VR has repeatedly been touted as the next big thing in gaming, and
repeatedly failed to transform the industry. It's neat tech, sure, but
it's gimmicky and - outside a few die-hard adherents - hasn't really
managed to capture an audience. Few people who have bought a VR
headset use it frequently or for very long. Whether it was because of
a lack of utility, or discomfort, or motion sickness, or available
software, VR always seemed to be an 'also ran'. And despite billions
spent on the technology - by Facebook, by Sony, by Valve, by Microsoft
- nobody seemed able to push the technology mainstream.

And then Apple threw its hat into the ring, and VR proponents went
wild. If anyone could convince the public of the AWESOMENESS of VR, it
would be Apple. Surely, five years after Apple released its iEye (or
whatever they were going to call their head-set), everyone would be
masked up. Apple was going to save VR.

And it's really, really hard to argue with this, because Apple has
transformed the industry a number of times. It was never by actually
doing anything new, but instead by giving already available tech that
special polish and integration Apple is famous for. It's really hard
to bet against Apple.

But I'm not sure the Apple Vision headset is going to do what VR
enthusiasts are hoping for.

That's not to dismiss the gear entirely. It's impressive tech for
sure. But it's not going to save VR.

For one thing, there's the price: $3500 USD is... well, even for
Apple, that's steep. Of course, this is the "pro" version; presumably
the not-yet-announced consumer edition will be less expensive. Still,
VR struggled to get its foot in the door even at a $500 price-point.
With numbers that high, the Vision is going to have to be truly
transformative.

And the thing is... it's really not. For one thing, it doesn't really
seem to be a VR headset. It's features seem a lot more oriented
towards AUGMENTED Reality than enabling a virtual reality. It's all
about throwing your desktop onto a floating panel in front of you
rather than immersing you in an unreal world. Sure, it has eye
tracking... but it doesn't seem to do head-tracking. Nor does it hook
up to a PC and leverage its processing power; the Vision does all its
processing itself. And sure, at $3500 USD you get an impressive amount
of processing stuffed into a remarkably tiny package... but we're not
talking anything that can run "Star Citizen".

So what you get is a nifty AR headset (that still doesn't look any
more comfortable to wear than the Oculus, Index or Rift) that,
ultimately, just duplicates what your monitor does. Sure, there are
some neat gimmicks but is that really worth the $3500USD price tag?
(Which doesn't include the cost of the custom-made lens 'implants' for
people who wear glasses, or the need for an iPhone to do the creepy
face scanning required to activate the device).

The Apple Vision may jumpstart the AR industry, but VR? It's not the
savior VR fans were hoping for.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 7:10:19 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> VR has repeatedly been touted as the next big thing in gaming, and
> repeatedly failed to transform the industry. It's neat tech, sure, but
> it's gimmicky and - outside a few die-hard adherents - hasn't really
> managed to capture an audience. Few people who have bought a VR
> headset use it frequently or for very long. Whether it was because of
> a lack of utility, or discomfort, or motion sickness, or available
> software, VR always seemed to be an 'also ran'. And despite billions
> spent on the technology - by Facebook, by Sony, by Valve, by Microsoft
> - nobody seemed able to push the technology mainstream.
>
> And then Apple threw its hat into the ring, and VR proponents went
> wild. If anyone could convince the public of the AWESOMENESS of VR, it
> would be Apple. Surely, five years after Apple released its iEye (or
> whatever they were going to call their head-set), everyone would be
> masked up. Apple was going to save VR.
>
> And it's really, really hard to argue with this, because Apple has
> transformed the industry a number of times. It was never by actually
> doing anything new, but instead by giving already available tech that
> special polish and integration Apple is famous for. It's really hard
> to bet against Apple.
>
> But I'm not sure the Apple Vision headset is going to do what VR
> enthusiasts are hoping for.
>
> That's not to dismiss the gear entirely. It's impressive tech for
> sure. But it's not going to save VR.
>
> For one thing, there's the price: $3500 USD is... well, even for
> Apple, that's steep. Of course, this is the "pro" version; presumably
> the not-yet-announced consumer edition will be less expensive. Still,
> VR struggled to get its foot in the door even at a $500 price-point.
> With numbers that high, the Vision is going to have to be truly
> transformative.
>
> And the thing is... it's really not. For one thing, it doesn't really
> seem to be a VR headset. It's features seem a lot more oriented
> towards AUGMENTED Reality than enabling a virtual reality. It's all
> about throwing your desktop onto a floating panel in front of you
> rather than immersing you in an unreal world. Sure, it has eye
> tracking... but it doesn't seem to do head-tracking. Nor does it hook
> up to a PC and leverage its processing power; the Vision does all its
> processing itself. And sure, at $3500 USD you get an impressive amount
> of processing stuffed into a remarkably tiny package... but we're not
> talking anything that can run "Star Citizen".
>
> So what you get is a nifty AR headset (that still doesn't look any
> more comfortable to wear than the Oculus, Index or Rift) that,
> ultimately, just duplicates what your monitor does. Sure, there are
> some neat gimmicks but is that really worth the $3500USD price tag?
> (Which doesn't include the cost of the custom-made lens 'implants' for
> people who wear glasses, or the need for an iPhone to do the creepy
> face scanning required to activate the device).
>
> The Apple Vision may jumpstart the AR industry, but VR? It's not the
> savior VR fans were hoping for.

Yeah, this is for top level managers who have more money than sense.

If Nintendo got into VR in a big way that might be something, but I
don't see it happening anytime soon as they tend to lag behind others in
tech. They did come out with the 3DS a long time ago, so they
have some knowledge in a similar area, so I suppose it's possible.

- Justisaur

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

<snip>
>And then Apple threw its hat into the ring, and VR proponents went
>wild. If anyone could convince the public of the AWESOMENESS of VR, it
>would be Apple. Surely, five years after Apple released its iEye (or
>whatever they were going to call their head-set), everyone would be
>masked up. Apple was going to save VR.

Except for the motion sickness that plagues many using headsets.
Until they fix that it's a hard sell.

And for their marketing campaign ... iEye, Aye!

>And it's really, really hard to argue with this, because Apple has
>transformed the industry a number of times. It was never by actually
>doing anything new, but instead by giving already available tech that
>special polish and integration Apple is famous for. It's really hard
>to bet against Apple.

I'm actually pretty sure I have never owned an apple product of any
kind, so not sure what effect they have actually had.

>But I'm not sure the Apple Vision headset is going to do what VR
>enthusiasts are hoping for.
>
>That's not to dismiss the gear entirely. It's impressive tech for
>sure. But it's not going to save VR.
>
>For one thing, there's the price: $3500 USD is... well, even for
>Apple, that's steep. Of course, this is the "pro" version; presumably
>the not-yet-announced consumer edition will be less expensive. Still,
>VR struggled to get its foot in the door even at a $500 price-point.
>With numbers that high, the Vision is going to have to be truly
>transformative.

You want a mortgage payment (or multiple) for a peripheral that is
utterly unnecessary, yeah, that is not going to go over well.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

I want a holodeck, damnit!

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> VR has repeatedly been touted as the next big thing in gaming, and
> repeatedly failed to transform the industry. It's neat tech, sure, but
> it's gimmicky and - outside a few die-hard adherents - hasn't really
> managed to capture an audience. Few people who have bought a VR
> headset use it frequently or for very long. Whether it was because of
> a lack of utility, or discomfort, or motion sickness, or available
> software, VR always seemed to be an 'also ran'. And despite billions
> spent on the technology - by Facebook, by Sony, by Valve, by Microsoft
> - nobody seemed able to push the technology mainstream.

> And then Apple threw its hat into the ring, and VR proponents went
> wild. If anyone could convince the public of the AWESOMENESS of VR, it
> would be Apple. Surely, five years after Apple released its iEye (or
> whatever they were going to call their head-set), everyone would be
> masked up. Apple was going to save VR.

> And it's really, really hard to argue with this, because Apple has
> transformed the industry a number of times. It was never by actually
> doing anything new, but instead by giving already available tech that
> special polish and integration Apple is famous for. It's really hard
> to bet against Apple.

> But I'm not sure the Apple Vision headset is going to do what VR
> enthusiasts are hoping for.

> That's not to dismiss the gear entirely. It's impressive tech for
> sure. But it's not going to save VR.

> For one thing, there's the price: $3500 USD is... well, even for
> Apple, that's steep. Of course, this is the "pro" version; presumably
> the not-yet-announced consumer edition will be less expensive. Still,
> VR struggled to get its foot in the door even at a $500 price-point.
> With numbers that high, the Vision is going to have to be truly
> transformative.

> And the thing is... it's really not. For one thing, it doesn't really
> seem to be a VR headset. It's features seem a lot more oriented
> towards AUGMENTED Reality than enabling a virtual reality. It's all
> about throwing your desktop onto a floating panel in front of you
> rather than immersing you in an unreal world. Sure, it has eye
> tracking... but it doesn't seem to do head-tracking. Nor does it hook
> up to a PC and leverage its processing power; the Vision does all its
> processing itself. And sure, at $3500 USD you get an impressive amount
> of processing stuffed into a remarkably tiny package... but we're not
> talking anything that can run "Star Citizen".

> So what you get is a nifty AR headset (that still doesn't look any
> more comfortable to wear than the Oculus, Index or Rift) that,
> ultimately, just duplicates what your monitor does. Sure, there are
> some neat gimmicks but is that really worth the $3500USD price tag?
> (Which doesn't include the cost of the custom-made lens 'implants' for
> people who wear glasses, or the need for an iPhone to do the creepy
> face scanning required to activate the device).

> The Apple Vision may jumpstart the AR industry, but VR? It's not the
> savior VR fans were hoping for.

--
"David shepherded them with integrity of heart; with skillful hands he led them." --Psalm 78:72. Bad humpy day mawny and still winter so far.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 07/06/2023 15:10, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> For one thing, there's the price: $3500 USD is... well, even for
> Apple, that's steep. Of course, this is the "pro" version; presumably
> the not-yet-announced consumer edition will be less expensive. Still,
> VR struggled to get its foot in the door even at a $500 price-point.
> With numbers that high, the Vision is going to have to be truly
> transformative.

To me the price is the real killer as if you look at something like the
iPhone it was want people wanted out of a smartphone (not for working on
the move) at a price tag that wasn't dreadful.

With the price point of this one even Apple fans may have second thoughts.

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:57:40 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 07/06/2023 15:10, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> For one thing, there's the price: $3500 USD is... well, even for
>> Apple, that's steep. Of course, this is the "pro" version; presumably
>> the not-yet-announced consumer edition will be less expensive. Still,
>> VR struggled to get its foot in the door even at a $500 price-point.
>> With numbers that high, the Vision is going to have to be truly
>> transformative.
>
>To me the price is the real killer as if you look at something like the
>iPhone it was want people wanted out of a smartphone (not for working on
>the move) at a price tag that wasn't dreadful.
>
>With the price point of this one even Apple fans may have second thoughts.

In fairness, Apple never really positioned the device as a VR headset
(they were, in fact, quite coy about the thing prior to release). It
was VR fans who took what little news was released and spun it into
the second coming (something that still is going on, with many outlets
crowing about how Apple has "beat" Facebook in the VR market).

But even for an AR device, that price is a killer. Augmented Reality
has its uses, but it does require the device be used... well, in
reality. It's a machine meant to be with you when you actually do
things, whether it's walking down the street or tuning up a jet
engine.

But most people aren't going to be so nonchalant about the use of a
device that costs upwards of three grand (especially in the midst of a
cost-of-living crisis). It's not a "toss in the back seat and if it
gets broken or stolen I'll get another one" price point. It's more of
a "keep at home and don't let the kids touch it" thing.

There are uses for the device, and corporations, Apple fanatics and
people with too much cash will buy it. But for VR (and even AR) to
gain real traction - for there to be enough of an audience that
software developers will target the device - the price will need to
come down significantly.

And without that software to leverage its capabilities, the Apple
Vision will never amount to more than just being a really nifty
monitor that you've strapped to your face.

On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 10:10:07 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>The Apple Vision may jumpstart the AR industry, but VR? It's not the
>savior VR fans were hoping for.

Even accepting the Vision isn't suitable for traditional VR gaming,
the more I read about the device, the less palatable it becomes.

Like how, if you want to use this with glasses, you'll need special
lenses - from Zeiss - that cost $600 a pair, because the headset has
no room for spectacles.

Or that it's weight is significant enough that it will require a strap
on the top of the head to fit comfortably... which won't be included
in the base price of $3500 USD.

Or that the device will use a proprietary connector to its external
battery 'puck', which not only means you can't use a third-party
cable, but can't rig in a third-party battery. Apple-only parts,
please!

Or how the range of movement for the user is only 1.5m before it
resets into 'safety mode'. So no bobbing and weaving, please; the
Vision is designed to be used solely while sitting quietly on a chair.

Or just how, if you actually still want the darn thing and have the
stupid amounts of money required to buy it, you can't just go into a
store and pick one up; no, you'll need to make an appointment and have
it fitted for you.

This is not a consumer device made for people who want to see what VR
is all about. It's not even a device designed for corporations who may
find AR useful for their employees. It's luxury swank made for people
with more money than sense. It's going to attract a tiny number of
users that will be too small to attract more than a miniscule
percentage of developers. While it has neat tech, it's not
revolutionary in any way; the only reason we don't see the Rift or
Index or Occulus offering similar stats is because they use less
expensive hardware in order to make their devices affordable. It's not
going to kickstart an AR app revolution. And as such, it's not going
to do a thing to push the AR or VR industry forward anymore than a
Ferrari-branded gaming PC will.

---------------
* details here:
https://wccftech.com/apple-vision-pro-top-strap-charged-separately/
https://www.techradar.com/computing/virtual-reality-augmented-reality/apple-might-have-already-ruined-the-vision-pro-for-vr-gaming
https://wccftech.com/apple-vision-pro-purchased-through-appointment-system/

On 6/27/2023 10:16 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 10:10:07 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The Apple Vision may jumpstart the AR industry, but VR? It's not the
>> savior VR fans were hoping for.
>
> Even accepting the Vision isn't suitable for traditional VR gaming,
> the more I read about the device, the less palatable it becomes.
>
> Like how, if you want to use this with glasses, you'll need special
> lenses - from Zeiss - that cost $600 a pair, because the headset has
> no room for spectacles.
>
> Or that it's weight is significant enough that it will require a strap
> on the top of the head to fit comfortably... which won't be included
> in the base price of $3500 USD.
>
> Or that the device will use a proprietary connector to its external
> battery 'puck', which not only means you can't use a third-party
> cable, but can't rig in a third-party battery. Apple-only parts,
> please!
>
> Or how the range of movement for the user is only 1.5m before it
> resets into 'safety mode'. So no bobbing and weaving, please; the
> Vision is designed to be used solely while sitting quietly on a chair.
>
> Or just how, if you actually still want the darn thing and have the
> stupid amounts of money required to buy it, you can't just go into a
> store and pick one up; no, you'll need to make an appointment and have
> it fitted for you.
>
> This is not a consumer device made for people who want to see what VR
> is all about. It's not even a device designed for corporations who may
> find AR useful for their employees. It's luxury swank made for people
> with more money than sense. It's going to attract a tiny number of
> users that will be too small to attract more than a miniscule
> percentage of developers. While it has neat tech, it's not
> revolutionary in any way; the only reason we don't see the Rift or
> Index or Occulus offering similar stats is because they use less
> expensive hardware in order to make their devices affordable. It's not
> going to kickstart an AR app revolution. And as such, it's not going
> to do a thing to push the AR or VR industry forward anymore than a
> Ferrari-branded gaming PC will.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------
> * details here:
> https://wccftech.com/apple-vision-pro-top-strap-charged-separately/
> https://www.techradar.com/computing/virtual-reality-augmented-reality/apple-might-have-already-ruined-the-vision-pro-for-vr-gaming
> https://wccftech.com/apple-vision-pro-purchased-through-appointment-system/
>
>
>
So, it is very carefully targeted at the snobby Apple users. Got it.

:P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.