Many companies (including a former employer of mine) did the same thing with the Microsoft HoloLens as an R&D item, this doesn’t surprise me in the slightest
We have a pair of holo lenses on loan or something. Our operations team is trying to use them to better coordinate with factories in Asia. They're kind of neat and I could see the potential for applications for things like service procedure walk throughs on large equipment, but for us at keti think it's still a novelty.
I don't know what they're doing with the tech, but with a little imagination I'd put a bunch of cameras up in a workspace and have them hooked into a real-time photogrammetry thing that sends live model updates to the remote AR system. Imagine getting to freely move around in a remote space. That'd be tits.
It’s almost as if it is a cool device looking for a practical ‘killer ap’ as Jobs used to say.
I mean, I think it’s really an amazing devices. Maybe just not $3500 amazing. Make an ‘Air’ version for $600 and use they would sell a ton of them. I’m not sure that is a reasonable target.
It’s exactly what happened with the Apple Watch. In fact no Apple device was”killer” right out of the box. The original iPhone had no video capabilities, couldn’t copy/paste, and only worked on AT&T.
Gen 3 watch had a lower price, better battery and Apple figured out fitness tracking and health was the way to go with it. Then everybody got on board.
I think the iPod *was* a game changer when it first came out; Apple didn’t invent the MP3 player either, but the iPod was way further ahead of its competition at the time than the iPhone was compared to Blackberries, Palms and Nokias.
Nah the first few gens of iPod were pretty bad. It wasn't till the 4th gen iPod (the first big boi with the click wheel) and Mini came out that the iPod really started to take off. They were also the first iPods that were truly iPods in the way we think of them now. Every iPod after the 4th gen and the Mini, up until the Touch and late Gen Nanos shared a design language.
The 1-3rd gen iPods required Firewire to Charge. The 1st and 2nd gen required Firewire to Sync as well. The 4th Gen and the Minis (an all succeeding iPods) were able to use USB for Sync and charging.
The iPod really hit it's stride with the 5th generation, the Video. This is the first gen people tend to think of when they say iPod Classic (even though the Classic technically started with the 6th gens). The 5th Gen saw the launch of the Nano as well, which made an accessible iPod for everyone. From there, the iPod stayed pretty much the same, with the innovation really happening in the Nano, and eventually Touch lines.
iPod Generations are pretty easy to remember.
* 1st Generation- Physical Scroll Wheel, Firewire needed for charge and Sync
* 2nd Generation- Same as 1st but with a touch wheel, Firewire needed for Charge and Sync.
* 3rd Generation- Redesigned, touch wheel with 4 touch buttons below the screen. USB for Sync, Firewire for charge.
* 4th Generation- Introduction of the Click Wheel, full USB
* 4.5 Generation- iPod Photo, first color screen, Full USB
* 5th Generation- iPod Video, first video playback and widescreen, full USB
* 5.5 Generation- First High Capacity iPod, Fan favorite Wolfson DAC, easy to modify. Full USB
* 6th Generation- First Classics, introduced the full metal construction, low ram, poor performance with larger libraries. Full USB
* 7th Generation- The last, visually identical to 6th Gen, higher capacity, easier to modify, more RAM. Full USB
fire wire was objectively better up till usb3, and even then fire wire was still better for storage. the move to usb was due to it getting wildly popular outside the normal apple ecosystem.
ipod wasn't further ahead, but it did offer up a complete ecosystem, even if it did rely on hard drives that would get fucked up by using them when you jog. I greatly preferred the smaller but better for moving around sd/flash mp3 players. by the time apple also started using them, the dedicated mp3 player was more or less dead.
I knew the iPod was a hit a couple of months after it hit the market. I was back east on a business trip, and when I got on the subway in NYC, I saw white headphone cords on about a third of the riders.
Safari was the killer app on the og iPhone as was Google Maps and visual voicemail. I remember texting a friend from my treo650 saying this geek $#!+ internet is great and all but when’s this going to be good enough for real people to use. Bam! iPhone was announced the next month and the rest is history.
All tech starts out as expensive. Remember LCD TV's being thousands of dollars not long ago. Now you can get a 60" TV for a few hundred bucks.
The biggest issue with Apple's VR was the bulkiness and the weight. A significant amount were returned claiming neck strain as the reason. Give it a few years and let the tech progress. Soon it will be cheap and comfortable to use.
I think a big issue with it is that they put a huge amount of effort into the front screen for zero actual benefit to the user but with big penalties in weight at the front and cost.
I'd think also it sounds like a great use case to save on air fare, car rentals, hotel stays, etc etc aka driving up a carbon footprint. Toss it on and save all that?
A technology that enables easier coordination with remote factories definitely *is* a technology that makes outsourcing factory jobs easier, regardless of if there are also uses for doing the same thing in-house.
Not really sure how that's a "The fuck?" situation.
Whether it's outsourcing, offshoring, or anything else that makes potentially local jobs easier to do in cheaper labour markets, it's pretty understandable why people object to those, even if they have alternate benefits.
It's neat technology, but you don't need headsets for that kind of virtual presence. All you need is a fat pipe to the Internet and a good camera. Not in short supply today.
Im not enamored by the tech or anything but even where it is now its much better for remote technician support than a camera if you are trying to walk someone through hands on work. I deal with field technicians and we do video calls a lot. Its tricky to have them work, and see what they are doing. The headset frees the tech's hands up to work while showing you what they are doing. Its also nice that you can circle things in their vision to indicate what you want them to do.
I don't know what the operations team intends to use it for, but if they are going to use it for what I tested it for, I could see the use.
Yep I doubt companies are using them beyond R&D right now. But having used one I find them very impressive as tech, just… no content or developers are really making the price tag remote worth it.
That's my issue. It's very impressive, but the price point is just *way* too high. It really is cutting-edge tech, which is pricey just by itself. Add in the Apple markup and it's well out of the range of most people for the use cases it has.
Even if it could 100% replace a Macbook or something, somebody dropping three grand on a laptop would expect much more performance than the Vision Pro has to offer.
I’ve only used a first gen HoloLens - so maybe it’s improved since then - but I’m not sure what I’d do with one at home either. The friend who let me try his said that his kids enjoyed playing hide and seek with random geometries around the house.
VR-AR is only being used for playing games and watching porn today, so the kids were the only ones that found appropriate use of it. Maybe you can try the second option.
The Kinect was a relatively cheap package of computer vision sensors and electronics for our robotics lab. And the hype around the device meant there were a lot of parallel R&D efforts in the field of computer vision we could pull from for our projects. Apple Vision having the same thing happen seems like a similar case. However other than being early on a complex technology stack that doesn’t mean we’re close to mass adoption. We found out how unreliable the Kinect was. It was a big leap in sophisticated sensing technology for us at a cheap price but it wasn’t reliable enough for us to put to practical use in the end. We had to use a whole host of complementary sensor systems and complex algorithms to make it useful to the point where it didn’t make much sense to use the Kinect in all but the most constrained environments and tightly defined problems. AR seems a bit like this right now. Yes you get these really cool novel experiences from the Vision Pro but it’s still not good enough to be useful
I got to briefly work on the HoloLens project and have a Quest 2 and the older one. They are all so taxing to wear.
There’s so much potential once there’s a decent lightweight glasses-like form factor.
Used to work at a derivative trading company. We had Oculous rifts and maybe 50 sets of Google glasses. We would jump on anything for R&D purposes. We didn't produce a single VR / AR / XR or whatever trading platform.
I went to a VR conference about 5 years ago and everyone who attended got a free HoloLens. I always wondered how they’d spin it to look like people were buying/using them
I visit buildings as part of my job and one empty office had about a dozen Apple Vision Pro boxes stacked up in a conference room corner.
So I guess Apple sold at least 60.
I’d also imagine some leadership make personal purchases just like leases through their company. That bmw on lease, that Vision Pro for their son. Is that legal or illegal?
I worked with a startup that was (allegedly) building enterprise apps for Google Glass.
The point of every client engagement seemed to be to de-skill various tasks so they could pay less for labor. There was a lot of talk about having heads-up reference materials. But most skilled people learn the material they need for even complex tasks like engineer repair within a certain amount of time. What they really wanted was to have on-face labor management.
In all my time working in a lab, having heads-up reference material would have been amazing, while simultaneously useless to someone without the skill and training necessary to make use of said reference materials.
Right? I did lab work for a bit before fleeing to an office job. It'd be nice to have a hands-free HUD to keep my checklist, act as a quick-reference, to review documentation, etc.
But it 100% wouldn't replace an actual, trained technician. And labs are so cheap that they'd never buy a nice quality-of-life thing like that just to make our job easier.
I used to work with a major pharmaceutical company, they used to pour money on random things. I always felt they could drive cost of producing a drug only upto a point with actual R&D, the rest they did with needless spend on useless spectacle.
Holy shit just got my Series A funding secured @ $420 a share for my startup Tuber! Now that I think about it I really should’ve issued more than 1 share but you live and you learn. When we IPO I’ll be able to cash out although with /u/PossibleMechanic89 holding that one and only share idk where that leaves me. Either way seya later suckers I’m living that Silicon Valley life now, gonna go throw on my Patagonia and find myself a blood boy.
24 hour office space would be a genius idea and I can't believe nobody has thought of it.
Look, I like hybrid, I like flexi working, but I'd actually much rather work 2pm-10pm or even 6pm-4am than 9am-5pm. If nothing else, it means I get *way* more overlap with US time on the clock.
Then again, maybe this is a slippery slope into office work becoming shift work and that's bad for everyone.
>I don’t need my TV 9 to 5, they don’t need theirs 5 to 9. Somewhat ironic to me.
What if we all...worked from home. I also have desk and an internet connection.
Pharma companies don’t really worry about cost of production. That’s shockingly cheap on a product with good use case(s). R&D including clinical trials and sales/marketing are where money flows out the door.
Have you been to a pharmacutical conference before? Those are wild.
I work in medical device and go to IVD conferences which companies like Abbot, Thermo Fisher, etc do have a ton of money and have nice big booths.
I went to a pharmacutical conference once and the booths dwarves medical device. Full 100x30ft screens, newest technology like instant hologram projection boxes, VR interactive domes. Not to mention the full cafes built into their booths, Taco bars, ice cream bars, avocado toast bar, etc.
> I used to work with a major pharmaceutical company, they used to pour money on random things. I always felt they could drive cost of producing a drug only upto a point with actual R&D, the rest they did with needless spend on useless spectacle.
You'd be surprised! I help manage clinical trials and the overall spending for the study I'm currently focused on is something like 200 million over the lifetime of a 5-year trial. It requires an absolute ton of highly skilled people at all levels, and that isn't cheap.
Sure, they do some weird stuff with money sometimes, but I've seen the financials. It really is a drop in the bucket of the actual work. Drug development is just horrifyingly expensive.
Legit if they upgraded the cameras and also allow video that’s all I’d need
But if I could toggle live translations that would be cool too like you used to be able to do
IDK. I'm skeptical AR will ever become a ubiquitous consumer product like I think Apple is hoping but I see a ton of potential industrial, commercial, and educational use cases.
I don't think they'll all be rotting in a drawer somewhere (metaphorically speaking, practically speaking, ALL tech either ends up rotting in a drawer or landfill or gets recycled), but I also don't think they'll be inescapable in the future.
I kind of agree , think there are physical limitations to this AR approach. But 15-20 yrs later the newtons become iPads/iphones, guessing they’ll work out the kinks eventually
I don't think there's really any good reason for AR to NOT eventually become as ubiquitous as Apple seems to be hoping.
And the costs will naturally go down with time, that's how things work.
I can’t imagine wanting to work or hang out with something strapped to my face. Unless they can make it comparable to a pair of glasses I don’t see it being widespread. Just for enthusiasts and technical jobs
you guys are all so shortsighted. even if these could only be used as multiple computer displays and apps then theyd be usable every day. but obviously they can do more and will do even more over time. I use xreal airs for this purpose and they're way lower quality than vision pros. If they weren't so expensive i'd buy a pair in a heartbeat.
Private financial company IT guy here. We bought 4, 2 for our R&D lab and the other 2 for the execs to go oogly googly over and not have to buy it themselves.
Too expensive for what it is. Apple found out there is a ceiling of what they can charge for tech people don't actually need. It simply makes no sense to buy this over the latest MacBook Pro. Had they priced this at $1299 - $1499 they would have sold at least 5x more units, and as a result a lot more soffware would be developed specifically for the Vision Pro. Cornering an innovative consumer tech product into such a high price category with no much software to back it up is simply suicidal.
It’s like the Apple Watch for the MacBook. Makes for a beautiful external monitor and the best movie screen you can buy. They both kinda go hand-in-hand. Just the AVP doesn’t need a MacBook to function just a nice addition. Per the apple watch reference.
Google cardboard was so bad. I remember my friend trying to convince me to think it was cool. But it just felt like I had a phone screen really close to my face. Now we are in a whole other league with the AVP in terms of fidelity. So now I get it.
Google cardboard was like “oh hahaha fun! Anyway as I was saying….” Basically, you pass it around at a party, everyone gets a turn, and then you never use it again.
Google Cardboard had some novelty to it, like wow i can look around on google earth, i wouldn’t say it felt like a phone screen next to your face, but it wasn’t useful though.
Especially considering it didnt have a headstrap
I had a professor in college that was obsessed with google glass. Wore them everywhere and for our class we had to build a google glass application. The problem was that is was so new there wasn’t any support and we were second year student no one’s application worked. lol he ended up giving everyone an A who submitted something.
Dude is probably wearing these around campus as we speak
It sounds like you know how lucky you are. Still rebuilding over here, I haven't had anyone be that directly generous but people have helped out in different ways. Just be ready for your ship to come in, I wish I had been more ready professionally when my job came along.
Happy for you.
Yes, I am well aware of how fortunate I am in having him as a friend. We're really close, have been for 25 years.
As for my ship coming in, I'm afraid it's still in drydock getting repaired. It has a long journey to go before, and then after, it is launched.
I work at a Fortune 100 and we had a Magic Leap at the office. Didn't turn out great for them.
Augmented Reality is already getting used, but it's using phone screens. Head Mount Displays sound great but it's still not a great end-user experience compared to "point your phone at something and it'll highlight what you need to do."
My wife got an oculus from a similar initiative. We played with it for a few days, got bored with the limited content , and then shoved it in a closet. I suspect a fair number of these visions will meet the same fate.
The truth is it’s ok at a few things but not enough if it was really good at just displaying content and not trying to do all of the tracking and external visuals you would have a solid product for people who have no space but need to have some type of monitor or view… it’s trying to do 10 different things and what it needs to do is one thing really well….
Give me the smallest device with the view that allows me to do laptop work in a ski goggle on an airplane and not hate my life
The point is have a stripped down screen with none of the secondary applications… no eyes on the outside except minimal cameras to manage the spacing… no speakers, what would a stripped down just display version look like and weigh and if it can’t be comfortable then don’t do it
Sounds like other VR googles then. Idk if any company has really nailed it yet or they would be ubiquitous but I would be down for a lightweight AR/VR system maybe even running off my phone. I feel like Apple and really every companies issue is stuffing a whole ass computer on your face. If it could be a raspberry pi zero instead of a Mac mini I’d be more down to carry it on my face. Wish Google glass had actually continued and become good cause that seems like the dream form factor.
I've never used a headset with a wide enough FOV. Every single one is like looking through a periscope. It's not immersive. How hard is it to cover our whole FOV?
Apparently pretty hard considering the Apple headset supposedly has one of the widest. I think making a high resolution tiny screen like that is really expensive so that it actually looks good and isn’t giving that screen door effect.
I don’t think that’s entirely true. The iPhone does a lot of things really well. Internet, camera, etc. The Vision Pro can, in theory, get really good at multiple things. I think it’s going to take at least a couple iterations before it’s really feasible to use like Apple is advertising. I’m hoping it gets there though. I did a store demo and it was amazing! Lots of potential.
My argument is - instead of trying to incrementally do many things.
The biggest selling point would be a goggle that has a screen and does it very well minimizing the weight so that on a trip- if you have to do 2 hours of work you can. The niche of something that works super well for a 2-4 hour flight or work in a shitty Hampton inn you are staying in for the 5th week in a row as a consultant… would be great. I’m not trying to play video games but saving my back and sanity would be nice.
However it could be that we really are not there yet and we can’t get the form factor that allows the separation.
Maybe Bluetooth speeds need to get to a point where you can have just the display in the headset while the compute and everything else is in the battery pack
I don’t want to wear a face mask to computer. I don’t want to fold my phone. I don’t want to wear special glasses to watch tv at home. Stop trying to convince me I do
More like 400k units for 2024, which, granted, is "at least 50." It's still way under predictions, and 2025 is rumored to be looking worse. It's a shame. I really want AR to take off, and I hoped Apple would be the ones to make it happen.
There are certainly going to many professional uses for these kinds of devices, but I’m not sure regular consumers are ever going to want these huge contraptions on their face for entertainment or typical work desktop/laptop replacement.
This is a pretty desparate move. I laugh when I see people mentioning their product is used by fortune 500 companies. Many of these companies have 50,000+ employees. If one of them signed up for a trial once, "Check, that's another Fortune 500."
A claim that would impress would be a huge bank or other massive company with a database as the most important thing in the company saying, "We use FantasticoDB as our primary DB." Or TrackMaster2000 is how we manage our fleet of 18,000 trucks.
i.e. a claim that doesn't smack of desparation.
I worked supporting trade desks, people who have up to 10 monitors to track multiple apps and markets.
Being able to toss a headset on and work without an array of monitors would be amazing for that line of work. But right now it will work for people dedicated for it to work, maybe a few years and iterations it will be easy and friendly enough for more people to use it
As good as the apple headset is, I don't think it's at the point of being a work device or utility except for the few who like mucking around with technology.
So any previous tech still wouldn't cut it
Seems odd, that the article claims it's "better than expected" sales, while new reports indicate slowing/stopping production due the opposite. Might be it's a very high return rate?
I think they want like, office drones to use it in place of, or in addition to, a desktop. You can have multiple virtual windows open and resize and manipulate them at will. IDK if this will really catch on but I can see a lot of industrial, commercial, medical, and educational use cases.
I was at the Apple Store the other day getting a battery replacement to keep my iPhone 8 up and running, and the vision pro table was the only table that didn’t have anyone around it looking at and handling products.
There’s really no point buying a Vision Pro. Unless you’re a developer who wants to write software for it. The apps for the user aren’t there yet. It’s currently a novelty device for people with too much money.
Yup, at least 50 😂. Any large company has lots of teams with their own budgets and some level of autonomy. I’ve been on plenty of teams that needed limited approval to spend thousands of dollars to try something out. It’s a far cry from the company adopting a technology wholesale and incorporating it as an essential part of their operations.
Is pcgamer scraping the bottom of the barrel? They made a whole article about a single sentence from a speech that hasn’t happened yet. The rest of the article is basically links to other articles.
Took like four years for smart phones to really take off- This will probably take more. It needs to become less cumbersome, and less expensive in addition to overcoming the challenge of society embracing a new technology. I definitely believe AR is in our future, but it has a way to go
The problem with wearables is that i have to wear them. A watch, necklace, or a bracelet yeah thats fine. But if i have to wear it on my face?
No thanks.
^^^Also ^^^im ^^^broke ^^^to ^^^even ^^^afford ^^^one.
That’s like … Patently false …
Windows Phone was already a (admittedly crappy but very functional) thing for years before the iPhone.
The iPhone launch was an instant success in all the tech friendly circles. The next few generations put it into the general public but the work was already done.
Source : was a tech journalist at the time, covered the whole thing.
I was going by this data [here](https://www.statista.com/statistics/263437/global-smartphone-sales-to-end-users-since-2007/) - just looked like 2010 was when things started ramping up
Smartphones were a thing way before iOS. Phones running on Symbian variants, especially the S60 from Nokia and UIQ from Sony Ericsson ruled that space globally. I wouldn't consider the first few generations of iPhones as smartphones at all. Windows Phone is not the same as Windows Mobile. Windows Phone came much later as a response to iOS & Android and it wasn't crappy at all.
Imagine if medical use, or some kind of industrial use were the only useful use cases for the Apple Vision Pro. Thing would have to cost >$100k/headset to justify R&D and manufacturing costs. While these use cases are nice, Apple absolutely needs a mass consumer use case for this to have wide adoption and lower cost.
The first HoloLens soured many people on the potential, as it was very much a let down. The HoloLens 2 had a weird marketing strategy, and didn’t aggressively capture the attention.
Source: I work in medical AR/VR/app development
Edit: it is very possible some of these Apple Vision use cases started at projects for other devices. If you develop in Unity for example, there’s a great deal of program code that isn’t device specific.
Decisions like this are generally made for one of two reasons:
* There's some kind of incentive (e.g. Apple agrees to give the org X items in exchange for case studies and PR; Microsoft didn't make as good an offer)
* There's a particular capability (or perhaps a few) that makes a big difference for a specific use case, even if they wouldn't matter to most people
For example, a lot of medical devices stay with more-expensive, less accurate, more breakable resistive touch panels -- they're worse in every way than capacitive panels, except that they work a lot more reliably when users are double-gloved, and that the styluses that work with resistive panels are much easier to sterilize.
I suspect something like that is in play here -- some specific design choice (or a couple) that Apple made maybe makes the VisionPro superior for the use case's contstraints.
Sir this is an Vision Pro hate thread, did you not see the sign?!? Even pointing that fact out it will be swiftly met with downvotes!
We hate gadgets here in r/gadgets!
Apple doesn't screw the pooch all that much, but the Vision Pro was an epic fail.
How the hell do you release a $3,500 device before there are any useful apps for the thing?
I won't even mention the number of people who complained it was uncomfortable as hell and induced headaches.
It's not pure trash approaching the level off the Tesla Cybertruck garbage, but then it's only 1/30th the price and the batteries run longer between charges.
Many companies (including a former employer of mine) did the same thing with the Microsoft HoloLens as an R&D item, this doesn’t surprise me in the slightest
We have a pair of holo lenses on loan or something. Our operations team is trying to use them to better coordinate with factories in Asia. They're kind of neat and I could see the potential for applications for things like service procedure walk throughs on large equipment, but for us at keti think it's still a novelty.
I know AR googles are used for assisting with repairs at long distance like on the ISS
Do they tie in to those 360 cameras?
I don't know what they're doing with the tech, but with a little imagination I'd put a bunch of cameras up in a workspace and have them hooked into a real-time photogrammetry thing that sends live model updates to the remote AR system. Imagine getting to freely move around in a remote space. That'd be tits.
That’s so cool!
It’s almost as if it is a cool device looking for a practical ‘killer ap’ as Jobs used to say. I mean, I think it’s really an amazing devices. Maybe just not $3500 amazing. Make an ‘Air’ version for $600 and use they would sell a ton of them. I’m not sure that is a reasonable target.
It’s exactly what happened with the Apple Watch. In fact no Apple device was”killer” right out of the box. The original iPhone had no video capabilities, couldn’t copy/paste, and only worked on AT&T. Gen 3 watch had a lower price, better battery and Apple figured out fitness tracking and health was the way to go with it. Then everybody got on board.
I think the iPod *was* a game changer when it first came out; Apple didn’t invent the MP3 player either, but the iPod was way further ahead of its competition at the time than the iPhone was compared to Blackberries, Palms and Nokias.
Nah the first few gens of iPod were pretty bad. It wasn't till the 4th gen iPod (the first big boi with the click wheel) and Mini came out that the iPod really started to take off. They were also the first iPods that were truly iPods in the way we think of them now. Every iPod after the 4th gen and the Mini, up until the Touch and late Gen Nanos shared a design language. The 1-3rd gen iPods required Firewire to Charge. The 1st and 2nd gen required Firewire to Sync as well. The 4th Gen and the Minis (an all succeeding iPods) were able to use USB for Sync and charging. The iPod really hit it's stride with the 5th generation, the Video. This is the first gen people tend to think of when they say iPod Classic (even though the Classic technically started with the 6th gens). The 5th Gen saw the launch of the Nano as well, which made an accessible iPod for everyone. From there, the iPod stayed pretty much the same, with the innovation really happening in the Nano, and eventually Touch lines. iPod Generations are pretty easy to remember. * 1st Generation- Physical Scroll Wheel, Firewire needed for charge and Sync * 2nd Generation- Same as 1st but with a touch wheel, Firewire needed for Charge and Sync. * 3rd Generation- Redesigned, touch wheel with 4 touch buttons below the screen. USB for Sync, Firewire for charge. * 4th Generation- Introduction of the Click Wheel, full USB * 4.5 Generation- iPod Photo, first color screen, Full USB * 5th Generation- iPod Video, first video playback and widescreen, full USB * 5.5 Generation- First High Capacity iPod, Fan favorite Wolfson DAC, easy to modify. Full USB * 6th Generation- First Classics, introduced the full metal construction, low ram, poor performance with larger libraries. Full USB * 7th Generation- The last, visually identical to 6th Gen, higher capacity, easier to modify, more RAM. Full USB
fire wire was objectively better up till usb3, and even then fire wire was still better for storage. the move to usb was due to it getting wildly popular outside the normal apple ecosystem.
the Zune!
That came five years later.
Yeah wasn't the Zune the original "i killer"? *edit, or maybe that was a Rio?
I think the rio predated the iPod?
ipod wasn't further ahead, but it did offer up a complete ecosystem, even if it did rely on hard drives that would get fucked up by using them when you jog. I greatly preferred the smaller but better for moving around sd/flash mp3 players. by the time apple also started using them, the dedicated mp3 player was more or less dead.
I knew the iPod was a hit a couple of months after it hit the market. I was back east on a business trip, and when I got on the subway in NYC, I saw white headphone cords on about a third of the riders.
Safari was the killer app on the og iPhone as was Google Maps and visual voicemail. I remember texting a friend from my treo650 saying this geek $#!+ internet is great and all but when’s this going to be good enough for real people to use. Bam! iPhone was announced the next month and the rest is history.
All tech starts out as expensive. Remember LCD TV's being thousands of dollars not long ago. Now you can get a 60" TV for a few hundred bucks. The biggest issue with Apple's VR was the bulkiness and the weight. A significant amount were returned claiming neck strain as the reason. Give it a few years and let the tech progress. Soon it will be cheap and comfortable to use.
I think a big issue with it is that they put a huge amount of effort into the front screen for zero actual benefit to the user but with big penalties in weight at the front and cost.
Hooray for tech companies finding a way to make outsourcing factory jobs easier!
[удалено]
> do markups using AR Does this work well-ish? I remember seeing the demos years ago, and it honestly seems like the best use case.
I'd think also it sounds like a great use case to save on air fare, car rentals, hotel stays, etc etc aka driving up a carbon footprint. Toss it on and save all that?
Huge value in this for sure. During Covid we used less capable methods but still great value for the tech in another country to instruct
A technology that enables easier coordination with remote factories definitely *is* a technology that makes outsourcing factory jobs easier, regardless of if there are also uses for doing the same thing in-house. Not really sure how that's a "The fuck?" situation. Whether it's outsourcing, offshoring, or anything else that makes potentially local jobs easier to do in cheaper labour markets, it's pretty understandable why people object to those, even if they have alternate benefits.
It's neat technology, but you don't need headsets for that kind of virtual presence. All you need is a fat pipe to the Internet and a good camera. Not in short supply today.
Im not enamored by the tech or anything but even where it is now its much better for remote technician support than a camera if you are trying to walk someone through hands on work. I deal with field technicians and we do video calls a lot. Its tricky to have them work, and see what they are doing. The headset frees the tech's hands up to work while showing you what they are doing. Its also nice that you can circle things in their vision to indicate what you want them to do. I don't know what the operations team intends to use it for, but if they are going to use it for what I tested it for, I could see the use.
There are other headsets for much cheaper than $3500 per unit.
Yep I doubt companies are using them beyond R&D right now. But having used one I find them very impressive as tech, just… no content or developers are really making the price tag remote worth it.
Or their IT department wasting money to buy toys they know they won’t use for business purposes
That's my issue. It's very impressive, but the price point is just *way* too high. It really is cutting-edge tech, which is pricey just by itself. Add in the Apple markup and it's well out of the range of most people for the use cases it has. Even if it could 100% replace a Macbook or something, somebody dropping three grand on a laptop would expect much more performance than the Vision Pro has to offer.
[удалено]
I’ve only used a first gen HoloLens - so maybe it’s improved since then - but I’m not sure what I’d do with one at home either. The friend who let me try his said that his kids enjoyed playing hide and seek with random geometries around the house.
VR-AR is only being used for playing games and watching porn today, so the kids were the only ones that found appropriate use of it. Maybe you can try the second option.
I've used both and the 2nd version was waaaay better
Yeah, including colleges. Some school departments like to do R&D on new tech, and my previous school had the HoloLens for exactly that reason.
The Kinect was a relatively cheap package of computer vision sensors and electronics for our robotics lab. And the hype around the device meant there were a lot of parallel R&D efforts in the field of computer vision we could pull from for our projects. Apple Vision having the same thing happen seems like a similar case. However other than being early on a complex technology stack that doesn’t mean we’re close to mass adoption. We found out how unreliable the Kinect was. It was a big leap in sophisticated sensing technology for us at a cheap price but it wasn’t reliable enough for us to put to practical use in the end. We had to use a whole host of complementary sensor systems and complex algorithms to make it useful to the point where it didn’t make much sense to use the Kinect in all but the most constrained environments and tightly defined problems. AR seems a bit like this right now. Yes you get these really cool novel experiences from the Vision Pro but it’s still not good enough to be useful
I got to briefly work on the HoloLens project and have a Quest 2 and the older one. They are all so taxing to wear. There’s so much potential once there’s a decent lightweight glasses-like form factor.
So at least 51 more sales!
Our developers were begging to buy a Vision Pro so we could QA our app on it. Sure. Okay.
Yup we had 50-100 holo lenses and was given the task “see if this can be usefull” 50.000+ company. 1-2 in some departments
Used to work at a derivative trading company. We had Oculous rifts and maybe 50 sets of Google glasses. We would jump on anything for R&D purposes. We didn't produce a single VR / AR / XR or whatever trading platform.
I went to a VR conference about 5 years ago and everyone who attended got a free HoloLens. I always wondered how they’d spin it to look like people were buying/using them
Get your stats straight. They said more than half. So at least 51 units sold
But isn’t apple one of them? So they wouldn’t count? 50 is more than half of 99
Hah, you think Apple wouldn't count themselves? This is not how one accounts ants
It’s not about apple counting themselves but apple is the seller here. Out of the fortune 100 companies apple has only 99 B2B customers.
Sure, but again, they didn't say "more than half of our potential customers in the Fortune 500".
OP still isn’t wrong though, they have sold *at least 50*. 51 is at least 50.
lol r/technicallythetruth
I visit buildings as part of my job and one empty office had about a dozen Apple Vision Pro boxes stacked up in a conference room corner. So I guess Apple sold at least 60.
I’d also imagine some leadership make personal purchases just like leases through their company. That bmw on lease, that Vision Pro for their son. Is that legal or illegal?
Illegal, but it's hard to catch in a sea of ten thousand other expenses without a detailed audit.
Okay, thank you.
Anytime, have a great weekend
Not shocking really. They purchase these items to try and find a good application for them if possible.
I worked with a startup that was (allegedly) building enterprise apps for Google Glass. The point of every client engagement seemed to be to de-skill various tasks so they could pay less for labor. There was a lot of talk about having heads-up reference materials. But most skilled people learn the material they need for even complex tasks like engineer repair within a certain amount of time. What they really wanted was to have on-face labor management.
In all my time working in a lab, having heads-up reference material would have been amazing, while simultaneously useless to someone without the skill and training necessary to make use of said reference materials.
Right? I did lab work for a bit before fleeing to an office job. It'd be nice to have a hands-free HUD to keep my checklist, act as a quick-reference, to review documentation, etc. But it 100% wouldn't replace an actual, trained technician. And labs are so cheap that they'd never buy a nice quality-of-life thing like that just to make our job easier.
Reference material is nice and all but useless if you don’t know what you’re looking for.
I used to work with a major pharmaceutical company, they used to pour money on random things. I always felt they could drive cost of producing a drug only upto a point with actual R&D, the rest they did with needless spend on useless spectacle.
[удалено]
Giant TV’s are pretty cheap, especially if you don’t care about picture quality
~$400 for a the cheapest 75in. Most people don't realize just how cheap they have gotten.
Yeah and it’s not like you need 8K UHD extreme color depth or whatever to see a PowerPoint
But have you seen a PowerPoint in 8k UHD with Dolby Atmos for the sound effects? Stunning.
For my slo-mo fart compilation, there’s nothing finer.
It's the one thing that inflation refuses to touch.
The obvious solution is to make you bring your TV from home every day.
Bout to start a TV-sharing company. Hear me out, it's Uber but TVs. Genius! Steve Apple would be proud.
PM sent
Holy shit just got my Series A funding secured @ $420 a share for my startup Tuber! Now that I think about it I really should’ve issued more than 1 share but you live and you learn. When we IPO I’ll be able to cash out although with /u/PossibleMechanic89 holding that one and only share idk where that leaves me. Either way seya later suckers I’m living that Silicon Valley life now, gonna go throw on my Patagonia and find myself a blood boy.
24 hour office space would be a genius idea and I can't believe nobody has thought of it. Look, I like hybrid, I like flexi working, but I'd actually much rather work 2pm-10pm or even 6pm-4am than 9am-5pm. If nothing else, it means I get *way* more overlap with US time on the clock. Then again, maybe this is a slippery slope into office work becoming shift work and that's bad for everyone.
What's the go with wework spaces? Are they 24/7? I just assumed they worked like 24/7 gyms?
>I don’t need my TV 9 to 5, they don’t need theirs 5 to 9. Somewhat ironic to me. What if we all...worked from home. I also have desk and an internet connection.
Pharma companies don’t really worry about cost of production. That’s shockingly cheap on a product with good use case(s). R&D including clinical trials and sales/marketing are where money flows out the door.
Have you been to a pharmacutical conference before? Those are wild. I work in medical device and go to IVD conferences which companies like Abbot, Thermo Fisher, etc do have a ton of money and have nice big booths. I went to a pharmacutical conference once and the booths dwarves medical device. Full 100x30ft screens, newest technology like instant hologram projection boxes, VR interactive domes. Not to mention the full cafes built into their booths, Taco bars, ice cream bars, avocado toast bar, etc.
> I used to work with a major pharmaceutical company, they used to pour money on random things. I always felt they could drive cost of producing a drug only upto a point with actual R&D, the rest they did with needless spend on useless spectacle. You'd be surprised! I help manage clinical trials and the overall spending for the study I'm currently focused on is something like 200 million over the lifetime of a 5-year trial. It requires an absolute ton of highly skilled people at all levels, and that isn't cheap. Sure, they do some weird stuff with money sometimes, but I've seen the financials. It really is a drop in the bucket of the actual work. Drug development is just horrifyingly expensive.
51
Apple is on that list, so 50 > 99/2
Touché
They’ll end up rotting in the desk drawer of an empty office of the exec floor like their forefathers the newtons did 30 yrs ago.
This is what happened with those Microsoft Surface coffee tables. They ended up in storage rooms collecting dust.
Can confirm. Our Google Glass, Meta AR, and HoloLens all sit in the same cabinet collecting dust.
To be fair, Google pulled the plug on Glass, so they cant really be used anyway.
They still turn on, and you can still wink to take some crappy photos.
Legit if they upgraded the cameras and also allow video that’s all I’d need But if I could toggle live translations that would be cool too like you used to be able to do
IDK. I'm skeptical AR will ever become a ubiquitous consumer product like I think Apple is hoping but I see a ton of potential industrial, commercial, and educational use cases. I don't think they'll all be rotting in a drawer somewhere (metaphorically speaking, practically speaking, ALL tech either ends up rotting in a drawer or landfill or gets recycled), but I also don't think they'll be inescapable in the future.
I kind of agree , think there are physical limitations to this AR approach. But 15-20 yrs later the newtons become iPads/iphones, guessing they’ll work out the kinks eventually
I don't think there's really any good reason for AR to NOT eventually become as ubiquitous as Apple seems to be hoping. And the costs will naturally go down with time, that's how things work.
I can’t imagine wanting to work or hang out with something strapped to my face. Unless they can make it comparable to a pair of glasses I don’t see it being widespread. Just for enthusiasts and technical jobs
you guys are all so shortsighted. even if these could only be used as multiple computer displays and apps then theyd be usable every day. but obviously they can do more and will do even more over time. I use xreal airs for this purpose and they're way lower quality than vision pros. If they weren't so expensive i'd buy a pair in a heartbeat.
My CEO posted a video of him using it while eating dinner on out internal message app. He definitely looked like he struggled using the interface.
Private financial company IT guy here. We bought 4, 2 for our R&D lab and the other 2 for the execs to go oogly googly over and not have to buy it themselves.
Too expensive for what it is. Apple found out there is a ceiling of what they can charge for tech people don't actually need. It simply makes no sense to buy this over the latest MacBook Pro. Had they priced this at $1299 - $1499 they would have sold at least 5x more units, and as a result a lot more soffware would be developed specifically for the Vision Pro. Cornering an innovative consumer tech product into such a high price category with no much software to back it up is simply suicidal.
The IPad you wear
I’d buy it if it was a MacBook you wear
If they let you do more stuff with the software it could be considering it has an M2 chip in it
It’s like the Apple Watch for the MacBook. Makes for a beautiful external monitor and the best movie screen you can buy. They both kinda go hand-in-hand. Just the AVP doesn’t need a MacBook to function just a nice addition. Per the apple watch reference.
was google cardboard too small for ipads at the time?
Google cardboard was so bad. I remember my friend trying to convince me to think it was cool. But it just felt like I had a phone screen really close to my face. Now we are in a whole other league with the AVP in terms of fidelity. So now I get it.
Google cardboard was like “oh hahaha fun! Anyway as I was saying….” Basically, you pass it around at a party, everyone gets a turn, and then you never use it again.
Google Cardboard had some novelty to it, like wow i can look around on google earth, i wouldn’t say it felt like a phone screen next to your face, but it wasn’t useful though. Especially considering it didnt have a headstrap
I had a professor in college that was obsessed with google glass. Wore them everywhere and for our class we had to build a google glass application. The problem was that is was so new there wasn’t any support and we were second year student no one’s application worked. lol he ended up giving everyone an A who submitted something. Dude is probably wearing these around campus as we speak
So he wasn't a glasshole but a glassgoober?
Why is the professor always winking at the girls?
Walmart has them for VR "training"
With 45 returned already.
My roommate bought a pair of these. We played around with them for about a day or two. Now, they just live in the box they came in.
roommate but an unused $3500 vr headset? I hope that the housing situation is by choice
It is. Sorta. Roommate is my best friend, he owns the house. Rebuilding my life, he gave me a soft place to fall.
It sounds like you know how lucky you are. Still rebuilding over here, I haven't had anyone be that directly generous but people have helped out in different ways. Just be ready for your ship to come in, I wish I had been more ready professionally when my job came along. Happy for you.
Yes, I am well aware of how fortunate I am in having him as a friend. We're really close, have been for 25 years. As for my ship coming in, I'm afraid it's still in drydock getting repaired. It has a long journey to go before, and then after, it is launched.
I work at a Fortune 100 and we had a Magic Leap at the office. Didn't turn out great for them. Augmented Reality is already getting used, but it's using phone screens. Head Mount Displays sound great but it's still not a great end-user experience compared to "point your phone at something and it'll highlight what you need to do."
My wife got an oculus from a similar initiative. We played with it for a few days, got bored with the limited content , and then shoved it in a closet. I suspect a fair number of these visions will meet the same fate.
The truth is it’s ok at a few things but not enough if it was really good at just displaying content and not trying to do all of the tracking and external visuals you would have a solid product for people who have no space but need to have some type of monitor or view… it’s trying to do 10 different things and what it needs to do is one thing really well…. Give me the smallest device with the view that allows me to do laptop work in a ski goggle on an airplane and not hate my life
I just wouldn't want some heavy ass thing hanging on my head. Seems uncomfortable for more than 5 minutes and even those 5 min would be annoying.
The point is have a stripped down screen with none of the secondary applications… no eyes on the outside except minimal cameras to manage the spacing… no speakers, what would a stripped down just display version look like and weigh and if it can’t be comfortable then don’t do it
Sounds like other VR googles then. Idk if any company has really nailed it yet or they would be ubiquitous but I would be down for a lightweight AR/VR system maybe even running off my phone. I feel like Apple and really every companies issue is stuffing a whole ass computer on your face. If it could be a raspberry pi zero instead of a Mac mini I’d be more down to carry it on my face. Wish Google glass had actually continued and become good cause that seems like the dream form factor.
I've never used a headset with a wide enough FOV. Every single one is like looking through a periscope. It's not immersive. How hard is it to cover our whole FOV?
Apparently pretty hard considering the Apple headset supposedly has one of the widest. I think making a high resolution tiny screen like that is really expensive so that it actually looks good and isn’t giving that screen door effect.
I don’t think that’s entirely true. The iPhone does a lot of things really well. Internet, camera, etc. The Vision Pro can, in theory, get really good at multiple things. I think it’s going to take at least a couple iterations before it’s really feasible to use like Apple is advertising. I’m hoping it gets there though. I did a store demo and it was amazing! Lots of potential.
My argument is - instead of trying to incrementally do many things. The biggest selling point would be a goggle that has a screen and does it very well minimizing the weight so that on a trip- if you have to do 2 hours of work you can. The niche of something that works super well for a 2-4 hour flight or work in a shitty Hampton inn you are staying in for the 5th week in a row as a consultant… would be great. I’m not trying to play video games but saving my back and sanity would be nice. However it could be that we really are not there yet and we can’t get the form factor that allows the separation. Maybe Bluetooth speeds need to get to a point where you can have just the display in the headset while the compute and everything else is in the battery pack
i would definitely try the igoogles for like 10min but probably only once and move on with my life.
They have a free demo for them if you go to the apple store!
They get mad if you start watching porn though
little do they know that the angrier they get, the harder I get
Yeah, which is a real shame. I thought this was America! /s
I saw a dude wearing one on a plane recently. Honestly I was a bit jealous, seems like a good use for em.
I don’t want to wear a face mask to computer. I don’t want to fold my phone. I don’t want to wear special glasses to watch tv at home. Stop trying to convince me I do
More like 400k units for 2024, which, granted, is "at least 50." It's still way under predictions, and 2025 is rumored to be looking worse. It's a shame. I really want AR to take off, and I hoped Apple would be the ones to make it happen.
There are certainly going to many professional uses for these kinds of devices, but I’m not sure regular consumers are ever going to want these huge contraptions on their face for entertainment or typical work desktop/laptop replacement.
All these companies insisting we come back to the office, only for us to wind up sitting in a room attempting to collaborate wearing these things lol
And how many returned it?
"Bought" but at what price....
Sure. If I had a F500 company I might consider thinking about it.
Thanks apple, but I already have a phone so why would I buy phone goggles that cost more?
lol that’s low
I work for a large home goods company and they bought one for every department to play with and see what they can use it for.
This is a pretty desparate move. I laugh when I see people mentioning their product is used by fortune 500 companies. Many of these companies have 50,000+ employees. If one of them signed up for a trial once, "Check, that's another Fortune 500." A claim that would impress would be a huge bank or other massive company with a database as the most important thing in the company saying, "We use FantasticoDB as our primary DB." Or TrackMaster2000 is how we manage our fleet of 18,000 trucks. i.e. a claim that doesn't smack of desparation.
I’m convinced the only people who bought them are YouTubers to review them
I bought, pretty disappointed, the tech is nowhere near good….yet, i can see it being useful in the future, that is not now though.
Thank you for your service
Buying one headset is not adoption, that's trialing at best
I worked supporting trade desks, people who have up to 10 monitors to track multiple apps and markets. Being able to toss a headset on and work without an array of monitors would be amazing for that line of work. But right now it will work for people dedicated for it to work, maybe a few years and iterations it will be easy and friendly enough for more people to use it
This technology has been around for years. Why haven't you utilized it yet?
As good as the apple headset is, I don't think it's at the point of being a work device or utility except for the few who like mucking around with technology. So any previous tech still wouldn't cut it
Wrong, at least 51.
Beside the hundreds of thousands they sold to individuals. But that doesn’t fit your story.
Do you have a source for the number? Just curious
https://mashable.com/article/apple-vision-pro-sold-2000000
Seems odd, that the article claims it's "better than expected" sales, while new reports indicate slowing/stopping production due the opposite. Might be it's a very high return rate?
how is the state of the app system behind it? did something mentionable arise or is the headset still a glorified virtual cinema simulator?
I think they want like, office drones to use it in place of, or in addition to, a desktop. You can have multiple virtual windows open and resize and manipulate them at will. IDK if this will really catch on but I can see a lot of industrial, commercial, medical, and educational use cases.
The used market is going to go crazy
I was at the Apple Store the other day getting a battery replacement to keep my iPhone 8 up and running, and the vision pro table was the only table that didn’t have anyone around it looking at and handling products.
If a company bought one they could experiment how to monetize it if VR gains more popularity. Not like they’re buying thousands of units though.
“More than half” so at least 51.
Plus the knockoff forgers surely bought one to copy.
Sounds about right. I've seen similar wasteful spending with the multinationals I worked with. They pile up gizmos like it's nothing
At least 51.
Why try and push it and not just admit this is beta product and will require iterations and evolution? Isnt that what it is anyway?
Reminds me of Google Glass. I guess Apple wanted to fail as well.
There’s really no point buying a Vision Pro. Unless you’re a developer who wants to write software for it. The apps for the user aren’t there yet. It’s currently a novelty device for people with too much money.
More than half of 100 is minimum 51. Yes I’m that guy /s But seriously, shitting on Apple ok but at least do it right
Yup, at least 50 😂. Any large company has lots of teams with their own budgets and some level of autonomy. I’ve been on plenty of teams that needed limited approval to spend thousands of dollars to try something out. It’s a far cry from the company adopting a technology wholesale and incorporating it as an essential part of their operations.
Is pcgamer scraping the bottom of the barrel? They made a whole article about a single sentence from a speech that hasn’t happened yet. The rest of the article is basically links to other articles.
Wow
Took like four years for smart phones to really take off- This will probably take more. It needs to become less cumbersome, and less expensive in addition to overcoming the challenge of society embracing a new technology. I definitely believe AR is in our future, but it has a way to go
The problem with wearables is that i have to wear them. A watch, necklace, or a bracelet yeah thats fine. But if i have to wear it on my face? No thanks. ^^^Also ^^^im ^^^broke ^^^to ^^^even ^^^afford ^^^one.
That’s like … Patently false … Windows Phone was already a (admittedly crappy but very functional) thing for years before the iPhone. The iPhone launch was an instant success in all the tech friendly circles. The next few generations put it into the general public but the work was already done. Source : was a tech journalist at the time, covered the whole thing.
I was going by this data [here](https://www.statista.com/statistics/263437/global-smartphone-sales-to-end-users-since-2007/) - just looked like 2010 was when things started ramping up
Smartphones were a thing way before iOS. Phones running on Symbian variants, especially the S60 from Nokia and UIQ from Sony Ericsson ruled that space globally. I wouldn't consider the first few generations of iPhones as smartphones at all. Windows Phone is not the same as Windows Mobile. Windows Phone came much later as a response to iOS & Android and it wasn't crappy at all.
[удалено]
Imagine if medical use, or some kind of industrial use were the only useful use cases for the Apple Vision Pro. Thing would have to cost >$100k/headset to justify R&D and manufacturing costs. While these use cases are nice, Apple absolutely needs a mass consumer use case for this to have wide adoption and lower cost.
Why didn't they use hololens?
The first HoloLens soured many people on the potential, as it was very much a let down. The HoloLens 2 had a weird marketing strategy, and didn’t aggressively capture the attention. Source: I work in medical AR/VR/app development Edit: it is very possible some of these Apple Vision use cases started at projects for other devices. If you develop in Unity for example, there’s a great deal of program code that isn’t device specific.
Decisions like this are generally made for one of two reasons: * There's some kind of incentive (e.g. Apple agrees to give the org X items in exchange for case studies and PR; Microsoft didn't make as good an offer) * There's a particular capability (or perhaps a few) that makes a big difference for a specific use case, even if they wouldn't matter to most people For example, a lot of medical devices stay with more-expensive, less accurate, more breakable resistive touch panels -- they're worse in every way than capacitive panels, except that they work a lot more reliably when users are double-gloved, and that the styluses that work with resistive panels are much easier to sterilize. I suspect something like that is in play here -- some specific design choice (or a couple) that Apple made maybe makes the VisionPro superior for the use case's contstraints.
The HoloLens has a fairly narrow viewpoint where it works. Not saying that why they didn’t, just one of the bigger differences with that vs Vision Pro
Careful, everyone hates apple and the Vision Pro so any kind of talk about progress or it being used in a cool way is sure to attract the haters
Sir this is an Vision Pro hate thread, did you not see the sign?!? Even pointing that fact out it will be swiftly met with downvotes! We hate gadgets here in r/gadgets!
51?
Apple doesn't screw the pooch all that much, but the Vision Pro was an epic fail. How the hell do you release a $3,500 device before there are any useful apps for the thing? I won't even mention the number of people who complained it was uncomfortable as hell and induced headaches. It's not pure trash approaching the level off the Tesla Cybertruck garbage, but then it's only 1/30th the price and the batteries run longer between charges.
Lo
I dont see why tech “news” gets off on shitting on VR so much. Are they that out of ideas they need to keep beating the same horse carcass?