I think it's not a hardware problem but a content problem. People are shooting for perfect with the hardware and meanwhile nobody is really bothering with the content much. It's all limited to games, 3D movies, and some gimmicky things that are a combination of awkward and not that exciting.
Apple has some interesting conceptual stuff but in the end you end up using a lot of 2D stuff that gets projected in front of you. It's nice but not really that valuable.
The problem with the vision pro isn't that it's not good enough but that good enough content to justify the expense is lacking. It would be more popular if it were cheaper. But even the Meta Quest, which is a lot cheaper, has the same problem so far.
And it's a shame because Apple is perfectly positioned to solve this.
Apple makes mainstream and popular TV shows. Apple owns rights to broadcast sporting events. Apple makes custom cameras to film their promotional VR content. But apple didn't invest in "real" feature films or movies shot in VR natively. Apple isn't making "on the field" VR sports broadcasts. Apple even has more money than some nations to throw at this. They're perfectly positioned, but they're simply not producing enough.
Beyond direct content production, Apple has a huge developer community that could've been mobilized to make software. They should've thrown a dev unit to every indie app developer with halfway substantial sales. It'd only cost a few million, and they'd have gotten a ton more apps at launch, as well as probably doubled the initial userbase.
I don't think they want large sales now. They are building the necessary supply chains and production capabilities, getting rid of bugs in manufacturing and software, trying out software approaches, making proper QA procedures etc. The ML-optimized CPUs are not yet ready too. I think what you're saying will be relevant for the 2026 version.
When I watch higher quality 3D movies like Bladerunner 2049 and Dune Part 1, it feels like I never saw them before.
A top tier prestige TV series in 3D 180-degree (270? 360!) immersion would at least make Vision Pro an indispensable toy to the tech loving moneyed class.
Also, more immersive environments. They really are wonderful for focus and meditation/escape.
—
The other way to go, without breaking any banks, is keep making it more developer friendly. They could modestly increase demand for the current Vision this way, since developers can rationalize an expensive headset more than casual gamers.
Developers who use Vision to work, are more likely to experiment with its capabilities.
I.e. multiple Mac screens. Dragging Mac windows in and out of Mac screens. Better spaces management (location lockable, swappable). Improve smoothness of keyboard and trackpad behavior, Etc. More gestures.
They need to vastly improve the light shield & strap comfort. I made custom versions that are fantastic, with higher field of view and extra safety padding to match. Apple should do that.
—
Those are all things that could incrementally increase demand now, while increasing the value and demand for future lower cost sets.
And with growing rumblings of people wanting to be “offline” more and more, promotions of “digital well-being/health”, and GenZ and GenAlphas’ increasing appetite with tactile, physical objects (with 90s/early 00s flair), I don’t see how “stick a screen to your face even closer and live completely digitally” is going to do well.
Not until there is an absolute killer app/use case for VR Software. Games that allow for player movement based on thought-input? Social hangouts that are seamless but also private (the groupchat cannot be spoken aloud!)?
We need better hardware too. Seamless AR/VR transition with featherweight hardware that does not induce motion sickness if put on or calibrated incorrectly all for $999.
Yeah we got a LONG way to go.
A bit of a tangent but as much as “the children” are terminally online, I get the feeling the GenX/Millennial product people have a slight misread on what that looks like.
Nah. I really want wearable AR glasses with a HUD and shit, but the tech just isn't there. VR gets tiring (for the neck) after awhile as-is. I'm not saying it won't have broad appeal, but I think the "iPhone" moment for AR/VR requires something that can be passively used and carried on the person 100% of the time, and we're nowhere near that.
The content will come once the hardware is cheap and sold in volume.
Generative AI will help by making it much cheaper to generate 3D content. Current models are still very rough, in the future we will have text-to-HD 3D asset.
Why would you buy the hardware though? The Meta Quest is cheap already (cheaper than a high end smartphone). And some people buy it of course but it's not really creating a new market of content generation so far. It's too much of a niche market for that.
I did buy a Quest 3, which, at $450 or so, is a steal compared to the Vision Pro. I have yet to find any use for it. The first few minutes are entertaining but then... what's the point? There is no point. (Not to mention the cartoonish aesthetics which are really off-putting.)
Currently, the two things that work great in VR are gaming (yes, not everyone likes it) and porn. Now, no mainstream VR headset maker has mentioned the work porn ever, but, given the popularity of pornhub etc., I suspect they would see a surprisingly large boost in sales if they did.
Apple has some interesting conceptual stuff but in the end you end up using a lot of 2D stuff that gets projected in front of you. It's nice but not really that valuable.
The problem with the vision pro isn't that it's not good enough but that good enough content to justify the expense is lacking. It would be more popular if it were cheaper. But even the Meta Quest, which is a lot cheaper, has the same problem so far.