My guess is that the killer app for the first generation of VR is just watching video, either movies or TV shows. There's a chicken-and-egg problem where developers aren't going to put a lot of work into good productivity or gaming experiences as long as the market is small. But the VR goggles can just be superior to a 70 inch TV screen, for watching movies that already are being created.
I have a Oculus Quest 1, and I've used the "movie/video watching apps" and they are not yet replacements for regular ol' TV's yet. And yes, the app UIs are terrible and a big part of it.
Yeah, I agree. The video quality just isn't good enough on the Oculus, I'd rather have my IRL big screen TV. I haven't tried the Vision Pro but it seems possible in theory that a VR goggle form could provide a better movie-watching experience. And if that worked, there would be other benefits, like I could watch a movie sitting in a room that doesn't have a big screen TV in it.
yes, I totally agree that at some point in the future it could. Or just things a home theatre can't do - like simulate a screen with the IMAX field of view. Or perhaps "in" the movie, with 360 deg around you.
Reporting not endorsing, but MKBHD aka Marques Keith Brownlee said in his review that he is a huge NBA fan who is familiar with the courtside experience, and said it was not as good as real life, but good enough he anticipates buying whatever their season pass for it looks like.
I have an Oculus Quest 1, and I've used it to watch video quite a lot. The possibility of watching while lying on my mattress or wherever I feel comfortable, and the immersion and lack of distractions (when I'm watching a movie, I'm just watching a movie, and when I'm done I'm done, no multi-tasking or temptation of falling asleep with the TV on), make up for a lot of the extra annoyances. It's not more expensive and has many more use cases, so I didn't even end up needing my TV other than as a big computer monitor.
I suppose it depends on the person. But this Vision Pro must be way way better than the Oculus 1 in terms of image quality and comfort so, only the price stands in my way.
Like watching an IMAX movie in the comfort of your own home? That seems like it should be comparatively easy to get sorted out, even if you have to turn your head a bit to clearly see all the edges clearly.
Likely aimed at developers 1st, as well as the less price-sensitive early adopters (e.g. consumer enthusiasts and those who want bragging rights with social & business peers). After next gen units are released, the price drops for “yesterday’s” technology to accommodate a growing user base. Seems like the typical Apple playbook.
I care about video because it's higher bandwidth. If you can do a deepfake that captures your expressions sufficiently well, that's most of what I care about.
I know of multiple high-net-worth young parents who see the ability to have a Zoom avatar as worth the price of the device alone. A device that allows them to jump on their first call even if they haven't had time to shower or put on makeup? Shut up and take all of their money. The road warrior options are just icing on the cake at that point...
(And yes, Apple clarified it will be available for 3P video conferencing, not just FaceTime)
I meant that video/VR provides more 'human communication' bandwidth than audio alone. Even when talking, people use a lot more of the available info beyond just audio.
I am broadly sympathetic to this, but also would note that clearly people feel social pressures to do this already, insofar as Zoom already offers a no-camera mode but people feel that they need to be "on camera".
I am in the "I have been dying for something this for 30 years, but until it becomes lower actual-physical-profile, I think it will be a dud, because it just simulates lots of things that we already have less expensive devices for, plus making you look like a robot" category.
Call me a luddite, but I don't care how productivity-enhancing this stuff may become, I'm never touching it. We're already too alienated from the real, physical world around us, and our fellow humans, as is. I currently work in software but if it becomes impossible to participate in the high-tech economy without using these things, I'll be happily down in a cabin in the woods somewhere living off the land. I have certain thresholds I refuse to cross, technology-wise, and this is one of them.
Frankly, in an ideal world these would be banned. We don't live in an ideal world, so at least I will do my part in socially ostracizing use of these things to the maximum possible extent.
I’m not quite in that spot, but the theme of the whole Web 2.0 era has been technology alienating people from the physical world. Tech isn’t going to deliver awe-inspiring miracles in the physical world of the flying-car variety, so instead it MitMs the brain-world interface so people can be wilingly fooled by illusions of ever-greater fidelity.
I’m a now tried traveling English/Japanese discussion manager and teacher. I want technology that brings at least families (plural) together into communities. I don’t want tech in isolated hotel rooms. What about the hundreds of thousands of commuters into and out of Tokyo every day? What can be shared or individualized with a headset’s touch? o
Until jailbreaks come out it looks like the SimulaVR I pre-ordered will do a better job of being a wearable AR headset computer you can use to do work hanging out in the park. Though the shiny features not related to getting work done do indeed look very shiny indeed.
“Can the device continuously telling you what to do, and you learning to automatically do it, be far behind? Won’t people welcome that?”
On first reading, this strikes me as incredibly dystopian. Don’t know if I’m “people”, but I would not on the face of it welcome interactions with a person I knew was automatically following instructions from an AI-connected headset. I don’t think I would welcome having my mind read to enable such instructions to be issued to me, or following said instructions, either. Maybe there’s something I’m missing here...
I wonder. I mean, in some important senses I am holding and complying with such a device right now. On the other hand, we’re conversing on a platform that emphasises individual thought and has prospered on that pitch. Either way, no one wants to be *seen* as a drone following instructions from the weird-looking headset, and if “automatically following the device’s instructions” isn’t obvious whatever the physical prominence of the device, perhaps we deserve dystopia.
Apple has long ignored games even though it's the category of apps that make them the most money. A key part of Apple's success is that they sell "pro" devices by showing people using them to create high-status art, music, and videos but most purchasers don't use them for that. They have to keep up the image if they want to keep their high margins and brand value.
Just because they don't highlight games doesn't mean they don't expect games to be a major money maker on this device.
Quest 3 is superior in every way, save its $500. Apple device is heavy on top of that.
I just don't see what is great about it. The controllerless gimmick? Pretty sure it will be replicated if it proves to be effective. Killer ap for headsets was always VR . AR might be useful but so far there is not many use cases
My current gaming PC, that I bought in part to enable playing games in VR and is overpriced by probably something like %30 because I had Puget Systems (which I can recommend!) build it when I got nervous about handling multiple $400+ parts myself, was around $3600. I can't imagine why you'd buy this, but I also don't any other Apple products either.
I have an Oculus Rift S which was pretty impressive for its price, but there just isn't a whole lot worth using it for still.
One of the underdiscussed use cases for VR I rarely see is stuff like emulating concert-going experiences, which isn't something I'm personally interested in but seems like something I'd love to have if it was. Also, AFAICT most VR headsets already have dynamic passthrough, they just don't generally use it for much and aren't built to look like it has it. My Rift S definitely has cameras on it that let you see the room through them during calibration.
I'll be impressed if they solved the motion sickness/nausea problem though.
Yeah, I don't know. Can't see myself using this, especially at the price point (hurts even more since I'd have to pay in BRL, not USD).
Then again, I'm someone who created his first Twitter account this year and only upgraded his 2013 laptop a few months ago. I'm not really at the cutting edge of things.
Seems better than what I thought it would be when I first saw it announced, I'll admit. Not really sure about the impact though.
I want to live in a cartoon, this device should let me do that. We are taking about passthrough and filter, maybe it'll take version 2 or 3 to make the compute fast enough for it to be seamless, but we are all going to live in our own worlds. In my world fat people don't exist, and every woman is a fit 18 year old anime school girl. Need to give a talk why imagine everyone naked, just use AI to make them that way. Why take acid/shrooms when you can just make the walls groovy at will.
Also this device replaces a number of things. A TV sure, but what about nice furniture and art? Paint for your walls.
Also I can't wait for NPC XR porn. Pick the girl tell her what to do.
I would not hold your breath, given Apple's content restrictions on the App Store and refusal to allow sideloading (known to the rest of the computing world as "running what you want on your own freaking device").
It's one thing to make it look good reasonably fast. It's another to get it down to 12ms so the eye doesn't pick up the delay (and so you can have your full reflexes). My guess is yeah, several years away at least.
My guess on NPC XR porn is that you will find out that you don't want the product you thought you wanted, not after a while anyway.
Sharpening physical skills, in my case baseball batting, would be a killer app. Meta Quest Win Reality for baseball was a killer app for me in the wrong direction. I could never get consistent calibration of the bat, plus the position sampling rate was inadequate. I'm currently in the worst slump of my life, with an on base percentage 400+ points lower than past seasons. Accurately tracking the entire swing (quest can't track the backswing or early swing phase), and being able to swap bats freely and immediately during a session would deliver the promise of VR batting practice.
My guess is that the killer app for the first generation of VR is just watching video, either movies or TV shows. There's a chicken-and-egg problem where developers aren't going to put a lot of work into good productivity or gaming experiences as long as the market is small. But the VR goggles can just be superior to a 70 inch TV screen, for watching movies that already are being created.
I have a Oculus Quest 1, and I've used the "movie/video watching apps" and they are not yet replacements for regular ol' TV's yet. And yes, the app UIs are terrible and a big part of it.
Yeah, I agree. The video quality just isn't good enough on the Oculus, I'd rather have my IRL big screen TV. I haven't tried the Vision Pro but it seems possible in theory that a VR goggle form could provide a better movie-watching experience. And if that worked, there would be other benefits, like I could watch a movie sitting in a room that doesn't have a big screen TV in it.
yes, I totally agree that at some point in the future it could. Or just things a home theatre can't do - like simulate a screen with the IMAX field of view. Or perhaps "in" the movie, with 360 deg around you.
If they create 360 degree cameras that make you feel like you're sitting at the front row of an NBA game, I'm sold
I think they have tried to do this! https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/go-courtside-in-vr-with-nba-league-pass-games-in-venues-on-oculus-quest/
I haven't tested it, but there's a lot of devils in the details about how it would work.
Reporting not endorsing, but MKBHD aka Marques Keith Brownlee said in his review that he is a huge NBA fan who is familiar with the courtside experience, and said it was not as good as real life, but good enough he anticipates buying whatever their season pass for it looks like.
I have an Oculus Quest 1, and I've used it to watch video quite a lot. The possibility of watching while lying on my mattress or wherever I feel comfortable, and the immersion and lack of distractions (when I'm watching a movie, I'm just watching a movie, and when I'm done I'm done, no multi-tasking or temptation of falling asleep with the TV on), make up for a lot of the extra annoyances. It's not more expensive and has many more use cases, so I didn't even end up needing my TV other than as a big computer monitor.
I suppose it depends on the person. But this Vision Pro must be way way better than the Oculus 1 in terms of image quality and comfort so, only the price stands in my way.
Like watching an IMAX movie in the comfort of your own home? That seems like it should be comparatively easy to get sorted out, even if you have to turn your head a bit to clearly see all the edges clearly.
Likely aimed at developers 1st, as well as the less price-sensitive early adopters (e.g. consumer enthusiasts and those who want bragging rights with social & business peers). After next gen units are released, the price drops for “yesterday’s” technology to accommodate a growing user base. Seems like the typical Apple playbook.
"Do video calls from anywhere and have no one be able to tell, thanks to your realistic digital avatar?"
Is this a job thing? As in, somebody cares enough to force you to do video but doesn't care enough to make sure it's really you on video?
I care about video because it's higher bandwidth. If you can do a deepfake that captures your expressions sufficiently well, that's most of what I care about.
I know of multiple high-net-worth young parents who see the ability to have a Zoom avatar as worth the price of the device alone. A device that allows them to jump on their first call even if they haven't had time to shower or put on makeup? Shut up and take all of their money. The road warrior options are just icing on the cake at that point...
(And yes, Apple clarified it will be available for 3P video conferencing, not just FaceTime)
How is this apple exclusive feature though? Quest 3 has all that. On top of it Facebook AI tech is better
Quest 3 has photorealistic avatars?
Its a software feature. And the avatars is basically gpt applied to a 3d model.
Facebook as far as neural networks go is ahead of apple. I am sure they can easily replicate thus feature (if not already).
I mean its wierd to state the avatars as "apple advantage" when midjourney and visuals transformers are mainstream
Why go to these extremes when one could just answer the Zoom call with audio only?
Video/3D is higher bandwidth.
It *uses* higher bandwidth, but that's more of a downside.
I meant that video/VR provides more 'human communication' bandwidth than audio alone. Even when talking, people use a lot more of the available info beyond just audio.
No, Kenny's right, it's higher bandwidth for the human watching you, my conversations with video go much better.
I am broadly sympathetic to this, but also would note that clearly people feel social pressures to do this already, insofar as Zoom already offers a no-camera mode but people feel that they need to be "on camera".
I am in the "I have been dying for something this for 30 years, but until it becomes lower actual-physical-profile, I think it will be a dud, because it just simulates lots of things that we already have less expensive devices for, plus making you look like a robot" category.
Call me a luddite, but I don't care how productivity-enhancing this stuff may become, I'm never touching it. We're already too alienated from the real, physical world around us, and our fellow humans, as is. I currently work in software but if it becomes impossible to participate in the high-tech economy without using these things, I'll be happily down in a cabin in the woods somewhere living off the land. I have certain thresholds I refuse to cross, technology-wise, and this is one of them.
Frankly, in an ideal world these would be banned. We don't live in an ideal world, so at least I will do my part in socially ostracizing use of these things to the maximum possible extent.
I’m not quite in that spot, but the theme of the whole Web 2.0 era has been technology alienating people from the physical world. Tech isn’t going to deliver awe-inspiring miracles in the physical world of the flying-car variety, so instead it MitMs the brain-world interface so people can be wilingly fooled by illusions of ever-greater fidelity.
Looks like the Adam Savage link is wrong, it goes to a TechCrunch article.
I’m a now tried traveling English/Japanese discussion manager and teacher. I want technology that brings at least families (plural) together into communities. I don’t want tech in isolated hotel rooms. What about the hundreds of thousands of commuters into and out of Tokyo every day? What can be shared or individualized with a headset’s touch? o
Until jailbreaks come out it looks like the SimulaVR I pre-ordered will do a better job of being a wearable AR headset computer you can use to do work hanging out in the park. Though the shiny features not related to getting work done do indeed look very shiny indeed.
“Can the device continuously telling you what to do, and you learning to automatically do it, be far behind? Won’t people welcome that?”
On first reading, this strikes me as incredibly dystopian. Don’t know if I’m “people”, but I would not on the face of it welcome interactions with a person I knew was automatically following instructions from an AI-connected headset. I don’t think I would welcome having my mind read to enable such instructions to be issued to me, or following said instructions, either. Maybe there’s something I’m missing here...
I do find that dystopian... I also very much expect it.
I wonder. I mean, in some important senses I am holding and complying with such a device right now. On the other hand, we’re conversing on a platform that emphasises individual thought and has prospered on that pitch. Either way, no one wants to be *seen* as a drone following instructions from the weird-looking headset, and if “automatically following the device’s instructions” isn’t obvious whatever the physical prominence of the device, perhaps we deserve dystopia.
I was immediately reminded of this Scott Alexander story from 2012: http://web.archive.org/web/20121008025245/http://squid314.livejournal.com/332946.html
Apple has long ignored games even though it's the category of apps that make them the most money. A key part of Apple's success is that they sell "pro" devices by showing people using them to create high-status art, music, and videos but most purchasers don't use them for that. They have to keep up the image if they want to keep their high margins and brand value.
Just because they don't highlight games doesn't mean they don't expect games to be a major money maker on this device.
Concerts. If I’m Apple, I make a deal with Taylor Swift.
Quest 3 is superior in every way, save its $500. Apple device is heavy on top of that.
I just don't see what is great about it. The controllerless gimmick? Pretty sure it will be replicated if it proves to be effective. Killer ap for headsets was always VR . AR might be useful but so far there is not many use cases
I always liked the display tech that 'paints' the graphics onto your retina.
AR in a car for driving directions would be great. The real limit of AR is that you have to use it on tiny screens.
My current gaming PC, that I bought in part to enable playing games in VR and is overpriced by probably something like %30 because I had Puget Systems (which I can recommend!) build it when I got nervous about handling multiple $400+ parts myself, was around $3600. I can't imagine why you'd buy this, but I also don't any other Apple products either.
I have an Oculus Rift S which was pretty impressive for its price, but there just isn't a whole lot worth using it for still.
One of the underdiscussed use cases for VR I rarely see is stuff like emulating concert-going experiences, which isn't something I'm personally interested in but seems like something I'd love to have if it was. Also, AFAICT most VR headsets already have dynamic passthrough, they just don't generally use it for much and aren't built to look like it has it. My Rift S definitely has cameras on it that let you see the room through them during calibration.
I'll be impressed if they solved the motion sickness/nausea problem though.
I heard (IIRC) that the eye tracking presumably allows them to compensate for the motion sickness issues.
I get motion sickness from motion blur on a regular monitor sometimes.
Yeah, I don't know. Can't see myself using this, especially at the price point (hurts even more since I'd have to pay in BRL, not USD).
Then again, I'm someone who created his first Twitter account this year and only upgraded his 2013 laptop a few months ago. I'm not really at the cutting edge of things.
Seems better than what I thought it would be when I first saw it announced, I'll admit. Not really sure about the impact though.
Thoughts:
I want to live in a cartoon, this device should let me do that. We are taking about passthrough and filter, maybe it'll take version 2 or 3 to make the compute fast enough for it to be seamless, but we are all going to live in our own worlds. In my world fat people don't exist, and every woman is a fit 18 year old anime school girl. Need to give a talk why imagine everyone naked, just use AI to make them that way. Why take acid/shrooms when you can just make the walls groovy at will.
Also this device replaces a number of things. A TV sure, but what about nice furniture and art? Paint for your walls.
Also I can't wait for NPC XR porn. Pick the girl tell her what to do.
I would not hold your breath, given Apple's content restrictions on the App Store and refusal to allow sideloading (known to the rest of the computing world as "running what you want on your own freaking device").
I mean this thing can hook up to a Mac, so presumably you can then get where you need to go, but yeah they likely won't make it easy.
It's one thing to make it look good reasonably fast. It's another to get it down to 12ms so the eye doesn't pick up the delay (and so you can have your full reflexes). My guess is yeah, several years away at least.
My guess on NPC XR porn is that you will find out that you don't want the product you thought you wanted, not after a while anyway.
Sharpening physical skills, in my case baseball batting, would be a killer app. Meta Quest Win Reality for baseball was a killer app for me in the wrong direction. I could never get consistent calibration of the bat, plus the position sampling rate was inadequate. I'm currently in the worst slump of my life, with an on base percentage 400+ points lower than past seasons. Accurately tracking the entire swing (quest can't track the backswing or early swing phase), and being able to swap bats freely and immediately during a session would deliver the promise of VR batting practice.