It’s a tool. Don’t want the tool? Don’t use it. There are absolutely going to be use-cases for it, even if Baudrillard would prefer we all just use our imaginations.<p>Who needs a car when all we need is to just stroll amongst the trees and let nature fuel our imaginations? Because I need to get to the airport on time and with a bunch of luggage.
Intriguing little bit of poetry here. But this I don’t quite understand: “It shows us a time when entering a virtual world required a gizmo. That’s the past, not the future.” In what sense is entering a virtual world without a “gizmo” a present or future reality? Are they talking about imagination, with “virtual” used in an unusual (from a tech perspective) way?
This feels like contrarianism overdone.<p>Philosophical rambling that completely fails to consider practical side of the product. Can you with your inner eye watch a movie? Will it be the same movie as in the cinema? Can you with your inner eye see a topological map of your city? Will it be as accurate as any actual map?<p>The virtual camera in our head can only present what’s already in our mind. And as accurately as our mind allows. It can not present whatever other people want to show or what requires greater precision than our brain can muster. I’d be thoroughly impressed if you could have anything close to a spreadsheet in your mind representing financial reports from the past decade with the same precision.<p>Regarding presence. I was very excited about a virtual big screen in a forest. OP presents it as excessive and utterly pointless but have you been to a cinema ever? I, for one, almost always get distracted by strangers rustling their popcorn or staring into their phone at full brightness two rows down. And at home I can’t get imax-equivalent size screen.<p>One can criticize Vision Pro (and AR/VR in general) for its dorkiness, price, disconnect, or whatever but it’s completely wrong to dismiss it as absolutely useless. There are very real use cases that can not be fulfilled or closely emulated either by other types of devices or by other practices that don’t use any tools.
> It shows us a time when entering a virtual world required a gizmo<p>"When"? You mean, the present, like how I'm reading this article?
Hasn't there always been a fraction of intellectuals that question any departure from "base reality"? I wouldn't be surprised if cave painters caught the odd side-eye from the old guard of the tribe. Maybe this time it's different, but it's hard to take it seriously.
I’m sure this will succeed. Unlike the quest it’ll be able to use millions of existing iOS and iPadOS apps.<p>The cost is a hard pill to swallow but at the end of the day even $500 for a quest 3 is expensive and people will buy that too.
The Vision Pro is probably the most advanced consumer tech available and it's by far the best AR/VR headset. However, it's DOA. It's going to flop and Apple knows it but they know that they need to release it now to let developers and users show them what it's true purpose will be. The real deal will be the AR glasses, not these big ski goggles that nobody wants to wear.
Spatial computing will be the dominant paradigm for the vast, vast majority of all history once it is nailed down. The mouse/keyboard/monitor paradigm will be a small footnote in the early history of HCI once it is obliviated. Apple, as always, is showing the rest of the industry the way forward here.
This guy is missing something and a bit myopic. The Visions real vision is convenience. No more holding the phone to absorb content, everywhere entertainment, immersive experiences, everything always available. The device is no where near the ideal form of just a light weight glasses, or even contacts. Between here and the future it will get more and more portable.