Steve Jobs was making a comparison to headphones https://youtu.be/bQECSInWVPY

That is the way I think of it. A pair of headphones for your eyes.

The thing about Apple is that they iterate in meaningful ways over a long period of time. I'm unlikely to buy this first version of Apple Vision Pro. But in a few years, I expect some later version of it is likely to be as indispensable to me as my noise cancelling headphones.

If we go further back in time, mobile phones were bricks used only by business people and tech enthusiasts. They didn't have mass market appeal because the technology wasn't there yet. Once devices got to be more powerful, compact and capable, everyone wanted one and the market exploded.

I suspect the same is happening with XR. Nobody wants to strap on a giant and clunky headset. But do you really not see the mass appeal in a pair of smart sunglasses that augments computing in a way we haven't experienced before?

The technology has the chance to disrupt computing as we know it, but it's _really_ hard to get right, which is why the experimental stage has lasted for so long. XR is _much_ more complicated than any computer interface we've had so far, and requires advancements in several cutting edge tech to align: screens, battery, computer vision, voice recognition, miniaturization, etc., and, of course, the price to come down.

There's a reason all these companies are pushing so hard for this. We're still a few years away from reaching the iPhone-like boom, but Apple getting into the field is a sign that this is not a fad. This first generation is obviously not a mass market product, but the tech and price will improve until it becomes one.

But they were widely used by business people, and I’m assuming that was an important aspect of permeating into the other demographics.

To me, what happened with cellphones is similar to what happened with personal computers. It first entered households of people that needed them for work, and as the tech evolved, so did their recreational capabilities making them more appealing to the mass market.

AR/VR devices are attempting this the other way around: their current use cases seem to be mostly recreational, and we are hoping they will eventually come up with some productivity use cases. Someone in this thread talked about how they are surprised that tablets have sort of flopped, and I feel it’s because of similar reasons. Sure there are now more and more ways to be productive on a tablet, but it’s still more of a consume-centric experience and I believe that’s the reason they haven’t replaced laptops. Time will tell.

Similarly to how VR headsets are used by gamers and tech enthusiasts today. Just like VR for gaming, not everyone was willing to pay exhorbitant prices to lug around a briefcase of a phone, and use it only for poor quality phone calls.

> AR/VR devices are attempting this the other way around: their current use cases seem to be mostly recreational, and we are hoping they will eventually come up with some productivity use cases.

Sure, but the actual current use case doesn't matter. Once the capabilities, price and user experience improve, it will become more appealing to a mass audience.

Think of the iPhone: there were certainly devices that had the same functionality of "an iPod, a phone, and an internet mobile communicator" before it. But Apple saw the right opportunity when the tech got good and cheap enough to vastly improve the user experience and expand the capabilities beyond just a mobile phone. It's what they're good at.

> Someone in this thread talked about how they are surprised that tablets have sort of flopped

But tablets didn't flop. They got merged into 2-in-1s, foldables, "phablets", etc. They've certainly replaced laptops for many users. The only reason productivity is limited on devices like the iPad is because Apple wants to, for whatever reason (possibly to avoid cannibalizing sales of their other products?). But the iPad is still selling well, AFAIK, and many professionals use it. Google and Android never prioritized the tablet form factor, so it understandably lags behind. So productivity is restricted mostly because of software, and the touch interface makes it more suitable for consuming content. If you need to be productive and the software is not a problem, you add a mouse and keyboard, and there's your 2-in-1.

I'm not the poster you're replying to, but I think you've missed their point here.

Market penetration of mobile phones was (initially) driven by the advantages they provided as a work tool. This growing market that was willing to pay helped drive the cost vs. utility down to the point where non-business use cases became viable.

Goggles with screens in them have had a very different history. There are exceedingly few people/careers who have gotten a good ROI from buying and using a headset, so most sales are driven by entertainment (and a small number of enthusiasts).

Apple (and Meta) can definitely continue to subsidize the development of this technology to bring the price down, but expanding from a niche market for entertainment devices to a market of professional tools is the opposite of what's worked for new technologies in the past.

This is clearly Apple's angle with this product. They understand that this is not a mass market product, but are betting on their brand appeal for it to sell well enough to finance later generations.

For instance, with computers, laptops and cell phones being first and foremost business tools it was common in the early days for those to be provided by the employers. That really played a big role in normalizing their presence around the home before they became mainstream products.

I have a hard time seeing a similar thing happening with these goggles, but I’m far from being an expert in these things.

Mobile phones are something of a special case, if you ask me, because the technology for voice calls and several days of standby time arrived quite a bit before affordable service did.

In 1988 a stockbroker could make calls from his speedboat for $250/month, and by 1998 a teenager could call his parents after soccer practice for $10/month.

You could describe that as "the technology getting there" because of more efficient radio signalling schemes enabling lower prices. But you could also say the user offering was unchanged[1], and the most important difference was the price.

[1] Except for SMS and the snake game

Apple doesn't always go into a flourishing industry though. Tablets were not doing well when Apple launched the iPad. The smart watch industry (and traditional watch industry) were shrinking.

Computing platforms have a tendency to become conversion devices, and have a pricing advantage over individual devices. Phones became car GPS replacements and mid-tier photo/video cameras. iPads became an ebook alternative for many. Apple Watch took on fitness tracking and more 'quantified self' roles.

It wasn't clear at launch what was likely or unlikely to succeed. Fashion-tier Apple Watches pretty much failed. iPads have a difficult time competing with eBook reader screens and portability. Fitness trackers maintain a battery life advantage over the Apple Watch.

> But yet... Why VR goggles can't be found in homes the same way that TVs, mobile phones and other popular electronic products despite that they are already affordable? Why hasn't this technology became mainstream? Is it maybe due to the fact that the VR experience can't be shared the same way that when we turn on a TV, play with friends with a gaming console on the couch or sit down on a desk with a PC and we share its use? Is it because it lacks that mythical killer VR app that could be a gamer changer? Is it because the industry hasn't released as much software for VR as for other more common devices like consoles, PCs, mobile phones?

Possibly all of them? I draw parallels between an Oculus and the Nintendo 3DS. Compared to other game consoles, it isn't an easily 'sharable' experience. Software had to be custom-developed for it to take advantage of its capabilities (two screens, one with touch and one with 3D display).

Some of the adoption was made easier by being software-compatible with the DS platform, meaning it launched with backward compatibility with an established library of games. If you liked the DS, you were mostly guaranteed not to be giving anything critical up with the 3DS.

That said, it was still gimmicky, and was still too expensive for some of their target demographics while also being a bit limited in terms of technology. The price was cut by a third, a model with a larger and higher quality array of screens was unveiled, while cheaper 2D models also shipped which were priced closer to what parents were looking to spend.

It sold about 77 million units over nine years across all models.

Compare that to the Nintendo Switch, which sold over 125 million units (across all models) in its first six years. It is more versatile (being both a personal handheld and tv-attached unit), more easily shared and perceived as less gimmicky. It launched at about $10 more when adjusting for inflation, without game backward compatibility but with a store where you could purchase ported titles.

A big part of the success of the Wii and the Switch are that they are suitable for more casual gameplay, including party play. This is something that VR is not great at, as you need to fit hardware for every player switch and it is rare (and expensive) to have local multiplayer.

I would say the Wii overcame the gimmicky nature of the controller interactions via Wii Sports; yet another outstanding showcase game for the system, on par with Tetris for the Gameboy. The multiplayer physical interaction and open nature of play set a tone for the system in general.

> It feels as if there's still something inherently missing in VR that won't make you go and buy a pair of goggles no matter how technologically advanced they become. And people spend a lot of money on expensive phones, gadgets and the alike...

Games are a hard lead-in - console-like devices such as the Quest are going to have significant limitations for cost, while hardware integrating with higher-end gaming rigs are naturally a low volume market. You can't really have a game like Guitar Hero for it because of how private and difficult-to-adjust it is.

Industrial applications are far easier, but lower volume on high margin hardware. I imagine you are talking about more of a consumer/prosumer adoption.

Workforce is confusing. I kinda enjoy the idea of Apple both mandating the engineers working on VR functionality come into the office. As an employee, it feels like workforce always skimps on per-seat investments, and will only consider hardware like this if an all-in-one headset "spatial computer" is cheaper than their bulk-order laptop.

But that said, the most difficult part is to keep people from trying to reinvent EVERYTHING as if it all has to be a 3D experience. There are certainly 3D tasks which are difficult to do with 2D tools (such as CAD), but there's also 2D tasks like word processing that make little sense to reinvent as 3D tasks.

Apple seems to be targeting it as an alternative to an iPad or MacBook Air, with backward compatibility to run iPad apps as 2D surfaces, and the ability to operate a Mac "screen". They seem to have invested quite a bit in screen quality to make presenting existing apps at existing text sizes feasible.

That approach is also understandable because that is the computing market Apple goes after. I have a hard time thinking this "Pro" headset would launch without a medium-term plan to get something in more of a $1500 price range. Apple Pro products generally exist because Apple thinks they should, and to let the higher BoM let them explore new technologies that aren't yet feasible on their baseline consumer hardware. But in all cases, Apple seems to try to go after gaps in the market where they don't see other companies investing in a particular experience.