Apple fans are starting to return their Vision Pros
theverge.com
Apple fans are starting to return their Vision Pros::The return window for the very first Apple Vision Pro buyers is fast approaching — and some have taken to social media to explain why they won’t be keeping their headsets.
The influencers got their videos, I guess.
Yeh I’d be curious if these people ever intended to hang on to it or off it was just for the grams.
Or just to try it out. I would totally like to try one on for a few days.
These are the same complaints most report for most vr headsets, headaches, nausea and dry eyes... Disappointing article.
Some are, sure. But others have to do with the weight. The most interesting rationals for returning it are because it's shit as a productivity tool. So if you can't really use it for work, there aren't many games on it, then why are you keeping it? At that point it's just a TV that only you can watch (since it doesn't support multiple user profiles).
It's obviously made for porn only, that's they only thing you can do with it
Actually, according to reports it can't even do that right.
and its kinda creepy to masturbate with a bunch of cameras pointed at it
And here I am just thankful that I don’t have to hold the camera with one hand
360° babyyy
It’s the pinch gesture isn’t it…
Nah the battery only lasts a couple of hours.
I can't come more than 20 times anymore. What do I do with the other hour and a half of battery time?
Put it away and play a niche mod for a beloved Ukranian developed game from 2007?
Same Apple story: great hardware, but their walled ecosystem. They would sell so many more units if they were compatible with software used by millions of people and corporations...
The other thing I keep hearing is that it’s a super expensive purchase that people don’t know what to do with once they’ve got it. I’m old enough to remember when they said the same thing about early home computers ($3000-$5000 in equivalent cost) from the late 70s and early 80s.
Silicon and engineering has come down in price and vr is hardly revolutionary at this point so yea price point is stupid high but what do people expect from apple
Given the odd weight distribution, it's also unfortunate that this may have been their first headset.
Making a VR headset from aluminium and glass with nothing to balance it in the back is yet again another perfect example of Apple going hard with form over function.
One reason for not balancing it in the back is probably because putting stuff in the back makes it uncomfortable if you want to lean back in a chair or a couch which is probably very important for the device since it's primarily for sitting down compared to most other VR headsets.
Your comment suggests you read the first paragraph and didn't read the rest which is disappointing.
The article talks about the most common complaint being comfort, then goes on to other complaints like the fact it offers no productivity savings and is expensive.
It's a bit of a no brainer though at end of day. Anyone surprised this is just a gimmick like any other is new to the VR space.
Yea looking at the site I mistook the large gaps between paragraphs to be the end of the article. Going over it and I can see I missed a large deal. But I am still unsurprised with the reasons why people are returning the headsets. Its expensive, sold for productivity yet is restricting and uncomfortable. Vr has a place in the world and that is mostly media consumption.
Some people are returning it because they had expectations that using VR would be immediately comfortable. The headset is heavier and more poorly strapped/distributed than 'alternatives' but it's also graphically far more stunning. I honestly hope they stay in the game and push the competitors to up their game. maybe we can get pancake lenses, foveated rendering and eye tracking in a $1500 package.
So the quest pro? Foveated rendering only matters if you don’t have the graphics throughput to render it all, so I don’t totally buy that it’s key to a good vr headset so much as helps you get away with cheaper silicon. Maybe enough-lower tdp that it enables slimmer design.
I think foveated rendering also helps with immersion. Being able to blur things you are not specifically looking at and are farther away is a closer match to reality.
Reality doesn't downsample when you're not looking at it, your eye does that.
As far as I understand (and do correct me if I’ve got it wrong), your eyes still know they are looking at very small and very rapidly blinking lights in close proximity and in a flat array, which is why it mostly feels like uncanny valley in regards to that exact experience, and why software enhancement/approximation of the effect could be beneficial.
Delayed response but if you're talking about the general experience of VR being an uncanny valley experience then no, I don't agree. It's very common for people who use VR to say that they forgot for a moment that it wasn't real.
As far as you know. Maybe that's the reasoning behind weird stuff in quantum mechanics. The cat is both alive and dead until you open the box and look at it.
The whole point of the cat thing was to point out the absurdity of the claim that reality isn't real until you know about it. The cat is already in whatever state you observe when you open the box. It's not both alive and dead, it's either alive or dead. The thought experiment isn't serious, and it's not supporting the idea that the cat is somehow magically in both states just because you haven't yet manipulated the lid of a wooden cube.
When we talk about the cat being both alive and dead, it's a simplification to help visualize a quantum phenomenon where particles exist in multiple states simultaneously until measured or observed.
Schrodinger came up with the cat to represent the absurdity of quantum mechanics because he thought it was absurd - but that doesn't mean his metaphor isn't a useful one. Particles like electrons or photons can exist in a state of superposition, where they hold multiple potential states (e.g., spin up and spin down) at the same time. This isn't just a theoretical curiosity; it's been experimentally verified in numerous quantum experiments, such as the double-slit experiment.
The act of measurement in quantum mechanics forces a system to 'choose' a definite state from among its superposed states, a process known as wave function collapse. Before measurement, the system genuinely exists in all its possible states simultaneously, not in one state or the other. This is a fundamental aspect of the quantum world
I don't really look at it as a symptom of lack of graphics throughput, but more as a benefit of eye tracking, which is also potentially something that benefits, say, the immersion of others through portraying your facial expressions more realistically, or something to that effect. You could also use it as a kind of peripheral for games or software, and apple currently uses it as a mouse, so it's not totally useless. But I also can't imagine that most developers are going to be imaginative enough to make good use of it, if we can't even think of good uses for basic shit, like haptic feedback.
Perhaps it breaks even in terms of allowing them to save money they otherwise would've spent on rendering, but I dunno if that's the case, since the camera has to be pretty low latency, and you have to still dedicate hardware resources to the eye tracking and foveated rendering in order to get it to look good. Weight savings, then? I just don't really know. I guess we'll see, if it gets more industry adoption.
Sounds exactly what pimax crystal offers
Problem is it comes with pimax customer support
Make it standalone and there you are.
Portal buyers would be suspicious
The problem with this article is that it's all circumstantial. Sure these are people complaining of problems and critiques, but we'll never get the full report of how many returns there actually are and why they were returned. That's just not data Apple will ever give out.
Can't use it for games. Can't use it for porn. What is it for?
For showing off. Of course.
The problem with AVP is that it constantly feels extremely lonely. The fun part about VR is playing stuff together, games, being in the same room even if others are in different countries, have funny full size avatars, interact in a "vr-chat" kind of way. VR is supposed to be a fun version of our world. AVP is extremely serious, too "professional" focused, and especially b o r i n g. All you do on AVP is exactly the same that you would do by yourself with your current devices already. Just even more isolated from the world. And even the most enthusiastic Apple users eventually get this feeling when using AVP. While stuff like Quest 3, Valve Index, PSVR2 all might look "cheap" and "not polished" at first, while using them all you get is "wooow" factor and fun. AVP, yes its well crafted and polished, but it does basically nothing and feels lonely inside it.
I keep reading AVP as Alien vs. Predator, which makes this hilarious. Sorry... that's on me.
But what about the part where the Predator body-slams an Alien? That wasn't boring! :P
Nah, me too. My A-Level Physics teacher had it on Atari Jaguar.
Gilded cage sort of vibe, yes.
I've been in the Apple ecosystem for pretty much most of my life, and I'm all for what the AVP is bringing to the table. However, one VR enthusiast Youtuber I watched recently (Thrillseeker) put down the most compelling argument against the AVP I've seen thus far. The AVP does well what all the other headsets don't, but the AVP also kind of sucks at what other headsets have learned to do well. At the price of the AVP, not only could you buy a Quest 3, but you'd have enough leftover to just build an entire VR Gaming rig to back it up. Then you'd have a setup exponentially more capable than what the AVP is offering.
Apple deserves to be humbled for once!
Apple sucks.
Open Source and Open API or bust. Simple as that for me.
some are reviewers, i betcha.
Some? Probably most. The others are social media "influencers" making it look like someone would actuality want to buy it.
Don't most reviewers get their sets for free?
not the freelance ones, or not always anyway. i think you’re right about the ones that wrote for tech blogs.
Yaaah.
As someone who is unironically into a lot of VR stuff and even owns a pricey headset myself, I did not understand the appeal from the features I've seen past looking """cool""". Even the stuff that looks at least somewhat fun or useful doesnt seem worth it considering the price, especially now that reviews are reporting there are basic features that cheaper headsets perform much better at and are way more comfortable.
Fr, I love VR, but this headset is just Apple trying to cash in on the VR market without understanding what people actually like about VR.
I think they totally understand that there is a legitimate mixed reality / AR use case that people have wanted addressed for decades, but the hardware has never been able to pull it off well.
If I could pop on a light weight headset, and have a desktop with infinite 4K monitors, with a high refresh rate, without breaking my wallet, I would 1000% buy that product.
The hardware isn’t there yet, but I’m glad to see people are investing in platforms that could get us there in a decade or two.
It has some neat features and ideas, but nothing I haven't seen in other products before. Definitely more polished, and it brings all of those big features together in one package. But for me, it's the price that kills it. Maybe Apple had a hunch that all of this might happen and they just wanted it out as a setup for the next version?
It needs controllers and PCVR support. Then it might be worth it.
Most people should just buy a Quest 3
Honestly, no one should buy a Quest 3, or any other Quest for that matter… Meta doesn’t need any more money or tracking data. PS VR2, Vive Pro 2 or even the Valve Index would be better.
850-1200 vs 650 CAD and it’s stand alone. Yah, not exactly comparable.
Paying with your privacy does that
I'm thinking on buying a Quest to dip into PCVR. I've heard horror stories about the Index's poor QC (which is weird given the Steam Deck's done me well so far) and PSVR2 isn't compatible with PC. Yes, iVRy exists but that driver is in development and the developer basically said "just buy a Quest if you want a cheap PC VR headset".
For PCVR only you can get a Quest 2 for $250. Worth it.
Yeah I'm looking at that as well. Friend of mine does say if you want to do full-body tracking the Quest is a pain to do it with, but I'm not deep in PCVR right now haha.
SOME WOULD SAY you don't need the controllers. Then you're just a regular VR headset. Would Apple say that? No. I think this boils down to a dumb product with lackluster payoff at $3.5k.
Less $3.5k and more 3.5mm headphone jack Apple
It needs to be maybe 75% cheaper as well as what you've said and it becomes worth it.
At this price point it will never be successful.
Is it a flop after all?
We'll never know. This is all based on people's complaints online. Apple will never actually release how many were returned and for what reasons.
They’re a public company, we’ll get sales figures and enough proxy numbers to have a good guess. Shareholders are going to want to know.
So, is VR actually good, or is it mostly just for wealthy silicon valley furries to hang out with each other in VRchat, like everyone used to do in second life? The only game that really comes to mind as being something that's even close to a killer app is beatsaber, and that's basically just DDR with your upper body. I really haven't seen much support, both in the way of games, and more importantly, in the way of, say, 3d modelling apps, or something to that effect. Utility software, stuff that's useful, but is specifically more convenient in virtual reality, stuff that might be benefited by the platform. But then, it's not really something I've looked into much.
Have you tried VR? Because I couldn't tell from your comment.
If not, then you should try it somewhere. It is pretty neat tech that will blow you away the first time.
If yes, VR still has a way to go. It is out of its honeymoon phase, but the tech is getting better and more companies can see the advantages it can bring. Doubt we will see many simulators in the future with big giant screens, for example.
I've tried it at a friend's house, quest 2, like the other guy, and I think an oculus at another friend's house, but a quest 2 more recently. It was probably due to game selection, but it was kind of underwhelming, personally. headset was also way too heavy for me.
I dunno, I was more impressed when I used a wii back in 2009 or whatever, when I was like 7. Partially because I was a kid, probably, partially because wii sports is based, but I also think there's something to be said of the natural symbiosis between motion controls, couch co-op, and a shared screen, even if there's a lot of inherent limitations to that approach in terms of game design. I might be falling behind all of that in terms of the internet being the new couch co-op, though.
I also think the lack of easy, built in locomotion is something that probably needs to be solved, because it seems like a pretty big limitation in terms of game design and immersion, and I also wanna bring up haptic feedback again because I like haptic feedback and find it useful but nobody else does and it has no support. I think it might help.
I also haven't really seen many devs taking advantage of the platform's actual like, capabilities. I've seen more devs try to recreate things as they exist in the real world almost 1 to 1, and almost constantly in first person, instead of devs that are like, okay, we have head tracking, we have active motion controls in both hands, we have 3D capable perspective, what can we do with all of that? I haven't seen many games that are playing with that in a more abstract way. Something like ping pong, for instance, would kind of make a lot of sense, when you look at it from the angle of, what are the specific capabilities are of the platform. You could make a lot of interesting perspective based puzzle games, like echochrome on the PSP, I think that would be worth pursuing.
As for future capabilites, I really have no idea. I think we've kind of achieved optimal pixel density for whatever screens we might employ, right, mostly as evidenced by the smartphone market (though we might see some innovations there, I really don't know). I think the main limitation now would probably be how optics are designed, which seems like kind of a harder problem to deal with. I'd like to see phased array optics with lasers and holograms and stuff become a thing, but that's still quite a ways off.
I've tried Quest 2 once at a friend's house. I thought it was pretty neat but nothing about the experience made me want to run out and buy one or even plan to buy one in the future. I believe that unless good VR headsets come down in price significantly (sub $100) they're never going to be more than a niche hobby.
I can tell you straight up right now it's not just the wealthy furries that are hanging out in VRChat.
VRChat, and similar apps, is their ultimate escapism; they actually get to be and walk around as the character they want themselves to be. So most of the furries I know, some of them not even living in their own apartment, have spent time putting money aside to buy VR headsets complete with full motion setups. Those who really couldn't save up like that, and/or afford building a PC capable of handling VR, go for the cheapest option of buying a Quest.
Remember Ready Player One? Everyone is poor, living in pretty blegh conditions, yet many people have put a significant portion of their income aside to buy VR headsets? Those would be furries.
damn, I didn't really know it was that intense, that serious. I guess I have, once again, underestimated the furries, my greatest rivals on this god forsaken planet.
nah but fr that makes a lot of sense. I would've just kind of thought, you know, stereotype of wealthy furries in IT shelling out for fursuits and shit, and furries in VR, put 2 and 2 together and blam, wow, the math checks out, but yeah, I do believe there's probably a good proportion of people for whom it's important enough to kind of get on top of it asap.
also VR headsets are getting cheaper than I thought, so that's another factor.
Yes. If "Sadly It's Bradley"'s YouTube channel is anything to go by, furries (and maybe enterprises) will be the primary purchasers of the AVP. He's absolutely over the moon about it.
So, I have no idea if it's any good, but PTC just released an OnShape AR app for AVP.
As an aside, have wanted to like OnShape, but I just can't get past the sloppy Terms of Use for the free version that appear to bar you from commercializing your designs (expected... several other vendors do this), but they allow anyone who downloads your public designs to commercialize them. That, and the fact that they charge three times as much for their subscription as Fusion does.
That kinda sucks. I would expect more of your mainline 3D modelling things to be on top of this, or there to maybe be some sort of blender modification, some blender fork, that gets it to work in VR. Seems like kind of an obviously much better use case, to me, compared to memorizing a shit ton of hotkeys, and having to maybe buy one of those space mice they sell for the same price as a whole ass VR headset.
There are amazing VR games like HL:Alex and Resident Evil. Not as many as we'd all like but then are out there, and I do believe as porting becomes easier, we will see more AAA titles like this. And honestly playing these games in VR puts their flatscreen versions to shame, so I do think this will become more popular going forward.
For AR we are just at the beginning. I think AVP has proved the concept that you could use such a device for productivity, but I think mass adoption will take many more iterations. But I am sure that bothe AR and VR have long futures ahead of them.
VTOL VR is awesome too. The problem with a lot of games that support VR is they don't support the controllers to the same extent. Playing VR with an Xbox controller instead of the motion tracking Index controllers just ain't the same.
I have only owned an oculus quest, and a PlayStation vr2, So I have never had this issue before
Called it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Parker Ortolani, The Verge’s product manager, told me that he thought using the device led to a burst blood vessel in his eye.
“Despite being as magical to use as I’d hoped, it was simply way too uncomfortable to wear even for short periods of time both due to the weight and the strap designs.
For smart glasses and headsets, having a low nose bridge can mean the device just slips off your face or fails to adequately block out light.
Another engineer wrote on the social media platform X that the “coding experience failed to convince [him]” and focusing issues caused headaches.
“If I’m not using this for productivity, and if I don’t love it for entertainment, and if there aren’t enough games to play on it - I just can’t justify keeping it,” one Reddit user wrote.
While these users are speaking out on social media, we have no idea of the actual return rate — or what Apple’s internal expectations for the Vision Pro are.
The original article contains 621 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
So...stupid people with too much money to burn jumped on something they neither wanted nor needed and then got bored.
Hard to call them stupid when they got to use it for free within the return window. Seems like a good deal. I agree with all the other points though.
Apple pitched the Vision Pro as if VR hadn't wasn't already a thing that's been around for a while. While the VP has some higher specs particularly in its display it lacks in areas like field of view, comfort, game selection and portability. The first group of people that would be interested are those who already own or have used other VR systems. They those people won't see the VP as such a jump. Especially considering it's locked to the Apples app store with not many VR options. The second group is composed of people who have been out of the loop and think this is the begining of VR. I think thats the camp more likely to return the unit once they realize it's just a novelty in its current state.
I'm not surprised. Apple Vision Pro is junk. Zuckerberg released a short video giving his opinion and he's right::Quest is way better in every way and 7 times cheaper.
The Quest is lighter, has no cables, can do AR and VR, has better controllers, has way more apps and games and costs 7(!) times less.
The Vision Pro is bulky and heavy, cords get in the way, the battery only lasts 2 hours, you need special lenses if you use glasses, it barely has any apps and it's watching you all the time.
Apple should really be embarrassed at how bad this product is after years of R&D and millions spent. They can't even compete against Quest. All they had to do was copy it but they couldn't even manage that.
What a joke!
Zuckerberg can’t even buy an SOC to put in the quest to compete with Apple. Qualcomm doesn’t make one. So it can’t be better in every way.
It can be better subjectively to some people. But objectively the Vision Pro has specs other manufacturers literally won’t be able to do for at least 2-3 years, and not for 500 bucks.
The SOC isn't the whole story. The user experience is what counts. But Qualcomm do hehe a chip as powerful as Apples. Zuck should just buy that
They only recently announced a laptop chip that beats the m2 in SOME benchmarks, but at a higher power draw, but it is not shipping in any product. Mind you Apple is on M3.
Apple is ahead but Qualcomm is not far behind. Plus even the current chips are already powerful enough for this stuff. A Snapdragon Gen 3 should be able to power a headset I would have thought.
All those things also apply to the quest besides the controllers and cables...
Can you use the Vision Pro while wearing glasses? I can use my Quest without special lenses because i can just wear my glasses while using it.
They're two different market segments. The Quest is definitely more practical for most people, but to just day it's better in every way is a disservice to the fact the tech in the Vision Pro is the best version of VR out there. It's just way too expensive.
Eh, it also doesn't support much in the way of software, so I wouldn't call it the best version of VR just yet.
Oh but it's not though right? I'm not big into that space but there are professional VR headsets that costs several thousands of dollars, like apples, but still lead it in tech, which to me seem to leave apple's device in this weird cost middle ground between professional headsets like varjo and consumer headsets like oculus.
Have you used them both?
No. Who has that kind of money? Lol
Sorry you're getting downvoted by crying Apple fanboys lol
Lol. Thanks. But I take don't give a crap about up or downvotes. I literally never look at that ever. I just want to get my opinion out and see what other people's opinions are.
But you're right, it's probably the isheep....
I dislike Apple, but this is the way future will like. AR (and maybe VR, but who knows) will definitely be amazing in a decade or so. BUT I think some people will still stick to smartphones, especially ones who don't want to spend their whole day with technology and social media.
I am definitely buying an AR headset, as long as it's affordable and can replace at least half of the tasks I do on my computer/phone. The AR device with Windows 11 and computing power of standard computer would be just fucking amazing, and I wouldn't go back.
Windows is actively removing AR support with an upcoming update.
I think they mean a full windows OS for AR, which doesn’t currently exist.
Hololens 2 still exists and runs a highly modified version of Windows, so it does sort of exist. But obviously there's no chance of running desktop apps on a Hololens.
Hololens is what they're discontinuing support for and removing from future updates to the OS.
Well, that's kinda stupid on their part, but I bet they will be rejoining AR race later though, probably too late while Apple and Google creates good AR platforms with massive support of 3rd parties. And I expect Google (or, ekhm, Alphabet?) to show something like that in next few years.
Still, as for Windows AR devices, I expect to there being some 3rd party ones in ~10 years, that have computing power of desktop PC's we had yesterday or we have today. And we can already see that even mid-budget mobile devices can run heavy desktop environments (like Windows or some Linux desktops (like GNOME and KDE)) with no issues whatsoever, this is just going to expand into AR devices.
Microsoft barely made a PC interface, they’re the last ones i would expect make a proper AR interface.
Aren't they removing the AR they built into the OS? I swear I read recently that they gave up on their customers that bought their headset so people that have it are forced to stay on an old version of windows just to use them.
Microsoft’s game plan seems to be:
It was exactly like that for Windows on ARM.
In other words, regardless of whether you like/hate Apple, if the Vision Pro does not success, then there probably won’t be any further investment in the space from MS either.
I don't mind any of the companies when they have tech that does a job really well. Sadly it seems that they all have this collective idea that anything they've done well is not worth maintaining at some point. I'm neither a Linux, windows, or Mac fan. And each have their strengths. You just pick the poison while it's available to fill a need.
Not sure what do you mean by PC interface. Do you mean interface between user and computer? (which has nothing to do with software) Or like GUI in an operating system?
If by "PC interface" you mean GUI, then I still don't get you, because there's real alternative to Windows UI in any desktop operating system last time I checked. Sure Apple has macOS with its simple UI, and may be good for users that need to do only basic tasks, but if you need to have powerful (and in some parts customizable, although Unix desktops like KDE or Xfce may be better suited for max customization) UI with great UX for power users and without need to get to command line often (like you do on Linux) nothing beats Windows.
I don’t know, when we start talking about power users my mind goes to developers and most seem to not like windows. At least that has been my experience. Most of us prefer unix based systems, primarily because we have to use it to interact with like almost every server anyway. And of course I’m not just talking about different Linux distos, Mac is essentially Unix based and is in heavy use in a lot of shops.
Yeah, as for development I'd say Linux (or any Unix-like) is more suited for that, especially when you have really great shell, development utilities and awesome package managers, and the overall system design is good for that. Also some stuff is just faster to do in command line, I could never see myself using git graphically for example, as doing so only gives me more headaches. But for most stuff I prefer GUI, because GUI's tend to have common design choices, and you can generally figure it out in few minutes, while for CLI utilities anything goes, some have built-in interactive prompts, some incompatible syntax, there's sometimes steep learning curve, and list goes on.
Microsoft puts ads in the start menu. I could go into a deeper critique, but ultimately that is the canary in the coal mine. Any company with a structure capable of shipping that feature is fucking busted in terms of user experience and ui design.
I don't really use start menu, nor have ads in my OS (may be regional thing), but that's a good point.
Here's an application...every fridge would have a visor on the door. Stick your face in the visor and you'll be able to see the fridge from the webcam in front of it.... including your self!
Why not just have a VR fridge app that connects remotely to cameras in your fridge? Or even better some ML shit that would identify what is in your fridge.
Because that's not ridiculous. But what about an app where you control a little robot that you have to crawl around the fridge to investigate and discover what's inside?
Can even turn it into a game!