I think we are now at a stage where VR hardware has surpassed software. Between this and the Quest 3, we have powerful, polished and consumer friendly devices, but beyond a few niches (fitness, simulation, gaming to some extent), there is nothing to convince users to put the headsets on.
I am hoping we will see a lot of experimentation in the coming years, and I am excited for what the Apple ecosystem will bring to the table. That said, from what I have seen so far this does not seem to be a revolution compared to the current offerings, but an evolution on various fronts, without addressing the killer app question.
Underlying a lot of these discussions is the assumption that there is a future where this is an actually useful, mass-market device. I'm still not convinced this is true.
For example, "killer apps/content" never arrived for 3D TVs and they have largely disappeared from the market. Same with various "waggling" input technologies like the Wiimote and Kinect. There were some compelling uses, like Wii Sports, but these were pretty limited and many other uses of these in games was a case of Nintendo shoehorning the technology into the game.
I think the best pessimist argument is the one offered by Folding Ideas in his metaverse video[1]: Text is really, really useful, and a virtual 3D space is not a good environment for either creating or consuming textual content.
I see headsets like this as a way to have multiple, large, monitors that go away as soon as you aren't using them. After having a big dual-monitor setup for years, about a year and a half ago I got rid of them and work with just my laptop's display. I do this so that my desk doesn't have to have monitors on it, and is more conducive to artistic work and mechanical tinkering.
I don't miss multiple monitors so much, but I do often wish for a larger screen. Not enough to put one in my space, though. That's where my interest in the Vision Pro lies - simply a way to project large, high-fidelity, 2d screens.
I’d rather have small monitors than wear a headset while working.
For less than this headset, I can buy an Ergotron arm and some monitors and have multiple large monitors that have zero footprint on my desk.
No, I can’t take my setup with me when I go somewhere, but I don’t want to.
I have a hard time seeing this become a mass market device. It’ll have its adherents and enthusiasts, but personally find it difficult to imagine even wanting one, let alone using it.
But what do I know, I thought the iPad was goofy. Though I never did end up replacing my gen 2 iPad. Realized I didn’t need it.
I used to think the same, but now I don't see these headsets replacing monitors/TVs any time soon.
I don't have a TV at my small apartment but do have two 27 in monitors. Sometimes I wish I had enough space for a sofa and 55+ in TV for movies and shows. And maybe headsets will solve the problem, maybe I don't even need those monitors any more.
Now? I realize I don't need multiple monitors, 2 is enough. (4k is definitely better than 1080p and 2 is better than 1, but I don't think I can properly utilize a third monitor.) And these are good monitors -- not Pro Display XDR good but still premium 4k monitors -- that have been around for years and I'll keep using them until they die. And about movies -- I have tried using the Quest 2/3 to watch movies. It is usable, and apps even provide "scenes" that make you feel you are in a theater. Do I want to wear them and watch movies on a fake 100" screen? No, for obvious reasons (comfort).
If the day comes when they are light, comfortable to wear, allow very good passthrough and actually do a better job than my 4k screens, I'll take another look.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just wall mount (or edge of desk mount) the monitors on pivoting arms so you can have desk space when you need it, with the monitors floating out of the way? VR seems like such an unnecessarily complicated way to do multi monitors.
Yes, my monitors when I had them were on arms - they wouldn't work great in my current setup due to its density, and the things I've put around the desk.
I certainly could make adjustments to accommodate a monitor - I just don't want to, and would love for there to be a way to not have to and still get to use a large display.
The "killer app" here is to have an infinity-sized 'screen' for anything the average user was already going to do with an iPad or Apple TV. The hardware's just not good enough yet, in terms of lightness and comfort, for the average user to put up with as more than a novelty.
The extreme majority of users is perfectly happy with two 24" monitors (actually, the extreme majority is happy with a single 13" monitor). "Infinite monitor space" isn't something that will sell a large enough numbers of headsets to prevent the cancellation of the next iteration.
Do you think it's plausible the hardware will ever be good enough?
People aren't really that happy wearing even vision eyeglasses, and I don't see any realistic chance we will ever be able to have something with the capabilities of the Vision Pro in a form factor as small and light as eyeglasses.
Yeah, the Quest seems to be the spiritual successor to Wii sports. It’s the closest thing you can buy to that 2006 experience. The long dream of wielding a lightsaber on the Wii was finally realized on the Quest, to a quite satisfactory level.
And yet, from a gaming perspective, we still have to crack force feedback and natural locomotion before we have a holodeck. Maybe in 20 more years.
I mean it's the same problem for a lot of stuff, build it and they will come. Apple is super naive to think that they can just jump into this space and yet end up with a polished product (ie Apple's selling point).
I see on scifi all the time where someone flicks/flings a video playing on a device to move it to a larger display surface and it kills me that we actually have the technology to do stuff like this right now...but because every company works in their own interests/don't work together to create standards we don't get to have fun use of tech like that.
It wouldn't be the first time that hardware gets ahead of software.
In 1988-94, the CPUs available in desktop computers were substantially more advanced than the widely used operating systems. Windows 3 and Mac System 6/7 didn't support pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection, or many other features that define a modern OS.
Maybe we'll look back at today's Quest and Vision Pro as similar transitional devices with one foot stuck in the old paradigm, running old-style software.
> In 1988-94, the CPUs available in desktop computers were substantially more advanced than the widely used operating systems. Windows 3 and Mac System 6/7 didn't support pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection, or many other features that define a modern OS.
That was partly because RAM was over $100/MB (Nominal; ~$230 inflation adjusted) in 1990. Additionally, in the IBM compatible world, many people didn't have a 386 at that point.
Also, minor nitpick on the dates; 1993 saw OS/2 2.1 and NT 3.1, both of which had preemptive multitasking and memory protection.
The Apple headset is maybe more akin to the expensive workstations of the time which did make fuller use of their CPU facilities but were neither priced nor aimed at consumers. The headset is not nearly as expensive (especially inflation adjusted) and is ostensibly a consumer device but it's current incarnation seems unlikely to have the kind of mass adoption for the analogy to work out.
The fact that the Vision Pro today mostly runs legacy iPad and web software in 2D rectangles kind of makes it feel like Windows/386 which most people just used to run text mode MS-DOS programs inside GUI windows.
I think you've got it backwards. There are plenty of reasons you'd want to put on a VR headset if it weighed as much as a pair of glasses, had a 180 degree field of view and like 5x the resolution of current headsets.
The reason the software doesn't exist is because compelling hardware doesn't exist for it to run on, so nobody bothers to write it.
Apple is imagining this device will be used for productivity but it's still painful to actually wear for long periods. We're a long way from being limited by software instead of hardware.
> I think we are now at a stage where VR hardware has surpassed software.
It's a 600+ grams headset with a battery on a leash for $3500. I wouldn't say the hardware is mainstream ready or fulfilling it's side of the contract yet.
People like to say this but my friend just sent me a recording of “drop dead home invasion” with the Quest 3 and my jaw was on the floor. He says it’s amazing too.
I’ve also heard about players spending a lot of time in counter strike games like pavlov.
At this point it seems like there’s a TON of things to do in VR (and I’m gonna be honest, there were a ton of experiences too on the Quest 1 when I had it).
I’m just waiting for more live shows and concerts that I can attend from the Quest personally.
Oh I agree - I loved my experience with Drop Dead Home Invasion, and there are a lot of amazing experiences overall. But, I do think that most of these have more potential as a "demo", that you do a few times but would not motivate you to use a headset every day, beyond a relatively small group of people.
It is like VR is currently stuck being Kinect in terms of sales and stickiness, while Meta and Apple would both like it to be at least like the Wii, or ideally the iPad.
Personally I have found social experiences to have the best long-term appeal (i.e. Racket NX or Drop Dead with friends), but even there I am not these apps have sufficient mainstream appeal.
> But, I do think that most of these have more potential as a "demo", that you do a few times but would not motivate you to use a headset every day, beyond a relatively small group of people.
This matches everyone I’ve heard talk about it, too. It was fun, they enjoyed a few things and then at some point they realized that their headset had multiple months of dust on it.
I think the big question is when costs come down to the point where it’d be reasonable for a non-rich family to have enough headsets to use together. Most people mention technical limits (resolution, latency) but the thing which everyone mentioned as a dealbreaker was that putting the headset on was shutting out everyone around them.
You’d lose that bet. Console games can be done with friends and family, and they don’t give you headaches or nausea after an hour. The hardware demands push the price up and that makes the social challenge harder, too.
The major problem VR has isn't the games, but all the boring and basic stuff, like using 2D apps in VR or running multiple VR apps at the same time.
The discontinued WMR Portal, essentially the Window's desktop in VR, was so far the only software that tried to be a full workspace in VR. But even that was missing a lot of important features and Microsoft gave up on it years ago and never made it accessible to non-Microsoft headsets. It's currently scheduled for removal from Windows.
VisionPro seems very similar to WMRPortal so far, with a few key improvements like allowing apps do add 3D objects into a shared space.
I personally think MSFS 2020 and Automobilista 2 are killer VR apps. All (wannabe or pro) pilots could learn how to operate any given aircraft in MSFS and relive past glorious racing in A2 on current or historic tracks/cars. Senua and Alyx showed what is possible in gaming as well and why it's so much better than 2D. Elder Scrolls looks great in VR just the controllers make it a joke when fighting (too easy and weird). I still think 4k is too low and 8k will be needed to feel like a 1080p phone.
they are killer apps, but how many people are going to spend $3500, no, just $1500 or $1000 for just for these things? Well, that is almost the entire market of Quest 3 which Apple does not want to be in. Which is why I feel Quest 3 is a product that makes much more sense than Vision Pro.
Anything goggle-like is a non-starter for me. I'm not even interested in trying it. I don't even like glasses, and I need corrective lenses to be able to see clearly (I wear contacts almost exclusively).
> I think we are now at a stage where VR hardware has surpassed software.
Totally agree. I'm waiting for a usable Virtual Desktop app to come out. All the ones I have tried which work on my cheap WMR headset fall short of having floating app windows in view.
I guess there is one of those which works on Meta Quest, but not PC headsets. That's really what you need to be effective working in VR. Just like is mentioned the Apple headset supports.
I feel like the killer combination here would be a Virtual Desktop-like app for visionOS where the desktop VR passes through as an environment, but full local app layering is still available in the foreground.
I think we are now at a stage where VR hardware has surpassed software.
How about enabling AIs to create layouts of information on behalf of the user? Like, what if an AI could arrange all of your information for you in a scheme derived from Archy?
But at the same time, the hardware is not where it needs to be for ubiquity. We need ~60PPD, great FOV, and lighter hardware to really break the barrier. Vision Pro is at the limits, but still not quite there, and we all know the 90/10 rule.
I think if it was an iphone accessory then it would have convinced more users because it would be $1000 since it’s just the display and sensors where iphone would drive all the compute
There's a bunch of VR games/apps that are notable for fitness. Beat Saber is the most well known one that's explicitly a game, Supernatural is maybe the most famous one that's framed as more of a fitness app/service.
But other notable ones include Synth Riders, FitXR, OhShape, Pistol Whip, Thrill of the Fight, and (maybe) Gorilla Tag. And this list is far from exhaustive.
VR is pretty good for fitness just because it can make exercising more interesting, comparable to sports without the need to coordinate with other people (and it's easy to do inside your house, if you have at least a 2m x 2m open space). Major downsides would be having that space available and sweat inside the headset.
That's not really an issue imo, the downside is mostly just getting part of the headset gross (you don't want to use it right after someone else has sweated up a storm in there, believe me).
You don't need to worry with most headsets (don't know about AVP). I've been sweating in VR headsets for years and it never did any harm. I saw in the AVP reviews that it has a removable and swappable facial interface, so it should be easy to clean; the same is true of other modern headsets, and before that you had third party face covers or disposable absorbant stickers you could put on the facial interface to keep the sweat away.
Meta (and many third-party manufacturers) offer a wipe-clean silicone facial interface designed for fitness-oriented users. The hardware isn't waterproof, but it's quite well protected and I'd be perfectly confident to work up a sweat. Quest has calorie tracking, can sync with the fitness tracking features on iOS and Android and can pair with heart rate monitors. Fitness is one of the key segments in VR, because fitness apps and fitness-oriented users have vastly above-average engagement and retention rates.
I think the discomfort of sweaty eyes is a much bigger problem than damaging the device. It's extremely easy toake the device sweatproof compared to fixing the sweaty eyes issue.
used a Quest 2 for 2 years, and I sweat a lot when doing intensive exercises. No issue so far. And it is $300, cheaper than the base iPad. What else can you ask for.
I’m surprised Apple dropped the ball on fitness here given they already have a fitness platform. Imagine rowing in VR and feeling like you’re actually on the water. It would make exercising so much more motivating and interesting.
It turned out the killer Apple Watch feature was fitness, and I don’t see why it couldn’t have been here.
I've used a rowing machine with a VR headset (I don't recall which model, it was a few years ago, but probably some Oculus).
It was fun for a few minutes but not really usable for serious exercise:
- It's heavy and annoying (and this apple product seems even bulkier and heavier). The cable situation is also not great, you need a lightweight cable and ceiling suspension to keep it out of the way, but this is solvable.
- Exercise means you get sweaty. Can't wipe your brow and you have a wet headset on your face.
- You can't see your body and maintain proper form. The VR environment itself is also distracting if you turn your head around to look at stuff moving there.
I much prefer just to have my phone or tablet in fixed place in front of me to watch youtube or some movie.
I really don't think that's the best use-case for VR - if you're doing some kind of virtual rowing, a flat screen is going to offer most of the experience with none of the downsides. VR fitness is really about games that are fun in their own right and happen to be physically active. There's a big cohort of people who hate exercise and would never set foot in a gym, but who will happily spend an hour at their aerobic threshold because they're playing a fun game.
Heavily disagree. Just like running outside is generally more enjoyable than on the treadmil, so is rowing. VR rowing would allow you to row through basically every major city on earth, over Niagara falls, and all sorts of other scenic spots.
No, it would allow you to row in a gym/at home while looking at a pseudo-realistic version of every major city or Niagara falls.
The reason running outside is nicer than on the treadmill is not that you get to look at nicer images. You get to smell fresh air and feel the wind on your body, you get to sometimes interact with people, you get to feel various textures under your feet, you get to move your bodies in more ways as you turn left and right etc.
Rowing outside is even more different, as you get the feel of the water currents and water splashes as well.
VR can mimic none of these things, and it comes with the massive downside of a sweaty face that you can't wipe away.
On the other hand, row fast or you fall down virtual Niagara falls sounds like an entertaining game and might make the rowing interesting... to me anyway.
I mean can’t speak for anyone else, but personally running outside is nicer because I get to look at nicer images. The fresh air is nice too but none of the other things you listed contribute anything for me. Getting wet is actually a downside of rowing outside for me, so that’s another plus of vr rowing.
To add to the suggestions by the sibling comments, Eleven Table Tennis and Racket NX are both great racket-based games with multiplayer and a high skill ceilings. Depending on your personality I think applications like this are much more motivating than going to the gym as a workout.
I'm not sure I've ever liked the term "killer app", because I don't think it's particularly useful in describing real user thinking and behaviour. There was a very long journey from VisiCalc and Wordstar to the modern-day ubiquity of office computing. Different user groups have complex, diverse and overlapping sets of needs and wants that can rarely be distilled into a single application. I'm more inclined to think in terms of Bezos's one-way doors - changes in user behaviour that are sufficiently compelling to be largely irreversible.
I agree that progress has been slow in the consumer space and meaningful long-term adoption of VR has been confined to a few niches; that isn't necessarily an indictment of the long-term prospects for VR, because desktop computers spent much longer in that stage than most people remember.
In enterprise, I think things are more advanced and some user groups have decisively gone through the one-way door for some applications. I think the best example is architecture. If you've done a couple of client presentations in VR, you just aren't going back to showing renders on a flat screen, because immersing the client in a physical space is that powerful. It's not just a sales tool, but a communications tool - clients can understand and respond to the environment intuitively and give much better feedback as a result.
Industrial and clinical training is less clearly one-way, but I think we're very close in a lot of areas. AR is still less developed than VR, but I do think we're on the cusp of something significant - a sufficiently comfortable standalone AR headset with sufficiently high-quality passthrough can deliver training experiences that can't practically be replicated through other means.
I think one of the most interesting areas of development is in psychiatry. It's still early days, but we're starting to see real, meaningful benefits in RCTs for VR-based therapy of disorders like phobia and PTSD. Some of the most compelling results have been in the very sickest patients - people with psychosis, who often find it impossible to engage with conventional psychotherapy.
I don't think it's remotely likely that VR will ever replace flat screens, but I do think that VR is slowly growing into a niche but durable HCI platform. Tablets are a reasonable analogy - a lot of people see them as a failure, but they still sell in serious volume and they're often a much better form-factor for specific applications than either a phone or a laptop, especially in industry. Tablets didn't change the world, but nor are they likely to go away.
Everyone is looking for the "killer app" so they have something to anchor the concept. Put simply, the Web fits the bill. Apple has invested in the space because they can't afford not to. Their App Store model starts to show its limitations when you stop staring at the screen and start looking through it.
WebGPU and WebXR are the two big enablers going forward. With WebGPU, developers have a common way to access hardware and that's a big deal across all your devices. A common way to access the hardware that gets you real-time 3D graphics, machine learning, crypto, etc. that works on your phone, tablet, laptop, headset, whatever is a big deal. And it's not just for anyone with Apple gear, but anyone with a compatible browser. Think generative AI/ML streaming Gaussian splats to your retinas via a browser. That's where we're headed.
I am hoping we will see a lot of experimentation in the coming years, and I am excited for what the Apple ecosystem will bring to the table. That said, from what I have seen so far this does not seem to be a revolution compared to the current offerings, but an evolution on various fronts, without addressing the killer app question.