• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Apple Vision Pro Estimated to Ship 200,000 Units in 2024, Concerns around Price and Battery Life Linger

Bwaze said:
But why stick a computer in it, if it's meant to be used plugged in?
Click to expand...
Why make an imac integrated in the screen if you have to plug it in?
 
How can Apple demand $3,500 yet compromise on battery capacity? Especially as it's seperated from the VR headset so weight shoulf not be a problem. Just stupid.
 
They are intending for developers and companies to buy this up and build the eco system for it. So 200k isn't that unreasonable. Then a cheaper non pro version will come out for the masses once the eco system is there.
 
dgianstefani said:
Why make an imac integrated in the screen if you have to plug it in?
Click to expand...

Design choice? But Apple Vision Pro is in no way similarly integrated - you are either wearing a separate battery pack or you are connected with a cable.
 
SOAREVERSOR said:
They are intending for developers and companies to buy this up and build the eco system for it. So 200k isn't that unreasonable. Then a cheaper non pro version will come out for the masses once the eco system is there.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that, maybe it works maybe it doesn't, i'm betting on the latter. VR is still very much a niche market, devices like the meta quest are much cheaper (both for developers and the masses) and, more importantly, everyone should be well aware how Apple works. Developers have been robbed for years by app store fees and high percentage commissions, or just sherlocked when Apple decides a feature is nice enough to warrant becoming part of "the experience" and makes it first party, will they jump at the chance of purchasing a very expensive device to develop an ecosystem for Apple to profit from? I don't think so
 
VR-porn business would be gone wild in both side (creator would using their stereoscopic camera for shooting their movie, and subscriber would see that movie in higher fidelity)
LMAO! =))
 
trsttte said:
Good luck with that, maybe it works maybe it doesn't, i'm betting on the latter. VR is still very much a niche market, devices like the meta quest are much cheaper (both for developers and the masses) and, more importantly, everyone should be well aware how Apple works. Developers have been robbed for years by app store fees and high percentage commissions, or just sherlocked when Apple decides a feature is nice enough to warrant becoming part of "the experience" and makes it first party, will they jump at the chance of purchasing a very expensive device to develop an ecosystem for Apple to profit from? I don't think so
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that the consumer market, and especially the gaming market, are after thoughts and jokes to vast portions of the computing industry and they don't care. Take the MS HoloLense. That seemed like a dud right? Too costly, not good for consumers, not good for gaming. Except that was never the point. The product is used in industrial training, defense applications, medical training, design, construction, by companies like Boeing. It's been a massive hit there. And nobody involved in that gives a rats ass about consumers, especially gamers.

The writing has been on the wall for a while that VR and AR are for corporate type functions, and gaming is a stupid use for it and a waste of time. You have to look at this product from that angle and if it works there maybe a version of it can trickle down for home office and general use, but for sure not gaming it's wasted on that.
 
SOAREVERSOR said:
You're forgetting that the consumer market, and especially the gaming market, are after thoughts and jokes to vast portions of the computing industry and they don't care. Take the MS HoloLense. That seemed like a dud right? Too costly, not good for consumers, not good for gaming. Except that was never the point. The product is used in industrial training, defense applications, medical training, design, construction, by companies like Boeing. It's been a massive hit there. And nobody involved in that gives a rats ass about consumers, especially gamers.

The writing has been on the wall for a while that VR and AR are for corporate type functions, and gaming is a stupid use for it and a waste of time. You have to look at this product from that angle and if it works there maybe a version of it can trickle down for home office and general use, but for sure not gaming it's wasted on that.
Click to expand...
Another angle is private conferencing or viewing in public places. Sensitive info that shouldn't be on screens that are visible to people other than the recipient.
 
SOAREVERSOR said:
You're forgetting that the consumer market, and especially the gaming market, are after thoughts and jokes to vast portions of the computing industry and they don't care. Take the MS HoloLense. That seemed like a dud right? Too costly, not good for consumers, not good for gaming. Except that was never the point. The product is used in industrial training, defense applications, medical training, design, construction, by companies like Boeing. It's been a massive hit there. And nobody involved in that gives a rats ass about consumers, especially gamers.

The writing has been on the wall for a while that VR and AR are for corporate type functions, and gaming is a stupid use for it and a waste of time. You have to look at this product from that angle and if it works there maybe a version of it can trickle down for home office and general use, but for sure not gaming it's wasted on that.
Click to expand...

I understand all that, but the hololens was designed with that in mind by a company heavely present in those markets. Apple is pretty much out of professional environments that are not either multimedia or software fields, and this device doesn't achieve anything that can't be done with a much cheaper meta quest, valve index, hp reverb, htc whatever it's called etc. etc. etc., all of them made by companies much more favorable to work with the client requirements instead of having a "you're using it wrong" design philosophy.

Apple has carved itself into a pure lifestyle brand and doesn't seem to be doing anything to get out of that categorization - which is a damn shame, their recent advances in computing are awesome and being kind of wasted.

dgianstefani said:
Another angle is private conferencing or viewing in public places. Sensitive info that shouldn't be on screens that are visible to people other than the recipient.
Click to expand...

There are better and cheaper solutions available and no reasonable person would be taking such a big device on the go with them. We've had VR headsets for about decade and they haven't made a dent in any kind of video conferencing and their only use in public places are the usual demos of what kind of experience is possible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top