I hadn’t realised that it doesn’t come out until next year on Quest.
-
-
I read that it had some tech problems with virtual desktop, so I decided to hold on for the quest release & some patchesOriginally posted by fishbowlhead View PostComment
-
Haven't used mine in the past two or so months so its benched till further noticeComment
-
Yeah, they've really screwed up here. Meta are honestly **** at this, their firmware rollouts are dreadful. I'm presently not using my Pro Controllers due to issues that were introduced in around July.Originally posted by Neon Ignition View PostComment
-
I haven't had any update issues on Quest 3 which is used on the regular, but I haven't booted the 2 in a while, so might leave that until there's an all clear. Can't say I've had any update issues with any of them since my original Oculus Go though.Comment
-
A truly disastrous product. When I've scanned relevant subreddits the only thing people still using them seem to use them for is movie playback. Not remotely something that is worth £3500 when there are many other products on the market that can do the same at pretty comparable quality for a fraction of the price.
From the start it's been obvious that the ultimate intention was something more akin to the Meta Orion, with the current over-engineered camera and screens version as a prototype starting point. In the end, they'd probably actually have been better off releasing a Meta Orion type product, even if they had to charge something insane like $10k+ for it (which is what Meta estimated a production Orion would cost if they released one), just for the halo effect/wow factor of having something truly unique on the market.
Instead, despite their best efforts to market it otherwise, it's obvious to consumers that VP is just a luxury Quest without the games. They really shouldn't have released it.Comment
-
IIRC, Apple expected to sell 3 million devices when it launched and soon revised it down to 900K which they're just about at - it was never going to sell at Quest 2 levels with that price tag. Apple will refine their offering in time at a more consumer friendly price tag I'm sure; this was clearly a halo product.Comment
-
I think it's far fewer than 900k sold. Around half of that at most. It was never going to do iPhone numbers but it's underperformed even conservative estimations.
I think the Vision Pro 2 is definitely dead and a Vision Lite/Budget/Air is probable but even with dramatic price cuts I don't think the market is there for this product. I think its use as a halo product is also questionable. Tech fanciers are unimpressed with its utility and lack of genuinely meaningful differentiation from far cheaper competitors, and it's had just about zero cultural cut through with the wider public - most of whom would have no idea what an 'Apple Vision Pro' was if you asked them about it on the street.
I get what Apple was trying to do with this but the experience is nowhere near good enough to wear it for hours at a time in transparency mode. I tried one and even after a 15 minute demo it was a good feeling to take it off and let my eyes settle on the real world rather than a video feed on a screen.
A true glasses-style product, a production Apple Orion, will be a different kettle of fish and could be really interesting (I personally think it's really where personal tech - smartphones, smartwatches - are headed). But the VR headset approach is not the one and I don't see even a $1000 Vision Pro ever reaching anything more than an niche audience.Comment
-
Thinking of dice rolling and starting my Quest 3 up soon. Might not have used it in abotu two months but it'll be up to date to most likely the prior update so should be fine when it updates...Comment
-
The writing was on the wall the moment it didn't have controllers.Originally posted by wakka View Post
This was very obviously an Apple design, "so far up their own arse they don't remember when they entered" thing. Because yes, the platonic ideal of VR would be to not have controllers and do everything via hand tracking, and sure, some VR experiences are fun that purely use hand tracking.
But tons of work from many developers at numerous companies over a decade has shown, beyond any doubt, why you need controllers if you want to offer experiences of any real complexity. Trying to go without is on par with trying to reinvent the wheel for no good reason.
The Apple that picked not to have them is the Apple that chose to put the charging port underneath the mouse. The Apple that made a phone too thin/fragile that bent when slid into a pocket, then tried to tell people "you're using it wrong".Comment
-
I thought they'd discontiued the Quest Pro ages ago tbh - it's a very good headset, but other than eye-tracking and the resulting foveated rendering, the Quest 3 is easily the better purchase. The controllers on the Pro were the biggest let down for me; maybe my expectations were too high, but I was expecting them to be able to compete with lighthouse tracking - it's not even close.Comment
-
Again, I love the Pro controllers and I think the tech was promising. I also have the Vive Ultimate Trackers that use the same tech for full body tracking, and the setup is fantastic.Originally posted by MartyG View Post
But the Quest Pro was just too expensive, or at least, too much for not enough.Comment
-
I agree that the lack of controllers kills its utility for the main things that VR is used for, but I think there is kind of logic behind why it doesn't include them (albeit faulty logic).Originally posted by Asura View Post
The thing is, Apple specifically marketed this as not VR but MR. The main 'experience' it was meant to offer was basically just general computing but floating in front of your face while you continued to look at the world around you.
I think in that context the lack of controllers makes a kind of sense. The typical VR wands feel like they would be clunky overkill for browsing the web, looking at photos and editing documents. And I'm assuming that the thinking at Apple was that if it came with those wands and was marketed with fully immersive demos, it would be considered a VR headset, not an MR headset.
The problem is that the distinction between a VR and an MR headset when the headset is huge and heavy and the MR is only achieved by cameras is basically just semantic. Everyone has kinda rumbled that it's just a really expensive Quest, no matter how you gloss it in the marketing. And in the context of just being a really expensive Quest, the lack of controllers makes it really quite pointless.
Comment
-
It just feels like the sort of thing that they were right to explore, from a theoretical point of view, but should never have left the R&D phase.Originally posted by wakka View PostComment
Comment