So far, we’ve been pretty silent about Apple’s crazy headset bet. It’s not for a lack of opinion, but rather no chance to validate those opinions on a real device. Last week, I finally got my hands on a unit and had a chance to try it out. As negative as I’ve been on it in general, I still wanted a proper demo. Did I walk out of there wanting one? Meh.
Who’s it for?
To begin with, I’ll never get over the crazy price. In a world where good headsets have been pushing downward below $1,000, I can’t imagine asking more than $2000 for high-end specs. Clearly there’s a price to pay for high visual fidelity and smooth motion, but it’s so much more expensive than what anyone else is doing that it just feels like an appeal to the wealthy to turn it into an aspirational device. Of course, that’s exactly what they did with the iPhone, MacBooks, and iMacs, so it shouldn’t be any surprise. Their play book seems to be:
- Step 1: Release a slightly better device at a ludicrous price.
- Step 2: Market the device so people feel they have to have it.
- Step 3: Make sure influencers hype it up.
- Step 4: After some time, release a “Lite” version (only $2500?) that the common folks can afford.
If done “right”, other brands are now seen as garbage.
It’s a little better
Just to get this out of the way, it has a nice look, it fits well, passthrough is smooth, hand and eye tracking generally works. It’s an improvement over the HTC Vive XR Elite and Meta Quest 3 in some ways. It gives other headsets a run for the money to be sure. It really is a decent headset. As with most Apple devices, they put out a good product with well thought out user experience and design. But to try to create a market around a $3500 device when VR is only beginning to make headway feels like an attack. They want to make it seem like VR could be ok if only you spent $3500 on it. With that reasoning, anyone who works for a living will decide that VR is clearly just not there yet so why even bother with the current sub-$1000 devices… “Someday I’ll be rich and can get a real one.”
Doing their own thing
To be really clear, I don’t hate Apple’s offering. No more than I hate the Microsoft Hololens 2 which is around the same price. The Hololens is clearly an enterprise device and doesn’t attempt to change the perception for consumers. Like the Hololens 2, the Vision Pro isn’t a consumer device. It’s fine for labs, medical schools, engineering firms, and other specialty environments, but it’s not something that really competes with Meta, HTC, Valve, and other high-quality consumer headset manufacturers. As long as people realize that, it’s not a problem. I’m just not convinced that Apple is too eager to make the distinction.
Don’t call it a headset…
The Vision Pro gets promoted as something for AR, not VR which seems pretentious. Just don’t actually say “AR.” Or for that matter “VR.” Even “headset” isn’t ok. In fact, it’s not even acceptable to call it the Apple Vision Pro. It’s just Apple Vision Pro. So really, you’re supposed to say “spatial computing” which is another way to say augmented reality. Once again, by playing with words, they elevate the perception. It’s not just another headset. “VR headsets are dumb. You need Apple Vision Pro.”
Scratching a niche
Apple always wants to market its devices as category-defining. Of course, that’s hard to do when they have the same features as other products (improved or not). Their typical play is to call their features something new to cause confusion (not AR, but rather spatial), and to pretend that no one else ever did what they’re doing. For less tech-savvy consumers, it’s easy to fall for their ploys. It’s important to look critically at their features though and recognize what’s better and what’s just smoke and mirrors.
- Lack of apps: Most people don’t remember that the original iPhone intentionally did not support apps initially. They made a “bold” choice. In that case, they finally relented and went completely the other way. Even with an app store now though, Apple isn’t starting with many VR titles. The large number of VR experiences already available will require extensive work to be released for the platform. Whether it’s BluePlanet VR or BRINK Traveler, documentaries, or museums, all of the great experiences that we write about won’t be available soon. It costs money to port apps, and many VR studios don’t have the numbers to add yet another platform, especially one with such a high cost to entry.
- Spatial videos: This one really galls me. I’ve had multiple 3D cameras over the years and frequently take shots by manually aligning cameras. This isn’t even a Vision Pro thing. It’s impressive that the high-end iPhones have enough spacing between their tiny cameras for depth separation, but to herald the playback of these videos in a VR headset as something revolutionary is just maddening.
- External eye display: On paper, reprojecting your eyes onto the outside of the headset sounds interesting. People wearing a headset might as well have a bag over their head with two eye slits, in terms of how it feels to talk to them. In reality though, the “eye” display is hazy and just kind of creepy. I also noticed a slight bounce when the wearer moved their head much. Perhaps it’s ok when a few people are sitting around a conference room table, but I didn’t like it. I like retaining social presence when not everyone is wearing a headset, but I’m not sure this is the way. Overall, not worth the hundreds of dollars it must have added to the price.
- Fit: I like the idea of the “ski mask” style with just the one strap, but it didn’t feel tight enough. Selling a top strap as an option is something only Apple would do. When fit isn’t right, I personally tend to tense up my scalp a bit which leads to a headache. It’s nice to see photos of people wearing the headset with a variety of hair styles in order to aid inclusion, but you can’t simply cut off the top and say you’ve got it.
- Lack of controllers: Using your hand can be great for some things. I use it on my Meta Quest 2 and 3 when it makes sense. Since Apple is going for productivity, not games, I’m sure they think it’s a good trade-off. Even without games though, I still needed to reach for that “crown” button on the visor for some actions, which seems like an admission that hand/eye tracking isn’t enough. I still think of the crazy hand gestures on the floating computer screens in the movie “Minority Report.” We may get to a point where no controller is needed, but I don’t think we’re there yet.
- Eye tracking: Definitely not the first with this. A number of headsets have already done this with decent success. The Meta Quest Pro and the Vive XR Elite (with optional tracking plate) do a good job. It’s never perfect, but it’s a great thing to see developed. They aren’t first though!
Bitter with the sweet
I sound bitter. I’m disappointed since I worry about what it will do to the market. As consumers see influencers, agencies, and enterprises wanting to look hip and trendy with them, they may hold off on the selection of current great headsets. I want people to realize that VR is already here. It’s not perfect, but you aren’t stuck between paying the equivalent of 1-2 months of mortgage payments and nothing.
If nothing else, Vision Pro (see, I skipped “the”) is a product that gets people talking about VR and AR, even about 3D (sorry, spatial) videos. All of this can be good if it adds momentum to the market. Seeing this take off is perhaps what prompted Meta to open up their Horizon OS to other hardware makers. I see that as only a good thing. Not that they need an OS monopoly like Windows, but there’s a huge benefit to increasing the market so apps can reach the broadest market possible, and Vision Pro pushes the cutting edge, so we’ll hopefully see eye/gaze tracking continue to filter down to more products.
