Apple is offering a VR/AR/XR headset, Vision Pro, for the low, low price of $3,500.

I kid. Also I am deadly serious.

The value of this headset to a middle class American or someone richer than that is almost certainly either vastly more than $3,500, or at best very close to $0.

This type of technology is a threshold effect. Once it gets good enough, if it gets good enough, it will feel essential to our lives and our productivity. Until then, it’s a trifle.

Thus, like Divia Eden, I am bullish on using the Tesla strategy of offering a premium product at a premium price, then later either people decide they need it and pay up or you scale enough to lower costs – if the tech delivers.

Gaming could be a modest benefit. Mark Zuckerberg points out on the Lex Fridman podcast that with no native controller this could be a poor VR/AR gaming platform. Mark suggested this could drive demand for the more reasonably priced Occulus.

This doesn’t apply to traditional gaming with the VR used to improve the screen and mobility, assuming you can get connected to devices that allow real gaming (e.g. console devices or PCs, not iPhones and Macs.) Apple lets you hook up a PS5 controller or mouse and keyboard if you like, but only directly integrates with Apple devices.

My current impression of existing VR/AR is that it is in the ‘not worth much’ section of the curve. The games and activities are fun to try out, but not worth sustained engagement. Productivity wasn’t there at all.

Can Apple do better? Are we there? There’s definitely a bunch of new tech here.

Your New Computer Interface?

That’s how their presentation pitch starts. ‘All your favorite apps,’ controlled by your eyes and finger scrolls and taps.

Do we want to use a phone or computer in AR or VR? It makes sense to go use case by use case.

1. Watching movies, shows and other media? Sounds good if quality is there. Automatically darkening the rules and resizing the screen seem like awesome features. Looks like experience quality is there. The question is, what does this offer that’s ten times better than a television screen, other than mobility? Otherwise, cost plus the trivial inconveniences involved will be big problems.
2. Looking at your old videos and photos, and also taking photos and videos? Experience quality here seems fantastic. Banking memories and vistas for later viewing seems killer, and the amount you’re taken ‘out of the moment’ seems vastly lower, much better than ‘hey let me take some photos.’ The obvious catch is, how much does wearing the headset take you out of the moment inherently?
3. Playing traditional games? I mean, hell yeah, let’s go, if they’ll let us. Battery life on the go is questionable but you can plug in or presumably buy and carry multiple batteries. Which games can we hook up? For now you will have to go through a Mac or iPhone. The question is how big a barrier that is in practice.
4. Do video calls from anywhere and have no one be able to tell, thanks to your realistic digital avatar? Shut up and take my money. TechCrunch confirms that this works. Ars Technica and others warn that the digital avatars are currently a bit uncanny valley, and standard Zoom may still end up getting used anyway until things get sufficiently better. I expect the tech here to advance rapidly. This comes down to the social question. Will others be down for you using it?
5. Would I want to read this way, either books or the web? Hard to know without a demo, both in terms of screen and interface. Is this friendly to your eyes? Is the scrolling experience better than a phone or mouse, is it precise enough? What about using those fancy eye monitors, seeing where you were reading and scroll along? How else can we enhance the experience?
6. The mindfulness applications? Skepticism, although solid reviews.
7. Dedicated AR/VR games, worlds and other apps? That’s definitely not where the focus is, at all, they don’t even mention VR experiences.
8. AI. They don’t mention generative AI at all. The reviews don’t mention it either. Why isn’t this being integrated into your experience? I’ll say more later.

Thoughts on the Control Mechanism

It’s so hard to tell without a demo whether the eyes are a good control mechanism. Even for those who have used other VR systems, these are very different use cases. You can hook up Bluetooth keyboards, mice and controllers as alternatives, we’ll find out how friendly the system is to their use. You are also asked to use voice, which in my experience is a good option but a terrible thing to have forced upon you.

A hybrid control scheme under user control seems great, where you can switch between modalities to suit how you want to navigate.

I have a big concern that Apple thinks they know better what interfaces are good and bad, and is not going to allow us to use precision and patterns and the modes we prefer. That they will tell us what to use where, and that it won’t be great. They told demo users not to ray trace and instead use a synthesis of certain gestures combined with eye and voice. I get why no haptics. Many reviewers say they nailed the interface. The lack of options still feels like an error.

There’s a reason I’ve mostly been an Android user. I want options. I want to do it my way. Apple has consistently to that, for decades: Screw you, our way or the highway, our way is the right true and cool way.

I want at least the option to say things like ‘treat my hands as if they were using an invisible keyboard and mouse, in ways I know your cameras can figure out.’ I did a short experiment here typing in the air with no tactile feedback, and it’s going to take a little practice and getting used to but it would totally going to work if enabled. Maybe the keyboard is a stretch without a physical aid, but why not the mouse?

A strong counterargument is that Apple has put a lot more investment into these questions than I have, and reports mostly say the interface is awesome, with for example Ars Technica saying it’s going to be hard to go back to using a controller and Apple has nailed the interface.

Importance of Dynamic Passthrough to the World

The feature that you will see the real world when it is important to do so, and that everyone knows this, is a big game. Not only can you interact normally with people in the room, they know that you can do this. Which in turn means that the device might not be seen as an anti-social move. Then you can use all its cool AR features, including AI conversation assistance once they integrate that, again we’ll talk later.

If we want to know about social acceptance of using such a device, we must not forget the important questions. In particular:

Does it Look Cool?

An official verdict offered by Radihika Jones on WWDTM is that they are cool.

Why are they cool?

It’s not about the actual physical look. It’s about what they represent.

They’re Apple. Apple is cool. Google isn’t cool. I am very much on team Google in terms of my personal choices, a mostly happy user of Android and Gmail and Google Docs and Sheets who hopes Bard gets it together, but we all know none of it is cool.

I agree. The device looks cool. Unless the functionality is bad, then it doesn’t.

Tech Solutions

It all comes down to the tech. The tech is what enables features and uses that wouldn’t have previously worked, or wouldn’t have worked as well. The whole point of being $3,500 is so Apple could spend their way out of a host of technical issues.

Reviews agree, and focus more on technical aspects. TechCrunch puts the focus entirely on the tech specs, others are more balanced.

For your $3,500 you get much more advanced hardware with technical innovations throughout.

Reports are that the new tech mostly solves eye strain, which would otherwise be a showstopper to continuous use.

Eye tracking and gesture control is reported to be near perfect, even when your hands are not in front of you.

The higher resolution screens mean text is readable.

The pass-through of the real world is a game changer. Statechery emphasizes the low under 12 millisecond latency to get under the brain’s perception threshold, and generally the fact that only Apple could pull off the many challenges involved in getting the Vision right.

All accounts agree that Apple has essentially solved issues with fit and comfort.

Sterling Crispin talks here about some of the tech challenges. He talks about how the headset uses the information it gets to infer your emotional state and response to various stimuli, including using subliminal visuals or sounds to observe reactions.

Matt Bateman: Surreal watching the bread and butter physio/neuro measuring sticks of cogsci get mainstreamed and integrated into a huge product like this.

Sarah Constantin: Wow! I’ve been wondering (and discussing with @oscredwin about how “real”/rigorous research on neurotech in private companies can be and he was pretty bullish on “there are commercial incentives not to fool yourself”

I notice the Apple presentation absolutely does not mention or use any of these capabilities. Perhaps they do not wish to freak people out, in the ‘that could make quite the brainwashing helmet’ or more conventionally the ‘I really do not want that kind of data in the hands of someone serving me advertisements’ kind of ways, but also obviously super useful. Imagine an interactive horror game that noticed which types of things scared you, and adapted to scare you more. Imagine an AI giving you a virtual lecture, and noticing when your eyes light up or when you lose interest. Imagine the police asking you where you were last night. Or, you know, porn. The possibilities are endless.

Ed Leon Klinger: Did apple just lowkey launch a v1 brain-machine-interface into the Vision Pro?

Byrne Hobart: This is extremely cool and if you have any problems with addictive behavior you should absolutely never play any video games with this device. A/B testing based on your unconscious reactions will get pretty compelling pretty fast.

It probably goes without saying, but definitely avoid looking at generative AI porn with a device that has those features.

Vastly more is being asked of the technology here than was being asked of it previously. It’s easy to see why this could cost $3,500. It’s also easy to see how it could be worth many times that, if it delivers.

Reviews

I saw a bunch of reviews from reporters who saw the demo, all of them positive, although to be fair, not quite everyone’s reactions were positive.

Amjad Masad: Oh no.

I’ll highlight three reviews in particular.

Adam Savage offers hands-on impressions in a 30-minute video. Lots of technical detail discussion. Video seemed like the wrong format here despite the obvious advantages, would have been much better as a blog post.

David Pogue is super pumped.

Ben Thompson at Statechery is both highly credible and even more pumped than David Pogue. To him, this feels like the future, the device knocks it out of the park, he’s wildly optimistic. Yet even he asks, what ultimately is the device for? If computers are productivity, tablets are consumption and the smartphone is, well, everything, is the Vision more than novelty?

Killer App

The right question to ask is, ultimately, what is the device for? What’s the killer app?

It can’t replace your phone on a two hour battery life. There’s a big practical problem that, as I understand it, if you are wearing the device then it needs to be running and drawing power. If you’re not wearing it, it has to go somewhere else in the meantime, and you don’t have that much gas in the tank.

Can it replace your computer? That seems more plausible. Contexts can be found where power supply is less constraining, and you can carry extra batteries and swap them in. Laptop and tablet screens are pretty bad for productivity and many places don’t have a good desk or other surface. Being able to work in the middle of a park seems great. Being able to work lying down is potentially great. You can get ourself a keyboard if you’d like. The new modalities and interface will be actively superior for some tasks.

It’s hard for me to imagine this being more productive in my core activities than my current configuration, but my current configuration is based on years or even decades of optimization. I wouldn’t discount this.

Can it be the new television or tablet? Seems even more plausible. Advantages here are clear, especially on something like a plane, train or bus ride, or otherwise chilling in one place in public. The sports watching experience is potentially transformative even if all it does is simulate being there, and you can add to that with integrated info or not from there. Same logic applies to traditional games. Also there’s always porn.

The new way to read? It could be a good option. Your eyes want to focus on a narrow area and do best with relatively small print (subject to your eyesight, anyway). If the interface lets the text move to keep pace with your eyes, that could be killer.

Photos and videos? It’s nice, but not enough at this price point.

Video meetings, including in three dimensions? Highly promising. How far can this go? Do people want lots of interactivity here? This seems still greatly underexplored. Simply meeting people socially, perhaps playing board games or card games?

Augmented reality experiences? We haven’t even scratched the surface of what these might do. Even without AI.

The AI Elephant in the Room

If I had to guess the killer app here, it is one Apple didn’t mention. AI.

There’s the VR case, the passive AR case, and the hybrid case.

In the VR case, you’ve got a virtual world, game or experience, and the AI can fill it with realistic looking and acting people or NPCs, who can carry on conversations with you, and can take that into the virtual space and interact with each other and other humans who have joined, continuously over time. You can have a wide variety of experiences, go on quests, learn new things, have debates and discussions and so on in a way that feels natural.

Most importantly you can practice both physical skills and social skills, in settings that will give you the correct feedback. I am super pumped for this. Imagine getting to try out a presentation, pause, rewind and so on, with realistic audience reactions. Or practicing crucial conversations, or various social interactions, including navigating relationships and dating, with the usual ‘don’t date robots’ warnings. Or physical stuff, like golf swings and batting practice, although it’s not clear you need AI for that. Either way, a complete experience is going to be so much better.

Think of the feedback you can get, all without social pressure. There’s even expert tracking of your eyes. And every step of the way, you can get guidance, run experiments, have multiple tries, you name it.

In the AR case, context can become a lot less scarce. There are a bunch of start-ups or apps trying to do this now, but the Vision Pro will super charge what can be done, as will a year of work. Key info or even suggested approaches available to you based on context of a conversation, or what exactly your eye is looking at, with the AI taking into account all the multi-modal inputs available. It’s a question of when, not if.

I bet that if an AI is observing your eye movements, which includes a lot of info on not only where you look but also in what ways you are thinking and your emotional reactions and state, plus your other movements and reactions, also it hears everything you say, even without you intending to tell it anything directly, and you’ll probably want to be helping.

Can the device continuously telling you what to do, and you learning to automatically do it, be far behind? Won’t people welcome that?

The hybrid case I’m thinking of is when you’re adding AIs or other experiences into the world around you. Why use a virtual world when you can use the real one, aside from potentially looking a bit weird? Again, not what Apple has in mind, and I don’t expect it to be up to them for long.

Even confining to ordinary productivity-style or television-style entertainment, tracking your eye movements and reactions, should give so much data about what would be useful responses or information as to seem magical to us today. You’re reading a web page and every time you look confused a thing pops up on the side explaining. If you ask questions out loud during a show or you express confusion then it answers, with or without pausing, and it can do so more seamlessly integrated and more accurately than could a traditional television even if it had computer integration.

That’s on not very much thought, and zero trial and error or tinkering. The more I think about the various possibilities the more excited I get, now that the tech has crossed so many crucial thresholds.

Conclusion

It would be surprising to me, at this point, if this technology didn’t end up being game changing after a few iterations. Whether version one gets there is less clear, both on the underlying tech and on the software being there to support it, and us figuring out the best ways to use it.

I expect to at minimum be sorely tempted to drop $3,500 on one of these, plus several hundred more on the lenses and backup batteries, and then I’d presumably need an iPhone, Mac or both, so the final bill could easily end up in the $6k-$7k range.

The thing that is holding me back is that this is Apple, which means tying one’s fate in large part to the Apple ecosystem and way of being. I don’t want to do that, and have been far happier with Windows over Macs, and after I moved from iPhones to Google Pixels. Still better than Facebook, of course.

Right now, Apple is the thing most holding me back. If say Google or Microsoft or Amazon or Sony had a similarly impressive technical offering that fully integrated into Windows and Android, I’d be all over it.

Could this still be a dud? Absolutely. What I do not expect is something I’d have been happy to pay $500 or $1,000 for, but not $3,500. Either the game will be changed, or it won’t be changed quite yet. I can’t wait to find out.