapts well, but it’s certainly not for everyone. For my part, I’m saving up for a PS VR2, because it’s adding PC support soon and I already own a PS5 as well. Far, far cheaper than Apple’s device, and likely quite good still.
Yeah normally Apple is maybe the only company that has the scale and control over their ecosystem to force rapid adoption. But this was clearly not a consumer product aimed at capturing the masses, but more or less a dev kit sold to anyone willing to shell out the price.
The PS VR2 sounds nice, but feels like it is only aimed at the gaming market and even there sony only captures a fraction.
The Quest as a standalone device imo really would have the best shot at mass market adoption, but Facebook rightfully has an image problem. And despite spending so much on development doesn’t seem to create any content or incentivize others to do so.
Edit: actually kind of forgot “bigscreenVR”. I am somewhat surprised that the default is to cram all hardware into the headset making it much bulkier instead of a seperate piece on a belt, back, or maybe strap on your upper arm.
Yeah, I’m pretty convinced we need to be able to make the headsets lighter, and put more compute in an accessory and have the headset just do low complexity stuff like low latency last-millisecond angle adjustments to frames as you move.
To be fair, they have a similar problem with iPad, but they can flog those at a price point where many people are happy to grab one to see how they can make it fit.
The overarching opinion of iPads is that they’re just big iPhones, and because they can share apps, it took a long time to get to where we are now, where most iPad apps are actually developed for it. But ultimately, they’re still iPhone apps, just rejigged to take advantage of the bigger screen. As someone with an iPad and a MacBook, who’s had a really good go at making an iPad my main computer, the platform just isn’t there. So if I do use it, it’s always in the knowledge that what I’m doing is probably easier on my Mac.
VisionPro feels the same to me. Sure, I could surround myself with work, but pinching and tapping nothing in the air has zero tactility and is far less satisfying than clicking a mouse and typing on a keyboard. And comes with having to wear a headset. So in the end, most people will just do the work on their Mac.
When the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift first came out, the rift didn’t yet have full-room support. You had to sit facing the base station and use a video game controller. Meanwhile, on Vive, you could stand up, walk around, and manipulate the world with two tracked remotes.
One pro-con comparison I read at the time actually listed needing to walk around the room as a con against HTC. That is the whole point of VR.
I think the core issue is that every piece of new technology so far has helped us get lazier. People used to walk around an office, then they sat at a computer, now they carry their computer with them and do things from the couch.
Nobody wants to get up to do things if they can avoid it, and that’s the only real benefit VR/AR provides.
Issue is that if I remember correctly the vive was an outside-in concept that required base stations to be setup. So you lose the cable, but are still bound by location. And importantly also needs a pc aswell. So still far away from standalone.
But I think VR/AR could make us lazier:
For VR the promise is immersion. You get to experience a concert, sport event, unique experience or exotic place from your own living room. And for many of that it is just fine to sit on a couch and still have a benefit from the technology.
For AR i think it’s a bit more productivity focused. For example less need to train personel, if you can project every instruction into their field of view.
But that wasn’t the complaint levied. They were literally complaining about needing to walk around.
But everyone knows the people watching at home on traditional 2D TV get the best view. Zooms on the players/performers, slow-mo recap, etc. I can’t imagine the nausea of having your entire field of view warped across the court to see every special angle. Not to mention, until whatever VR app has a plug in for every thing you’d want to do on your phone while you’re watching the game, you’re stuck paying 100% of your attention to the sport.
Hell, even the people at the concert or sporting event spend half their time on their phone.
That would actually be super interesting. Yeah, let me switch between cams on cars, pit crews, stands, helicopter etc., with real sound where possible. Hell yeah.
This may be true for AR, but it is emphatically not true for VR. There are dozens of amazing games that are extremely addictive and fun. Steam VR is no joke, it’s a very solid store these days.
…and 99% of them are tech demos.
Compare it to an industry that publishes over 10 thousand games every year, on Steam alone. Then you start to understand how VR is just a niche hobbyist toy. Not a mainstream product. Making VR experiences is several times harder while also aiming at a minuscule tiny market. VR is perhaps today on par to where general computing and gaming was in the 70s. Neat concept, not enough use cases and product development, still way too cumbersome and expensive.
as a VR enthusiast: if the had just added controllers it would have made it so much more useable.
No matter how good your gesture controlls are, it still greatly limits its use. Theres a reason we use mice and styluses with computers, instead of touch and mid-air gestures!
Are there still no 3rd party controllers? It seems like controllers like the quest pro has (that can track themselves) would be an easy match. I guess meta is spending millions on development though, so it’s probably not something easily made by a small company.
I would think Bluetooth should provide enough bandwidth, but IDK if apple’s OS is configurable enough to support something like that.
It’s quite predictable. This is the same story that’s been told over and over: “it’s really cool but not really practical”. Pick it up and play with it for a few weeks, then get bored and never touch it again. iVR certainly moved VR forward but it didn’t solve any of the fundamental problems that VR has had since its inception.
VR has 1 practical application, and that is gaming, and Apple has very little in the world of gaming outside of super basic 2D games.
VR in its current form, I agree, has only one real use.
But when improved upon and made smaller, I could easily see it being used to watch TV or similar. I’ve done that on a few flights and it was decent.
Not to mention, VR is a necessary step to get to AR, and AR has many more applications. Screens with anything anywhere, for one. Imagine a computer with one monitor, but numerous virtual monitors. Or a TV on your ceiling.
It’s iterative. Gaming just happens to be the current driver.
Human will immediately adopt anything they can carry with them. But humans have a very strong repulsion to adopting anything they have to wear or in general have permanently on them. It is uncomfortable, it is hot, it is annoying, it is visible, it is a wall between them and the world. There are people who don’t wear their correction glasses because they don’t like having something on their faces. There are people who don’t even withstand contact glasses. There are deaf people who refuse to use hearing implants. Wrist watches are tolerated because they are more peripheral and easier to remove.
This is a way more fundamental flaw on the concept of VR than technology, applications, software availability, etc. You can make VR as tiny and practical as contact glasses and people will still refuse to adopt it.
I use mine daily… primarily as a monitor for my laptop.
Now you might think that’s dumb, but I can go sit outside in the backyard, park, beach, coffee shop, wherever and work on a big, totally private, crisp and clear, glare-free anywhere monitor. I can bring it to the in-laws or on trips and even use it as a monitor for my Steam Deck. Or I can lay in bed or on the sofa or on a lawn chair and use the Steam Link app to play games from my PC.
Taken purely as a private, portable, omni-monitor, it’s absolutely worth the price for me.
As an AR/MR/XR device, it has some MAJOR software problems. Honestly, it makes sense they’d pause hardware development… it’ll be a couple years before there’s anything worth upgrading and they have a long way to go on UX, gestures, inputs, and even basic real-time object recognition and tracking. I bought mine knowing it was a Development Kit and planning to use it to get ahead on AR development experience, but I hit major roadblocks so frequently I’ve just about given up on every interesting use-case I went into this with.
VisionOS 2 is a baby step forward, but Apple has a long, long way to go before it makes sense for regular people. Heck, they aren’t even including all the cool new AI features in VisionOS 2, and it’s the one device that could benefit from that stuff the most.
So, yeah… it can still be worth it to certain people with specific use-cases, but I think it’ll be a solid 5 years before the software and hardware can reach a “normal consumer” level of quality and value.
This is the reason I want one. I really want to take a long haul flight with one paired to my wireless keychron with Mx blue switches, and proceed to code for the entire flight.
I’m not sure if you’re joking but it’s hilarious either way.
I can’t hear you over the din of the kali box whites and the screaming child, what did you say?
Then it’s just useless…
The blackberry was the exact opposite, it was an unpolished piece of ugly hardware that was, at the time, incredibly useful
Pretty tech that accomplishes nothing is akin to the garbage toy lights they peddled to kids in Disney… Just landfill e-waste
Used or owned? I own one and bought several for my company and they’re not useless at all. They’re just limited in the AR/VR experiences you can do right now. As a computer, productivity, and production device, it’s far from useless.
Blue Steel Look intensifies
DARPA is going to have to play with this for a while before it gets to a point where it’s actually useful to the general public. And they are playing with it.
DARPA hasn’t been an innovator in decades. Their budget is pathetic compared to Apple.
“Hey look what we could do at six times the price point” isn’t a flex, it’s stupidity.
Like why not just release Apple brand Skis, or team up with Nike and make some shoes, or Jewelry if you want to do high priced stuff rich idiots pay for.
It’s a flex because the vision pro has the best optics and display technology ever made. It’s stupid because it has no use. It’s not a flex because it’s expensive, it’s expensive because it’s a flex, if that makes sense.
Best display technology ever made??
Extremely high density pixels