Vision Pro's page is live!

the presentation was amazing, but $3500 is a ridiculous price.

Some of my thoughts:

It's a very exciting product, I think this is the thing Meta wants to be but doesn't have the "clout" for to ask.

I have a Quest 2 and tried using it for this kind of stuff, it wasn't great, reviews for the Quest pro said the same. Now, maybe the Quest 3 will come closer to this, but I feel Apple is willing to up the price to give you the best product.

At first, I wasn't happy with the external battery, but I get it, it's not meant to be super mobile, but to be used at a desk or other stationary position with maximum comfort, being light and easy to use.

I think the eye tracking is fantastic, since reaching forward all the time is the exact same reason apple never made a touchscreen iMac, it just makes your arms tired.

I felt the last bit of the presentation was a bit like what I'd say when I was selling macs "it's quite a bit of money, but it's not expensive for what you're getting", and there's some merit in that.

Furthermore, I can see this living side by side with a quest 3 though, having one for everyday life and then the other for games, since, as much as Meta wants it to be a pro product, it's just a game machine, a very fun game machine though, but not the most amazing office application.

In conclusion, I'll see if I can get one through my employer, otherwise, well, let's see.

Can't wait to buy one in like three years when gen3 gets all the growing pains out and the price gets closer to half

I haven’t wanted anything this bad since the original iPhone but I’m making myself wait for the third version. It looks so fucking cool. The haters’ takes are gonna age like milk.

Agreed. That scene and the one where he’s trying to bond with his kids while recording them just didn’t feel like a “human experience”.

Even watching him do it, I felt disconnected.

But I mean, I get it. Recording 3D video of my precious family time is a very valuable prospect.

At $3500 the Meta Quest lineup of products immediately looks better in comparison.

I feel like so many of these companies doing XR are trying to lean out of the fact that wearing a headset like that is inherently isolating, all because they want to sell to anyone other than the market of people that created these devices in the first place and gave VR its initial groundswell in the early 2010s, people who want to play games alone in their rooms who are completely fine with that. If these XR companies just accepted that that's a really great market for these devices and then actually focused on them being a gaming platform I feel like the XR market would be a lot healthier overall. But instead we have to swing for the fences because these tech companies want to compete with smartphones(?) instead of with the PlayStation 5.

These devices are made worse because of that.

A bit dystopian tbh. But that’s our future, I guess.

So, first of all, I do think that Apple entering the AR/VR Space will change it significantly.

But I also think in a lot of ways, this is the worst Display Apple has released in quite a while.
I'm being a little unfair, because it's still (one of) the best in the market, but even if it's the best, being the best doesn't necessarily make it good.

assuming they have the same FOV as the Meta Quest 2 (106° horizontal and 96° vertical), fixing the resolution to the same aspect ratio I get 33.6px/°. The Information's Wayne Ma claimed 120° horizontal months ago, which would be ~28,3px/° (depending on vertical FoV, I'm assuming 120° as well for this)
Typically Apple was going for >50px/° to consider something "retina"
It seems that generally speaking you'd need roughly 60px/° or 1px per arcminute or 1px per 60arcseconds for Displays in which you can't discern pixels any more.
furthermore (same source, further up) the average projected distance between cones in your eyes is ~30arcseconds, so while it seems impossible to discern Pixels starting at ~60px/°, the overall image clarity should still go up notably until ~120px/° (that seems a lot like the old Nyquist showing up again, at least to me).
Accounting for higher peak densities in cones which can reach roughly double the average density, some people should notice significant improvements up until ~240px/°, while some will only get significantly diminishing returns from effectively just "super-sampling" their eyes.

And given the fact that Apple is trying to make this (in my view) fundamentally VR Headset an AR one with Camera passthrough, requirements for exceptional Displays are high, because suddenly it's not a game looking slightly pixelated, but the real world (even your Children, in their own Demo).

But I'm excited what will happen with this in the next 10 years, when we may get really good, reasonably cheap VR/AR devices.