Apple Vision Pro will be available beginning Friday, February 2, at all U.S. Apple Store locations and the U.S. Apple Store online.

I honestly doubt this will take off, but it’ll be interesting as a tech demo for what AR/VR can be at the highest end.

  • garretble@lemmy.worldEnglish
    281·
    11 months ago

    Apple Vision Pro will be available starting at $3,499 (U.S.) with 256GB of storage. Pre-orders for Apple Vision Pro will begin on Friday, January 19, at 5 a.m. PST, with availability beginning Friday, February 2.

    So 256GB for all those movies and games you’ll want to play on that long plane ride they keep showing as a way you’ll definitely use these.

    I’m in the Apple ecosystem pretty hard, but we’ll really just have to see what rich folks do with this thing.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.worldEnglish
      102·
      11 months ago

      How many movies do you actually need to store on the device itself? Apple has been all in on streaming stuff so you’d only ever need to actually download stuff when you’re planning on going offline.

      That said for it’s price that’s hilariously small storage, but simultaneously peak Apple.

    • thehatfox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      92·
      11 months ago

      This is going to be an interesting launch. There’s been rumours about low production volumes so availability may get pushed back much further than February. Which will make judging the initial impressions harder when there are so few devices in peoples hands (or on heads).

      I’m also a bit surprised by the lack of build up from Apple. There’s been no push on whatever third party apps are going to be ready for this. The Apple Watch had two dedicated events in the lead up to launch. Even the press release seems a bit basic, most of the imagery seems to be reused from the first events press materials.

      This is the biggest product introduction since the iPhone but it’s being handled rather quietly.

      • garretble@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        11 months ago

        I feel like this is the version they’ll put in the goodie bags for celebs at the Oscars to let them create a bunch of buzz. And then next year there will be a version that only costs $2000 or something - still expensive but less out of reach for mortal humans.

  • JiveTurkey@lemmy.worldEnglish
    278·
    11 months ago

    The anti-consumer apple BS aside. The lack of PC support or support for any real GPU that has a chance at running Games in full resolution, makes this dean on arrival for most people using VR.

    • thehatfox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      25·
      11 months ago

      Apple is pushing productivity as the main application for Vision Pro, to the point they don’t even call it VR but spatial computing instead. I don’t think gaming is really for a focus for them at the moment, instead they want to try and tap into other markets who aren’t using VR currently.

      • micka190@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        11 months ago

        they don’t even call it VR but spatial computing instead.

        I was under the impression these were meant to be AR glasses, not VR glasses? Either way, I’m not really sure who their target demographic is supposed to be at that price point.

        • CaptDust@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          51·
          11 months ago

          I wouldn’t consider it AR because it’s still a fully virtual environment the user is interacting with, granted it’s built convincingly from the camera feeds. If the lens were a clear passthrough into the real world+layering virtual elements over it then I think it falls under AR.

          It’s mostly semantics though. The line between AR and VR has been fuzzy since we started shoving camera passthrough on devices.

          • atocci@kbin.social
            72·
            11 months ago

            Wow, your comment is the first time it’s been made clear to me that this thing isn’t actually see-through and that’s just a screen on the outside. I thought it was essentially a sleeker looking Hololens. I’ve had the wrong impression of this thing the entire time, and now I’m much less impressed by it.

            • CaptDust@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              32·
              11 months ago

              Lol, yeah, and what’s crazy to me is they have the inner eye tracking cams projecting the user’s expressions back to that outer screen. Incredibly complicated implementation soaking up precious compute cycles, for no real reason or benefit. Normal Apple things. I think the outer screen goes dark if the user goes into full VR mode to watch a movie or whatever

        • bdonvr@thelemmy.clubEnglish
          4·
          11 months ago

          It can be both, the device isn’t transparent at all and the user can control how much of the real world they are seeing at any time. It’s all cameras that create the AR effect. Applications can be anything from a floating window in the real world or a full VR immersion.

        • 0x4F50@feddit.chEnglish
          11·
          11 months ago

          Imagine getting written up by your supervisor because you dared to look away from your monitor take your VR headset off to give your eyes a break

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.caEnglish
      4·
      11 months ago

      I mean this thing barely has Mac support, why would it have PC support? It’s basically its own computer you put on your head.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    11 months ago

    Really curious what this year will hold for this device. Even more curious to see the price tag and features on Gen 2

  • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
    103·
    11 months ago

    Given Apple’s track record i wouldn’t bet against it succeeding, but… I don’t get it. My oculus that cost 350 does 95% of what the apple device does but costs literally 10 times more.

  • clearedtoland@lemmy.worldEnglish
    81·
    11 months ago

    I’m an early adopter and probably Apple’s target audience. I sure as hell don’t have the cash on hand to buy it and I’d consider financing it but - I have such a bad taste in my mouth from the AR/VR concepts over the years. The Quest was a flop for me. The XReal Air too.

    They’re fun, for a bit, then they sit in a corner. I could see it being useful on my work from home days but outside of that, my phone is the most compelling partner to my Mac.

    • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
      62·
      11 months ago

      And those people weren’t wrong at the time. The iPod wasn’t successful in its first few generations. It didn’t become successful until several generations later after they changed a bunch of the problems with it. One of the aspects that makes Apple so successful is that they’re willing to stick with a new product for many years while they keep working on figuring out what the device needs to become a good product.

      • MrSpArkle@lemmy.caEnglish
        51·
        11 months ago

        It was successful immediately because there literally wasn’t any other player in the world that had its capacity and physical size.

        Everything else lacked mass market appeal because it couldn’t hold enough songs or couldn’t fit in your pocket.

        Not to mention the vast majority of the population didn’t know how to pirate music, and most music stores were shit compare to iTunes(and that is not a great endorsement).

        The only huge barrier to adoption was the initial FireWire only model, but I’d be willing to bet even with that restriction they sold more units in the first year than any other model of music player.

        • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
          0·
          11 months ago

          Whether or not it was successful initially isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s matter of fact. Compared to other personal music players on the market, the number of ipods was not high for the first several generations.

  • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.worldEnglish
    52·
    11 months ago

    They are lucky that no one decided to compete with them. They have some features that aren’t otherwise to market yet. So their price is less obviously bloated. If other headsets had been positioned to directly compete, they would have been able to do so at the 2000$ price range.

    Overall, any new company entering the market is good news. VR is finally ready for normal people. Quest 3 basically crossed the line to being worth recommending as a virtual monitor alone, not to mention all it’s other capability.

    So at this point, more exposure of what VR is now can only be a good thing. All it’s missing now is being considered a normal thing to do. The more “normal” companies making VR headsets, the better. As long as their headsets don’t suck. Cuz even if I wouldn’t want to use it anyway, it getting bad press still affects the rest of VR.

    I don’t care if it’s over priced, as long as it doesn’t end up having any glaring issues. People lamenting that it’s too expensive are at least still interested, and can be redirected to a more reasonable headset. And even if only influencers end up having the apple headset, as long as they like it, it’s a net positive for the whole community.

  • Wanderer@lemm.eeEnglish
    64·
    11 months ago

    I can’t wait for this to be released all the fan boys to spend a fortune on it and make apple even more billions in profit for a product that isn’t going to be worth it.

    But at least it will help with vr and ar. I really think this could be the last bit of momentum needed to get it moving and I’m excited for that future.

  • ExLisper@linux.communityEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    I don’t really get the point of all this. Sci-Fi movies are trying go convince as for a very long time that interacting with a computer by standing and waving your hands around is the future but for me it just looks tiring. I prefer my keyboard and mouse. We’ll see how many people Apple can convince. Maybe they are right and you just have to use it to believe it…

      • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        Oh.

        So you can expect at least three revisions of this before they inevitably release one with optional controllers for when you need any amount of precision. And you’ll need a Apple Vision Pro 4 to be able to use them.

          • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
            0·
            11 months ago

            That doesn’t sound like it would work, except for very basic PSVR1 style games, where again they were hobbled by poor controller setups, where you could pick between several options that were awful in different ways. The Oculus Touch controllers were so much better for literally everything, and at this point are over 7 years old.

            I mean, they can be fun too, Astrobot is pretty neat. You just can’t compare them to a full fat experience like Half Life: Alyx.

            4K per eye is great resolution, more than anyone really needs, but they’re going to be relying a lot on woolly hand gestures, and as such is going to struggle even for simple games like Beat Saber.

            There’s an argument they’re not going for gamers here, which is fair enough, but answering emails while having my glasses pressed into my nose isn’t something I’m particularly interested in.