• ABoxOfNeurons@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    I may be in the minority here, but I do, and frequently have. There is a sizeable community like that, but we don’t seem to really fall into Apple’s target market, and it will be interesting to see how orthogonal that willingness is to being a techie shut-in.

    For me, the big reason I don’t wear it 8-10 hours per day when I’m working like I do when I’m playing is the pixel density. Current VR headsets (except maybe Varjo’s) don’t do a good job of simulating even one 4k screen, let alone competing with a multi-monitor setup, so they fall short for productivity. Once that’s solved (and that’s the claim Apple seems to be making here), the case for use as a primary work machine is very compelling. It lets you set up something like this for the cost of a headset and a reclining office chair, and is also somehow portable.

    It fails if you use it exactly like you use a laptop, just like a phone does. If you take advantage of the increased flexibility though, it has pretty transformative potential.

    That said, that’s the perspective of a technologist with no kids who works from home. I wouldn’t buy this because its standout features are irrelevant to me, so I’m from a representative sample of the market they’re chasing.

    • bouncing@partizle.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m inclined to agree with you that it might be a potentially good way to interact with a computer. There’s a company called Sightful that makes a “Spacetop” computer, which is basically a laptop with a headset instead of a screen. Mike Elgan actually gave it some pretty positive press lately.

      As someone who travels constantly and misses a big monitor on the road, I am inclined to agree that the use case could be compelling.

      But… $3,500 is a lot of lettuce for something that could easily be obsolete as fast as my cell phone. And Apple mentioned that the total field of vision is something over 4k, but that’s still a lot less than multiple 4k monitors.

      Still, I’m willing to be convinced. Especially if a stripped down “viewer only” model comes out without all the bells and whistles. I don’t need outward display, or the lidar, or any of that. I just want a big workspace.

      • creek@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        But… $3,500 is a lot of lettuce for something that could easily be obsolete as fast as my cell phone. And Apple mentioned that the total field of vision is something over 4k, but that’s still a lot less than multiple 4k monitors.

        I’m waiting to see what they drop 12 - 18 months later. I’d wager by the time the 2nd-gen Vision Pro comes out, they will release a more stripped down model that will be roughly equivalent to what they are releasing next year, and will likely start at around $1,200. By that point, the App ecosystem, will likely be mature enough that they will be able to have a version that serves as a loss leader or just breaks even, and they’ll make their revenue on the backend with their 40% App Store cut.

        • bouncing@partizle.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think we can definitely expect a lighter version (Apple Vision Air?). I’m skeptical Apple would ever do a loss leader though; they tend to make money on all their products and with healthy margins.