218
Nearly a year since launch, Apple’s Vision Pro still searching for a killer app
(www.computerworld.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
218 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
76711 readers
4521 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fundamentally the only unique attribute for these goggles is 3D and that comes at a significant expense in terms of user experience. It's the same story as it has been over the last two centuries.
Stereographic photos in the 19th century worked perfectly well but required a special headset and only one person could look at them at a time. Didn't take off. People prefer to be able to look at two-dimensional photos perhaps casually and to be able to point the things to other people looking at the same photo or to compare it with other things at the same time.
3d movies in the 1950s required special red, blue or red green glasses. Didn't take off beyond a gimmick. 3d movies could not be watched without the goggles.
3d movies in the theatre in the early 2000s. Didn't really get beyond the gimmick level. Lots of people complain about headaches.
3d TVs in the early 2000s required special glasses and the 3D could not be used if other people were trying to watch without the glasses.
The conclusion I draw from this is that people don't like having to wear special glasses or a device strapped to their face, even if it is relatively cheap to produce. Although 3D is nice, it simply doesn't seem to be sufficient incentive to put up with the isolation from other people and the surrounding environment that the viewing equipment invariably requires.
VR is way more than just "being 3D." The way you interact with things is a bigger influence on what makes it than the visuals. You're not just having things pop out at you off a 2D plane; you're in the thing with them, and you can "touch" them or do pretty much anything you can do with your actual body.
You're right people don't necessarily want to wear a heavy thing on their face for this, though. Especially when there isn't a lot in the way of experiences that actually offer everything the space is capable of and your hardware is almost four-fucking-thousand dollars.
Op is right though. It's still a cost/benefit situation, and the benefit is not enough to justify the cost.