And I will go on record saying this is nice and all, but fundamentally just some incremental progress. Absolutely not an iPhone moment.
The idea of having a fully immersive 3D environment around you is cool, but I haven’t had any VR experience that didn’t turn out to be eventually a headache let alone actually productive. Even with gaming I can only name a few titles that actually benefit, but for the ones that do the effect is quite something, I’ll admit that.
The idea of hybrid AR/VR - adjusted by a dial (crown) - is very clever. As is a high-resolution display.
But the form factor is a problem.
If it had all of the capabilities announced but combined with the Google Glass form factor of ultra thin & light - then it would be a device more revolutionary than the iPhone.
But the form factor makes it much more niche.
And the tech just doesn't exist in the year 2023 to make a device with that sweet-spot combination of high capability and tiny form factor.
(My two cents, which I am hoping ages better than the infamous HN Dropbox comment.)
But I (perhaps naïvely) think this is being approached from the wrong direction.
To me, if Apple had launched a new highly limited device but with the Google Glass form factor - then I could see the path to incrementally improve (keep the form factor, and add features over time as hardware progresses).
It's much harder for me to see the opposite - of starting out with the clunky form factor, even if it is 100x more capable.
EDIT: Or I may be thinking from the wrong direction. I could see this device as overtaking existing VR devices like the Rift by far.
It depends on whether "success" here is defined as surpassing the previous best-selling VR headset (very plausible), or as matching the iPhone (much less plausible).
You do recall that when the iPhone came out we already had Blackberry, HTC, Windows Mobile, Nokia already making smart phones with touch screens and apps right?
Sure the experience was terrible, but that's the same play here. Apple generally takes a technology space which is a little early and poorly done by others, and ships a great experience across hardware, software, and ecosystem to capture a market.
The elephant in the room is that by the time Apple came out with iPhone, everyone else had a mobile phone because there are clear benefits of ownining a mobile phone. Those phones as you say were not great, and iPhone was absolutely revolutionary in that case so we agree here.
But pretty much nobody has a VR headset right now (or at least IRL people that I know), so not sure if a normal person will see a benefit of owning this kind of device.
It's a jump from what we've seen in the consumer space. It isn't priced like other consumer VR hardware though, it's 4-8x the price; much closer to enterprise pricing. If you include the wider space with things like the Varjo XR3 (which released 2 years ago at only 2x the price) then it looks a lot less impressive of a jump. Plus there's things like the Bigscreen Beyond which actually manage a slim form factor. Really the only thing Apple has a chance to differentiate on is software, and they've got a lot of catching up to do there.
But they do have a huge head start in apps, movies, tv, games, sports rights compared to the makers of any other device. They are well positioned or make this work by integrating tightly to their own eco-system
2D content in 3D is a gimmick; it's nice to have, but it's not going to sell consoles. And even beyond that it's not a "head start"; almost all of that content is already available on other platforms, even other VR platforms. Just owning the content doesn't get Apple much if anything here.
>apps, games
...I don't know how you can possibly spin it as them having a head start here. Meta has a multi-year lead on them, and PC is even further, in games. Apps will need a lot of work as well - just throwing a 2D app in 3D space doesn't provide a compelling use case. You may as well just use a tablet.
Despite spending a lot of time pushing for AR apps on iPhone, Apple is still way behind on the VR/AR race. They need to get developers working on novel applications that utilize the full possibilities of a headset like this, and they need it yesterday if they don't want Meta to own the space.
Which brings us to the real reason that they released this $3.5k device: it's not actually for consumers, it's ultimately just a fancy, overly-polished dev kit.
Sorry, what I meant was, they have the whole App Store, plus the games in the App Store, plus Apple Arcade etc. These things are packed with games and apps that people care about and use every day.
Those are a few reasons that people will find this device compelling.
Absolutely none of which are a compelling reason to pick the $3.5k headset over an iPad or laptop for a fifth the price (or hell, a tenth the price used). Like I said, 2D content just floating in a 3D space is more of a gimmick than a real selling point.
Also, keep in mind, Meta's headsets have full access to all of Windows' apps and games through link or Virtual Desktop, which absolutely dwarfs Apple's lineup.
That's definitely a big concern about the physical pen. If it's too heavy or if it's too hot, it will overperform or perform some CPU intense work. Also the fitting using your eye with such a close contact with the digital device is another issue.
The Apple device is an "AR" device, it still projects artificle video to your eyes rather than letting you see the real world.
I haven't seen anything the apple device does better than the hololens 2, other than the field of view, which is only possible because they are mock AR, not real AR
The idea of having a fully immersive 3D environment around you is cool, but I haven’t had any VR experience that didn’t turn out to be eventually a headache let alone actually productive. Even with gaming I can only name a few titles that actually benefit, but for the ones that do the effect is quite something, I’ll admit that.