I own an Apple Vision Pro and I think it's one of the most impressive pieces of technology that I almost never use, for two reasons:<p>1. Too much startup friction. I share the Apple Vision Pro with someone else who like me also loves it and uses it all the time. But since we both wear glasses, there's a 2x ~10 minute process for recalibrating the eyesight each time we switch. It's an expensive device at $3500 which I'm happy to pay for quality, but to pay that twice, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Apple goes too far with the greed here not letting us set up separate profiles. Netflix wouldn't get away with that. You not only have to repeat the setup process when switching, you have to share access to your apple user account too.<p>2. My main interest in a vision headset is I want a new virtual workstation where I can watch movies on a gigantic screen beneath a gigantic translucent terminal where I can do my daily work. There's a nice app called La Terminal that does just that. Sadly it has some serious keyboard latency issues since I don't think they've put as much focus into their support for this platform. I won't tolerate anything less than optimal latency in my work tools. So until I get around to building a terminal app for Vision Pro on my own, there's not a whole lot I'm interested in doing with it aside from watching the occasional movie on the moon. I would also really like for Vision Pro to have an ethernet port because I don't know how to run a wifi network without jitter.<p>If you haven't tried one of these things, then you really should. I didn't realize when I first put one on that it was a fully synthetic display until I tried reading the 10pt text on my computer monitor. It's really a stunning thing to witness. This Vision Pro is probably the best glimpse we can get today of what the singularity is going to be like in the future. So definitely give it a try at least once.
One of the commenters was thinking the same thing as me<p>> People are going to only read the headline and interpret it as “discontinue”. Like the article says, it just means they have enough inventory until they replace it with something cheaper. [<a href="https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/report-apple-may-stop-producing-vision-pro-by-the-end-of-2024.2440767/post-33507400#post-33507400" rel="nofollow">https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/report-apple-may-stop-p...</a>]<p>I wonder how Apple would go through with this, hopefully with a better form.
I can't believe MacRumors has stooped so low.<p>Headline:
Apple May Stop Producing Vision Pro by the End of 2024<p>First paragraph:
Apple has abruptly reduced production of the Vision Pro headset and could stop making <i>the current version</i> of the device completely by the end of 2024
The Vision Pro feels more like a spatial tablet than a spatial computer. A computer should be capable of handling productive work tasks such as developing software. Vision Pro's only relevant capabilities seem to be mirroring your computer's screen and acting as a device to run your test apps, just like a tablet.<p>My experience receiving a Vision Pro demo at an Apple store also involved a poor Apple rep having to keep a straight face showing me basic iPad games when I asked about gaming. This thing has some of the most advanced VR headset hardware and their best gaming demo was some iPad games where you tap and hold to jump over mountains.
It's invasive, heavy and more anti social than smartphones. Battery life is too short. Low volumes make software development for it unattractive. Companies keep pouring into ar/vr billions and no sigle killer use case to show.
Killer for me is how klunky it is for multiple users. Had they supported swapping users seamlessly, I’d have bought two: it would get more use than the PS5 (or TV, for that matter).<p>That said, almost everything Apple does is personal computing. Maybe AR is just a bad fit until it can fit into the form factor of sunglasses. (And not be shit.)
I'll be curious what the collecter's market looks like for Apple Vision Pro a decade from now. I imagine there are far fewer of these things out in the world than Apple hoped there would be, and I wonder how that'd impact long-term scarcity.
Does anyone else find it incredible that they are actually making 1000 of these per day. Apple normally does not like holding inventory, so how many of these do they have in warehouses?
Hardware aside they've still not found a purpose for this thing to even exist. They should've come out guns blazing with a ton of content for it. Most places would've paid game developers to make games for it (actual games, not the junk on Apple arcade), do special movie extras, fund loads of apps, etc.<p>They should've had a $2-3bn budget for content on top of production. Instead they just seemed to release it then walk away hoping everyone else would figure out the point of the product and make stuff for free. It failed.
How about have a pair of glasses (iGlasses) with some kind of ability to connect to your iPhone and transfer information via small discrete camera/voice command via airpods. All the processing is done on the iPhone and displayed on the inside of the lens, sort of like a heads up display. Offer prescription services or clear lens and sleek style frames. News, txt, email, video, maps, health info, search, access to Apple AI, etc, etc. I don't need VR, just Terminator style information.<p>I'm dreaming I know....
Rather than halting VR/AR efforts, this seems to be just cutting production of the current model. That doesn't mean there won't be future models but it does imply demand was lower than expected.<p>We've had 10-15 years of companies trying to make VR (and AR more recently) happen. I just don't think it's ever going to happen.<p>People are led astray by books like Snow Crash but there are fundamental issues with both VR and AR. Latency is a huge one for both. AR fundamnetally has an issue producing true blacks.
Awww, Apple, don't become Google... I mean, if you go for a product like this, you should be prepared to sink money into it for at least 3 to 5 years. Thats what you owe to early adopters. There is nothing more sad then owning a piece of hardware which totally stopped being supported. Examples like this will steadily reduce the willingness of consumers to play with new stuff. The risk will eventually just be too high.
To be expected, I never understood Apple's point in making such a big thing of a VR headset, they were arriving to the party, as everyone was leaving the VR party, jumping into their cars to join the AI house party down the block.<p>Additionally at such a price, and with the current developer feelings regarding store practices impose by Apple.<p>Naturally it turned out to be such a niche product, unstainable to keep going.
I wonder why Apple didn't go for glasses instead like the ones Meta is doing recently; a less bulky and cheaper product would have probably sold more.
I only see discussions about the Vision Pro from an entertainment perspective. To me it is clear that with the capabilities and the price, it should be a professional device to be used in industry, military, and such. Then the price is cheap. But this means that more traditional sectors need to make software that takes advantage of AR.
Is it Newton bad? Wonder what the morale is for the team working on a clearly not successful product? Do the other device team members duck their head as they pass them by like it's someone you know but they don't that their significant other is cheating? Do they serve up platitudes like "keep your head up"?
It makes sense, it's just too expensive.<p>But I think they did this more to break into a new territory than to sell units. Of course, they didn't market it that way but that was probably their intention.<p>Next they're gonna come up with a cheaper device, hopefully below 2000 dollars with most of the things that made the vision pro interesting.
From the beginning of the Vision Pro, I always expected Apple to take the approach of giving everyone an excellent, Apple worthy headset regardless of price. From there, focus on keeping the specs exactly the same but reducing the price until it's a reasonable purchase for people.
Anyone who got a Vision Pro: are you still using it?<p>I remember there was a lot of initial excitement on HN about the possibilities of using it as virtual monitors for work or as a more immersive way to watch movies. Is it good for these applications long term, after the novelty wears off?
Whoever releases a pair of non-clunky glasses with eight hour battery that can do sufficient AR for under a thousand bucks will have the iphone moment and own the world. Looks like a race between Meta and Apple. Unless Microsoft has something sneaky in the works.
iPod - solved a real user need, developed in 1 year*<p>Vision Pro - solution looking for a problem, in development for ≈8 years.<p>It really makes you think how clueless Apple has become post-Jobs ...<p>*4 years if we acknowledge it was an existing category and Apple just improved on competition<p>[copy-pasted from my Mastodon]
They should have made an sdk that made it easier to port games (and excel). Iirc you <i>had</i> to use their gesture control, there was no way to use kb+m right? At least with other vr you can create a usable mapping to typical FPS controls.
Didn't they have a really small number of screens they even ordered in the first place? Did they change their minds from demand, or have they just finally run out of the first production run?
Head-mounted hardware needs to iterate fast. No one is happy with a bulky thing on their face. The iPhone moment will be when you don't think twice about wearing one.
Success of every modern attempt at VR hinges on limits of self-expression. Meta's torsoverse and Apple's extension of the office failed while Second Life continues on with a thriving virtual real estate and retail market and VRChat makes commercial deals to support a massive yearly furry convention.
> Some factories suspended production of Vision Pro components as early as May based on Apple's weak sales forecasts, and warehouses remain filled with tens of thousands of undelivered parts.<p>Next iphone are going to cost more and more, such a failure must have cost them a lot of money.
classic mistake to sell hardware without a killer app.<p>well i can't think of a single killer app for this or any VR headset for me.<p>at $3.5k there is pressure to position this as a leap forward in solutions to non existent problems.<p>watching films on a flight or using a virtual desktop don't excite most people.
> People are going to only read the headline and interpret it as “discontinue”. Like the article says, it just means they have enough inventory until they replace it with something cheaper.
I really hate all of the talk about how this has been received. It was clear to anyone that was not trying to push clickbait headlines that this was never meant to be a mainstream device. Apple may charge a premium for their devices but they also understand the market enough to have lower priced Macs, iPads, and iPhones.<p>No one thought a $3500 device was going to be mainstream when we see people complaining about phones being above $1k.<p>The fact that the first one came out with the "Pro" name made this even more clear.<p>Headlines like this make it seem like it "failed" in some way that is only because we are putting expectations on this to match other Apple products but this is just like the other "Hobby" projects that apple used to classify products like the Apple TV.<p>The market for AR/VR is incredibly early (if it manages to take off at all) and the technology just isnt there yet. But while we wait for the hardware to catch up why not start working on an idealized vision of what it could work like with its own caveats. I would much rather this than the xreal's and similar headsets way over promising (borderline lying in their marketing) and severely under delivering.
the vision pro should have been released as devkits only. allowed at least 12 months of app developement and then released a pro and base headset for around $1,000. also im sorry but the whole external screen so you can see someones eyes was a waste and added unnecessary weight and price to an already bloated price point<p>i believe apple can make a compelling mixed reality headset but they need compelling apps and very few are going to develop if the platform is over $2000 in my opinion
This product will go the way of the Apple Watch. Deemed a failure before eventually becoming the category leader about 3 years and 3 iterations later. The price will come down, the (few) hardware rough edges will be softened, and enough support from the massive iOS developer pool will create a “killer app” that starts to build momentum here.<p>Misleading FUD from Macrumors trying to get clicks.
To charge $3.5K for something that can only be used by one person is an epic fail of product vision. Like, what am I supposed to do if there are 4 people in my family? Or if I want to use the thing both at home and at work? I get that they’d prefer it if I bought several, but the price point puts that well outside any realm of possibility.
VR tech still isn't ready yet.<p>It needs very high-res video streams which basically no internet provider/CDN can offer at scale. 40Mbps+ HEVC just isn't scalable. So the only content is whatever can be downloaded to the device itself. A few games? A cool screensaver experience? It's all cool, but mostly novelty tech.
One place you don't see the Vision Pro suspended is on Tim Cook's face. There is weak demand for a Vision so dim and weak. The visionary pros at Apple couldn't see a clear provision for Tim Cook's half-baked Vision Pro. Apple shall proceed without Vision.
Honestly, a lot of the critics would have bought the device for $500. It’s just that the price doesn’t have a selling point that justifies the current pricing
I wonder if the lack of third party software for it is because the resentment with the App Store has built up so much?<p>Building an iPhone app? Pretty much required.<p>Building an iPad app? Almost free when you're building an iPhone app (depending on your tolerance for UI/UX)<p>Building a Watch app? It's a popular device but is it worth the investment? Most people say no.<p>Building for a brand new platform where we have to live with Apple's rules? No thanks.
So Google fails, Apple fails, Facebook has been failing for a while. It seems only Microsoft out of the big tech is still continuing its dominance now with AI and things like that. But this is a great time for startups to come up.