I’ve had a strong interest in consumer technology for years at this point, though it mostly falls into a category of entertainment via YouTube videos and podcasts. I’m not critic, and tend not to spend much time writing about the latest and greatest in the spaces I follow. But Apple’s new Vision Pro headset is difficult to ignore.
I’ve read, watched, and listened to many takes on Apple Vision Pro. It set the virtual reality enthusiast world on fire due to its cost, and has excited most Apple hardware enthusiasts because it exists at all. The media who had the opportunity to demo it during WWDC have uniformly positive opinions on the fit and finish of the interaction, and hesitation about its marketability.
The commentary I found most astute was from John Siracusa on ATP, who stated that Apple’s intention was clearly to make the best display possible. I haven’t seen this concept represented elsewhere, as most everyone is focused on how good of a headset it is in comparison to the products—Quest, Index, PSVR—that have shaped that space thus far. If you consider this headset just as an extremely portable set of displays that you can arrange however you want, it’s a better deal than getting 2 of Apple’s “consumer-level” Studio displays. Add in the fact that it’s a standalone computer itself with entertainment potential beyond a standard display, and the price feels justified.
Yet in a world of Oculus/Meta Quest headsets that cost ten percent of the Vision Pro, made with hardware reminiscent of Nintendo in that it is just powerful enough to do perform the desired functions, there is a sense of sticker shock that I find misplaced. Yes, this is an expensive headset given the nominal competitors. Yet unlike its competitors Apple does not rely on the data it gathers from its users to gain additional revenue, nor is it willing to hemorrhage money by selling the hardware at a loss so it can establish a product category. Apple is making a play unlike those in the purely VR space, who rely on game sales (or promise of future return) to make up for the inexpensive headsets.
All this is simply a rough justification for the cost of the Vision Pro. In terms of its actual use case, I love going back to John’s concept of it as a powerful display. I think it provides a great option for remote workers1I specify remote because, well, it’ll take a while before using this in the office is at all reasonable or acceptable. to set up an “office” regardless of their physical space. It could allow for new interactions and workflows to allow for better focus, and a new way to interact with documents. While that wasn’t specifically demoed—John also points out that with the exception of the occasional 3D model, every app is just a flat floating window akin to having iPads hovering around you—I have no doubt that the developer community will release novel applications that expand the capabilities of the headset beyond an existing suite of apps that can be moved around in space.
I feel optimistic about Apple’s direction with this product. They face an uphill battle against society’s reaction to the perceived isolation and distraction that this kind of product represents, yet that has never stopped society from embracing something new before. It won’t happen next year, but I believe Apple has the best chance of anyone—particularly more so than Meta—to turn the cultural tide and make a pitch for this new category that doesn’t make everyone collectively cringe and fear for the future.
- 1I specify remote because, well, it’ll take a while before using this in the office is at all reasonable or acceptable.