community background

Tech

Tech
Damien Mason's avatar
Damien Mason

Controversially, I'm going to say neither.

It's not as impressive as it should be, but that's in no small part due to being a first attempt. Spatial apps and use cases are limited at the moment but will grow slowly but surely.

The reason it isn't as wildly overpriced as people think is because it isn't a consumer product. It's squarely aimed at business users. Even the Apple Mac was a business product first before it became a consumer powerhouse. It'll take some time before cut-down versions of the product make it to market.

If you buy it with the aim of using it in your everyday life, you've overpaid. If you buy it as an architectural firm trying to design buildings or showcase your designs to clients, then it's a lot more justified.

EveOnlineTutorials's avatar
EveOnlineTutorials

I don't find this overpriced at all, It is impressive software, but, if anyone has seen or read Ready Player One, it is about the planet Earth where people live in a VR world called The Oasis, where anything and everything is possible, but all actual real "work" in the "real world" no longer exists.

This is my concern with this software, is it going to lead to this level of public integration where people can make more money online in these worlds or programs, than working in the real world? Could it begin to lead to a real-world collapse of industry?

Or, could it help the world's industry and workforce if half the population is in an online world? I know I sound nuts, but it is a VERY real concern for me. If everyone is immersed in an online world, what happens to those who need help and looking after?

The technology is impressive, but it is concerning.

Sturmer's avatar
Sturmer
EveOnlineTutorials

Please allow me to share my opinion on that: With the current trends in AI, I’m skeptical of the notion that one 'can make more money online in these worlds or programs than working in the real world.' This skepticism is based on my observations of the earning potential in hands-on professions. For example, last summer, I was renovating my house and found that the worker who built a wooden frame around my walls earned about the same hourly rate as a regular project manager in an IT company. Professions like blacksmiths, car mechanics, carpenters, and builders aren't just relevant; they are likely to be highly valued in the next couple of decades. The future seems promising for skilled trades

avrona's avatar
avrona

I don't think it's overpriced. The tech inside of it is certainly worth a lot, and the R&D for it certainly isn't cheap. However I just don't think it's worth it, and honestly the launch has been both the most and least Apple thing ever. The attention to detail as always is great, but there are so many first-gen issues and the library of apps and actual use-cases are so small that right now it's just not an appealing product.

As someone who dislikes so much about how Apple does business, there is a part of me that this is a product that may make the spell break for a lot of Apple buyers, and help open their eyes to the type of company Apple is. But I highly doubt it. What's more, as someone who wants VR to finally go a lot more mainstream, Apple is probably the most likely company to make that happen, and build upon what Meta have done in improving the market size.

Alex Sinclair's avatar
Alex SinclairMod
avrona

I'm not a huge Apple fan or anything, but out of interest what's your primary issue with the way they do business?

FUN INC's avatar
FUN INC

Impressively overpriced!

Jokes aside - I think it looks great; but until the pricing is revisited, i think it will not take off in the home.

It all feels a touch minority report from first glance too! :D

Dave's avatar
Dave

I am not keen on VR or augmented reality when using it in practice. A bit of background. I first tried out the Oculus rift dk1 at rezzed at the Birmingham NEC on surgeon simulator. The demo setup used some wierd Razer motion control thing if I remember right. It didn't work well.

A year or 2 later I gave the HTC vive a go at EGX proper and was wowed by it. The room scale demo was incredible!

Since then I have purchased the original Oculus rift at launch with the sensor cameras and tried again with the Oculus Quest. I just don't use them after the initial new experience wears off. In practice in the home they are inconvenient, uncomfortable and isolating to use. Plus you are left with marks on your face after from the pressure of them so you need time for that to go away post usage before you can nip to the shops or whatever.

So at last onto the Apple Vision.... I don't see anything different on offer. This headset is arriving years late into the market. Interest in these devices peaked years ago, probably around the time of the original PlayStation VR headset in my opinion (maybe stats would prove me wrong but that's my gut feeling). It is over engineered with expensive features that appear to offer little benefit v the cost of them. The overall cost is stupidly high. The weight of the headset takes the worst part of past devices, the weight of them on your face and takes it up to another level with heavy materials and even more weight on the front of your face. Despite the weight, they don't even have the battery in there and have the wire running to a separate one.

I agree with other comments here that they are maybe well suited for professional use such as an architect exploring a design or maybe an interior decorator/designer to preview designs in AR and show them off to clients.

*Caveat with the fact I haven't used the Apple Vision so don't have first hand experience...

Sturmer's avatar
Sturmer

I’m going to play devil’s advocate and argue that the Apple Vision Pro is wildly overpriced, a stance that should spark some interesting discussions (I hope).

First, let's consider the history of augmented reality. My research indicates that the concept dates back to 1936 with the introduction of holographic gunsights. Subsequently, aircraft pilots began using tactical UI projections on glass. The 1990s saw many attempts to use helmets and various goggles/visors for data projection.

In 2016, Microsoft introduced the HoloLens, a fairly compact consumer AR device. When comparing the HoloLens with the Apple Vision Pro, they seem similar in size and functionality. However, it's important to note that the HoloLens was developed a decade ago using completely different semiconductor device fabrication processes (28 nm vs. today's 2-3 nm), and there have been several revolutions in battery cells and controllers since then. So, why is the Apple Vision Pro still so bulky, and what technology justifies its high price?

Another aspect to consider is the device's purpose. The initial concept of a gunsight/tactical overlay was to provide crucial data to operators without obstructing their view of reality. The Microsoft HoloLens targeted engineers and specialists, offering additional data to aid in solving complex problems or developing solutions 'on-site' with actual physical objects. However, it's less clear which specific problem the Apple Vision Pro is aiming to solve.

Paul's avatar
Paul

Massively overpriced Apple garbage...They've seen other products get popular and said "lets do that but not as well!".

don't really have much else to say on it.

emoji

Rewards (and other cool stuff) inside!

Not only are there great bounty submissions to check out, but some of the best conversations on the internet are happening here - and our members are getting rewarded for having them. Don't miss out!

sunglasses emojiemoji pointing left
Join now
◤

Communities

Just About

Video Games

EVE Online

Minecraft

Nightingale

Pokémon

WASD

Content Creators

Film & TV

Tech

Books & Comics

Music

Sport

There’s more to love

Help shape the future of our platform as we build the best place to express and enjoy your passions, whatever they may be.

Join now
Emoji

© Just About Community Ltd. 2024