I remain convinced that normal people don’t want the Vision Pro, but I’m not willing to go quite so far as predicting a flop. The fascinating question to me is whether it’s possible to take a mediocre idea and make it succeed through excellence in tech and design alone.

@manton Feels like it might be a second laptop or high end iPad replacement for some. And it feels like what Apple is doing now, but clearly wants these to become some sort of "Tony Stark glasses" like product in the future.

@manton I think most people don’t want pro mostly because it’s 3500$. If it was a 500$ device it would have been a roaring success coz most ppl would have just bought it just coz, at that price. I think the Apple Watch succeeded eventually mostly coz of that behavior and pricing.

@manton The Vision Pro is the Ford Model T of this platform/concept, less in its broad appeal but in as early design “win,” and in a decade or two, we’ll see the real payoff. Put different, what’s the ‘64 Mustang version of this that we’ll have in 2036?

@manton i don’t think it’s a mediocre idea, I think it’s a new thing that we’re all still figuring out.

The Apple Watch was the same way - remember the first version that had a “circle of friends” as the main UI? It changed really fast from a communication device to a fitness device and is by all measures a success.

I think you’re right that “normal” people don’t want this right now. It’s too expensive and no one really knows what to do with it yet. But that will change, I think.

@tchambers @manton it seems like it could be a killer option for remote work.

@jimmylittle Yeah, I wasn't sure if "mediocre" was the right word, but seemed better than "bad"... A lot of people compare it to the watch, but the watch is just something on your wrist. This goes over your face! It's very difficult to fit into everyday life like a watch.

@tchambers Glasses is clearly where AR devices need to be. It's weird to me that Apple didn't focus on that first, rather than wait years for a hypothetical Vision Air. Meta of course is doing both the Quest and Ray-Ban.

@manton I think the price is a bigger obstacle than anything else. I’d expect it to struggle even if it was clearly a must have product.

@manton That’s the part I keep getting hung up on. The trepidation with the Vision Pro is “nobody wants to wear this thing all day!” Of course not.

This is not (yet) a computer (in the “sit down and work all day” computer sense). It’s being pitched as an entertainment and communication thing.

How much time a day do we spend on FaceTime or alone in front of the TV? That’s what it’s supposedly competing against, which seems a pretty viable replacement for some folks.

@manton @jimmylittle I don’t think this is the product Apple *wants* to make — I think their ideal is far more unobtrusive (and comfortable) glasses you can wear all day, including out in the world. But I think they’ve decided that they need to try to get as close as they can *now*, to work out the best way to get to their desired end product.

@deandmx Yep, it's out of reach for most people. And the early adopters will buy it at any price, so Apple might as well not lose money on it.

@manton @tchambers Vision Pro makes me want a modern take on Google Glass.

It feels like software, expectations, hardware etc would make it a lot more compelling nowadays.

Especially if shipped in a pair of regular glasses so that one won’t look as weird when wearing them

@manton This will obviously change when they properly announce it, but the product page isn't even on the UK site.

@manton @tchambers I think Apple agrees that glasses are the end goal, but that the tech just isn’t there yet to do what they want with glasses. Their strategy seems to be to make the most capable device they can that is limited by the display and battery tech, and then work to make those aspects more mobile and suitable to all-day wear, rather than start with glasses and try to add capabilities.

@michaelgemar @manton 💯. They want to build glasses (or contacts) that do all this. But technology isn’t there yet, so this is where we are.
5 years from now, it’ll be the size of ski goggles. 10 years, maybe chunky Ray-Bans.

We don’t get an iPhone without an Apple][.

@jimmylittle @manton One can either start with glasses and add capabilities as the tech becomes available, or create a visor with all the capabilities one wants and move towards glasses as *that* tech develops (batteries and displays, mostly). Apple has chosen the latter. Given the lukewarm reception of Google Glass, that’s probably a reasonable bet (albeit still a risky one).

@jimmylittle @michaelgemar Just a reminder that it was 30 years between the Apple II and iPhone. 🙂 This is going to take so long, I guess that’s why I’m not excited.

@michaelgemar @manton @tchambers The VisionPro is a full-on facial computing device. From the M2 processor, the memory, storage and FANS. And what, 12 cameras?

This is not a device that is going to come in the form factor of glasses, certainly not normal looking glasses. I think many have a certain "faith" that Apple will do all sorts of hand-wavy engineering to shrink everything. Perhaps a "lite" version that does less with less tech?

@dennyhenke @manton @tchambers Right, it’s not going to be put in glasses anytime soon. But I don’t think Apple’s long-term notion for this category of products is “something you can only use sitting down at home”. Apple has always had an emphasis on tech *mobility*, from iPods to thin laptops to computers in the shape of phones and tablets. They’re not going to stop with a Vision Pro that only works from a couch.

@michaelgemar @dennyhenke @manton @tchambers There is a pretty great spectrum of size options between the current Vision Pro and, say, a pair of Ray-Bans.

They still have a lot of engineering work to get things moved to a small enough form factor that people can go about their day wearing, but I don’t think they have to get down to wire-framed sunglass level.

Especially if they mostly serve as a display with processing handled in a separate device.

@michaelgemar @dennyhenke @manton @tchambers I might have been a bit more hesitant to suggest this could work, but the rise of AirPods — which I wear in public despite past me thinking they look absolutely ridiculous — suggests that fashion can change to support weird stuff if 1) the practical benefit is significant enough, and 2) a company having a degree of taste and marketing acumen sells it.

@ddanielson @manton That’s a much better analogy.

@manton I’m an Apple enthusiast and even I don’t want a Vision Pro - not at $3500. Maybe not half that. We’re an all Apple household and I upgrade to newer gear more frequently that anybody I know whose job isn’t writing or talking about Apple. I don’t think any “normal” people want Vision Pro, but I could be wrong. I don’t want it to flop but it won’t be for me until it is priced for the general Apple consumer.

@mikestanley @manton I normally buy whatever Apple is selling but, yeah, in this case I have zero interest in Vision Pro.

@vmstan @manton And to be fair, it is purely a cost thing for me. We own the Quest and Quest 2, and I’m a fan of VR. Who knows, maybe I’ll go higher than $1500 for Vision non-Pro. But $3500 is far outside my responsible range for a new and unproven gadget.

@manton I absolutely want it. But not at that price.

@manton One way I put it is, regardless of price tag or size/weight, I have four Apple computers now: Apple Watch, iPhone, iPad, and MacBook. So is there room for a 5th device amidst those, room for another computer category?

Or will Vision Pro eventually replace one or more of those above?

@dennyhenke we should remember that at one point there was the iPod than came the iPod mini then came the nano...

@manton @deandmx

Mac 128 1984 $2499
Price adjusted for inflation: $7,300
I bought one

Mac 512 1984: $3,195
Price adjusted for inflation: $9,328
I bought one

Mac SE/30 1989: $4,300
Price adjusted for inflation: $10,520
I bought one

People will buy this

@manton I see this project as Tim Cook’s legacy. I also have a feeling it’s only going to magnify his prowess as an efficiency guru rather than a visionary. I hope they haven’t bet the farm on this, and it’s already bothering me that vast resource has been spent on this that should have gone elsewhere.

@jeff @michaelgemar @dennyhenke @manton @tchambers and 3: you have an enthusiast base so loyal they will really put the effort in the adopt it.

@manton @jimmylittle @michaelgemar May also be because they have presented a compelling use case yet, at least that's how it is for me. I could accept in 3-7 years, this could be a good product, but it seems far from that right now to my eye.

Unfortunately, they probably can't get to a "good" product without shipping this & learning in the meantime. I want to try it at some point to really see how it is…