When the iPhone came out the criticism was cost and lack of keyboard. When the iPad came out the criticism was the name and it’s just a giant iPhone. When Airpods came out the criticism was that it looks ugly and who would wear them in public. Similar with the watch.

It’s easy to criticize. My complaint about the criticism of the Apple Vision is that it largely boils down to: It’s different and doesn’t solve existing problems and I can’t imagine people using it.

Great products sometimes don’t solve existing problems. They sometimes create a need. I’m very excited about the possibility of the Apple Vision. If it’s as good as Apple touts, and this remains to be seen, then I think it will usher in a new era.

> Great products sometimes don’t solve existing problems. They sometimes create a need.

Oh god, you're giving me flashbacks to the "courage" keynote...

I gather you disagree with the statement. You don’t there are any examples of a great product that ended up creating a new demand/desire?

It’s interesting that now very few phones have a headphone jack. The vast majority of the headphones sold are wireless.

No, I largely agree with you actually. I just disagree with the way vendors harness those needs: in the headphone jack example, Apple gave themselves exclusive rights to convenience functions WRT wireless headphones. In the iPhone's case, they invented a new class of software that (somehow) deserved an unprecedented service fee to sustain.

So, I agree. It's very courageous, not for Apple but for the user who so absent-mindedly gives up on platforms they control.

Who can blame them, though? Most people's idea of "open computing" these days boils down to their web browser and Xbox. Maybe people are ready to jump from frying pan to fire.

Because with the iPhone, a lot of people think that Apple earned the benefit of the doubt - if Apple thinks they can pull this off, then liklier than not, considering what they've done in the past, they probably can.

Ditto Apple Watch and iPad.

>Ditto Apple Watch and iPad.

Maybe the iPad, but large phones became popular and the whole tablet hype sort of disappeared.

The Apple Watch? The only people I know who own one are people so deep in the Apple ecosystem they need it all. Seemingly good product (everything Apples makes is), but not a game changer.

There appear to be no hard numbers, but with well over 100 million sold by 2020, they’re not exactly a niche product.

I didn't say niche. I said not "game changing".

The fact that Apple fans want every Apple device does't make the devices amazing. My opinion, of course.

The best estimates I could find were around 35 million a year. At a conservative $400 APU that’s a $14 billion dollar a year business and no one doubts its profitable.

>if Apple thinks they can pull this off, then liklier than not, considering what they've done in the past, they probably can.

Or you can consider an even longer past; has any company in history ever been able to consistently "hit-it-out-of-the-park" with products? Or is there an element of luck here that distributes these things.

In other words, does one game-changing innovation make it more likely or less likely to produce a second?

You think iPhone is the only product category that Apple succeeded in with paradigms different than what went before?

More or less. I mean there is the giant iPhone(iPad) and some accessories for the iPhone (watch, airpods).

Ah, yeah, those accessories that would be Fortune 500 companies on their own. Those surely don’t count as whole products that (re)invented categories.

I guess if we declare everything Apple’s ever done to be just pretty versions of ENIAC, they really haven’t had any successful products at all?

>Those surely don’t count as whole products that (re)invented categories.

What other product categories have Apple "re-invented" or invented. The mobile phone. The tablet. What else?

Headphones? Smart watches? MP3 players?

They didn’t invent any of those, and they didn’t invent the innovations that made their products successful. But the user experience of all of them was so much better than existing products that they went from nothing to dominating the category in just a few years.

Then we can consider it a forgone conclusion that headgear iPhone (Vision) will be a runaway success as just another variant of Apple Thing With Screen (iPhone).

Are you aware how successful those products have been? They don't match iPhone revenue by any means, but they move a ton of units and are the market leaders for their categories.

>You think iPhone is the only product category that Apple succeeded in with paradigms different than what went before?

Apple has had financial success with many products, yes. Is that what we're talking about? No.

Do you really think MacBooks and AirPods are revolutionary products like the iPhone?

Primitive smartphones existed before the iPhone and were popular, e.g. the blackberry. There was a time when every self-respecting businessperson owned a blackberry. Apple just took an existing popular product category and executed well.

VR glasses have not yet gained mainstream acceptance among the general population in the way that phones had achieved before the iPhone. Practically nobody is saying that the Vision is a bad product, all of the skepticism is whether it’s a good product category.

> VR glasses have not yet gained mainstream acceptance among the general population in the way that phones had achieved before the iPhone.

The same could be said about the iPad and Apple Watch, no? Tablets and smart watches weren't popular before their introduction. With that said, I don't think the skepticism is unwarranted. Just because Apple has been successful in introducing new product categories in the past doesn't inherently mean that they will be this time.

There were tablets long before the iPad, which was supposed to eventually replace desktops/laptops, although sadly that still hasn’t happened and doesn’t even seem to be on the horizon.

As for the watch, watches are a very popular accessory generally, and there have been plenty of entrants before the apple watch, all the way from the casio calculator, to fitbits and pebbles to android wear.

If you were already into watches, and were already in the apple ecosystem, which I have to imagine was a large set of people, the apple watch was basically an insta-buy, not only because of its integration but also it’s customizability.

I don’t see those same variables present for VR as were for the watch, but I do see similarities between AVP and iPad in how it’s billed as a pro device, and I imagine it will suffer a similar fate of falling short of expectations.

I suspect the reason the iphone was so popular was execs who weren't allowed to install games (angry birds etc) on their corporate blackberrys due to them being locked down by Corporate IT then got an iphone, then felt they didn't want to carry the blackberry as well, so laid it down to their corporate IT to "make email work on here"

Certainly how it worked at my company.

iPhones and iPods gave Steve Jobs the benefit of the doubt. And I doubt that he was involved in the Vision Pro.

Because it's much cheaper to criticize than to rebut that criticism. And when the criticism is consistently along the lines of "vision pro [bad | expensive | weird | just like other bad thing]", people will naturally search for rebutals that are just as cheap to provide as the criticism.

I don't think it's a cheap criticism to say that it's a negative to have a computer strapped to your face for long periods of time (which is one of the points the article makes).

If Apple Vision was the form factor of a pair of sunglasses (more like what xreal is doing) then I wouldn't be so critical.

>If Apple Vision was the form factor of a pair of sunglasses (more like what xreal is doing) then I wouldn't be so critical.

I have no idea when/if the technology will get there but a HUD in a fairly ordinary-looking pair of glasses you could wear on the street seems potentially interesting. I'll keep an open mind about the Vision Pro but the use cases I've seen don't seem super-compelling to me--at least at this point.

We literally already tried this. Google glass existed, and was super hyped up, and nobody liked it.

Google Glass really didn't work very well and didn't really have a decent software story. I'm not inclined to write off AR for all time just because Google Glass failed.

Google Glass was also only very primitive AR in that there was no scene understanding capabilities. There was no ability for the system to convincingly augment the real world (for example, using plane detection to anchor digital entities to real world geometry). It was purely a small, low resolution, monocular, semi-transparent display providing essentially smart watch level functionality in a face-worn form factor. It was a cool but unsuccessful idea that was ahead of its time.

TL;DR: I agree; don't use Glass as a reason to write off AR glasses altogether.

My interpretation is that what they really want are Apple Glasses, but decided that AR tech just isn't good enough now, if ever (with the 'how you do put black pixels on a transparent lens' problem), and so decided to instead go the route of a technically-VR device fundamentally designed to be used as an AR device.

Part of that is, in my eyes, that it is an apt comparison. Some of the things that ended up making a touch only interface work well on the iPhone (I used Windows Mobile 6.0 with only a touchscreen at the time, so I am speaking from experience) were, at least partly, things public analysts, even those steeped in the field, could not really predict by what had been showcased during the announcement.

Predictive text being utilized to change the virtual size of touch targets on the keyboard, yet keeping the design static to improve accuracy, was something even those with years working with and on touch only smartphone interfaces did not figure out in its entirety until after the phone was in their hands.

The iPhone is a good parallel because just like with it, this is trying to further an existing class of devices and history has shown that, for as many things as I can criticize about them, Apple is very good at adding these unnoticeable optimizations and hidden tricks that make experiences work much more flawlessly.

Adding to that, though, I will admit that the first iPhone was severely flawed in other ways, like lack of MMS and 3G. These however were not issues with the UX (compared to Windows Mobile which supported these but had UX issues out of every orifice), but rather conscious feature restrictions, on which Apple ended up back paddling.

In fact, that is my main concern with the AVP, Apple intentionally restricting it in ways that will make the hardware less appealing and impactful. The AVP, in my eyes, should in the long term replace both Macs and iOS devices (at least iPads), but to do that, should enable the creation of software on device. I hope that, just like with 3G and MMS, Apple will see the light between V1 and V2 regarding local macOS app support (or at least Xcode).

If that happens, I will buy one at their asking price. As it stands, I will wait for reviews and only buy one if it means a distinct improvement to my workflow, even though I'll need to take my MacBook with me. Apple should, just like with Xcode on the iPad, stop being afraid of letting new classes of compute device replace the old. To bring this back to the original iPhone, imagine if Jobs had announced that it is not an iPod on top of being a browsing device and phone, because they feared cannibalizing iPod sales. Would have been shortsighted, to say the least.

Lastly, I will freely admit that past performance should not be used to predict future successes. It is possible that Apples methods may have changed since then, and they have not put as much consideration into solving the UX issues plaguing current pass-through AR devices, in which case justifying the price will be (even more of) a challenge. I doubt it though and, even if, more recent history (Apple Watch) has taught them a thing or two about pivoting a seeming failure into an impressive success.

I had a Treo when the iPhone was first announced and I wasn't in a big hurry to make the switch. It wasn't until the 3GS that, like a lot of people, I jumped on board. (I don't specifically remember but I assume app availability also improved over those first few years.)

Every criticism of the Apple Vision is, at this point in time, pure speculation. As such, they are both inherently low-value as well as uninformed. The time for this type of talk will be when people actually get their hands on the device.

Seriously, the headline here is why something "may" be lousy for watching movies.

Is the screen in the back of the headrest lousy for watching movies? Some may think so yet millions of people do that every day.

The visual quality may be lousy, but it's relatively comfortable. It really doesn't matter how good the screens in it are, or how much dumb "tech" it is full of, if it's just generally not comfortable to wear.

Being 500 grams with most of that in the front (for that stupid glass and "face" thing), it's not going to be a good time. Without a back to front strap, it's not going to be comfortable, and the "solution" for the weight of just clinching it tighter against your face is the WORST solution (believe me I've tried) and only results in more discomfort.

I don't know how lightweight you have to get before something is comfortable to wear on your face for extended periods, but it is probably closer to 250 grams than 500

Welders wear face shields that are more than 500 g for very long periods. I have no doubt that Apple will be able to figure something out.

At this point though, all of this is speculation. I expect v1 to suck, v2 to be a little bit better, and v3 to be the one that gets it right. I'm guessing that's about 5 years out.

The launch unit probably should be a heavy mess and if it isn't, maybe they weren't ambitious enough.

Welder's face shields do not have the "gasket" pressing against your face, they are closer to a hat, with the way they distribute the load onto your head and how they otherwise do not touch you.

There are all kinds of different shield setups.

For example, the one I link to below is a two piece setup where goggles clamp to your face and then a wide shield hangs from the goggles:

https://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/equipment/welding-gear...

There are all kinds of attachments you can get that can bring the mass into that 500g neighborhood. The ones from the previous generation were easily 500g.

At the time, "good" smartphones all had keyboards, and ones without tended to not be great. No one had held an iPhone that didn't also work for Apple, so it was a lot of armchair analysts declaring it dead on arrival. They were wrong.

So far, the author, and nearly everyone else, has yet to wear this new device, let alone on an airplane. All the analysis on previous headsets is great but moot, since the reality of Apple's version isn't tested yet. And, based on how wrong all those iPhone analyses were, it's a fair benefit of the doubt to think maybe Apple will do right by this headset as well.

> . And, based on how wrong all those iPhone analyses were, it's a fair benefit of the doubt to think maybe Apple will do right by this headset as well.

why? It’s not like companies which previously released successful products don’t fail all the time. Also the iPhone even back then had some clear use cases (web/media/maps and later camera) it’s just that all other people mostly sucked at these things. Nobody has quite figured out what can you do with a VR headset besides gaming.

Because their hit ratio is still positive? I mean, the iPod Hifi was a dud, so I know Apple isn't perfect.

But even taking your point about no one has figured it out yet, why go to a place of "it's gonna suck" before actually trying the thing? The specifics aren't known yet by anyone not under NDA, so why speculate something will be bad, as the author did?

> of "it's gonna suck"

I didn’t say that. IMHO it’s as silly as those saying that it can’t fail and it will revolutionize the world because it’s Apple.

> The specifics aren't known

apps and real world use cases will probably matter much more than the specs. I highly doubt gen 1 will be that successful or that Apple expects it to be though. It seems much more like a developer preview than the end product.

> Because their hit ratio is still positive?

Corporations are made up from people and many of those who developed their most successful products initially are no longer there

> Corporations are made up from people and many of those who developed their most successful products initially are no longer there

True, but it's not as if this is a completely new company with new employees. Much of the leadership remains, many of the rank and file as well, and probably many internal processes/guidelines. I'm comfortable claiming that Apple's past successes are relevant when considering whether the AVP will be successful as well.

Which isn't to say it will be successful. The price alone will ensure it remains niche. But apart from cost I fully expect it to be a better headset in many ways than others that came before it.

I feel like their response was a decent rebuttal. Give the product a chance in the wild before assuming it’s a steaming pile of garbage.

I see it opposite. Most of the Vision criticisms can be summarized as “This won’t meet my pre-defined notions of what a user experience should be.” Instead of trying to at least imagine what a different UX might be.

Smartphones are great examples of how user behavior can change. No keyboard turned out to be fine, and people wound up plenty happy to watch videos on tiny screens.

It’s a valid meta-criticism. The product isn’t out yet, and the criticisms all boil down to “I imagine their approach doesn’t solve the problems I imagine people have”.

So we can argue hypothetical rebuttals to these hypotheticals, but we can also note that this pattern has repeated over and over. Apple has failed before, but “it doesn’t have a physical keyboard” and “what improvement can they bring to the commodity mp3 player” and “what’s wrong with command lines” and “who wants a small iPhone on their wrist” and “wires make earbuds socially acceptable” are valid things to remind this year’s doomsayers of.

why would wires make earbuds socially acceptable?

This was a retort people used against AirPods. They look like funny Q-tips sticking out of the user's ears. But really they don't look much different from earbuds, which people wear all the time, so shouldn't AirPods be fine? The response was that the wires on the earbuds make them socially acceptable.

I really struggle to see how the earbuds being wired changes their social acceptability in comparison to wireless ones. I don't understand the retort.

It never made any sense. But people who saw AirPods as doomed to fail insisted that they looked dorky and embarrassing because… they didn’t have wires.

It doesn’t make sense in hindsight, like the “iPhone will fail because it doesn’t have a physical keyboard” doesn’t make sense. But that’s the pattern here. Vision may fail, but if so, it will not be just because it’s different than current paradigms.

I agree, especially the criticisms like “we don’t know if it will do very good eye-tracking” when this thing is loaded with cameras and custom silicon specifically for things like eye-tracking, and from all descriptions they engineered the crap out of problems like that. And it has a crazy high pixel density—are we really going bet on “jaggies” meaning people won’t watch videos on it?

Or “remember the iPod” or “remember the iPad” or…

All of Apple’s product launches get criticism leveled at them, and if they are successful, people forgot about the criticism. If the product is unsuccessful (Mac cube), people forget about the product.

The iPhone is not the relevant comparison point to me. Pretty much as soon as the slab-of-glass smartphone design was technically feasible, slab-of-glass phones took over the market. The iPhone was a very good pass at it, but it was going to happen anyhow. Such predecessors as there were were not that old. It was not an idea that had decades of failure behind it.

The iPad is the more interesting one to me because tablets had been a Next Big Thing for a long time, to the point that the common wisdom was that they weren't going to happen. Phones become slabs-of-glass because of the constraint of fitting into a pocket. Tablets couldn't compete with laptops in the absence of that constraint. The iPhone was the birth of a new industray; the iPad breathed life into an already dead industry.

This seems a much closer comparison to VR. Even before the current push represented by the Oculus and similar gen products, VR headsets had been a Next Big Thing for decades now. I'd still characterize the field as basically dead, at least at an Apple scale. If it hasn't outright plateaued, its first derivative is certainly only marginally positive. If the Apple Vision product succeeds it'll be another breathing life into a dead industry play.

I think it's closer to the mouse. When I was in seventh grade our computer room had an Apple II and a TRS-80. Apple had made floppy drives standard. The try-80 had a tape recorder and magic incantation for storing and retrieving programs.

One day reading the latest computer magazines was Steve Jobs talking about a computer so easy to use a 2 year old could use it. I could not begin to comprehend what he was talking about. He was talking about the Lisa. I don't know how long it took me to find out what in the world was going on.

It maybe like 2 mouses in that it has eye tracking and hand tracking. Which might make 2x as good as a mouse.

I get what you’re saying, but I think people underestimate the novelty of Apple’s design decisions on things like the iPhone, declaring them obvious in hindsight. When the iPhone was announced, the phone team at Google working on the unreleased Android platform apparently went “shit, back to the drawing board.” Getting rid of the physical keyboard (for everyone) was controversial. “Pinching” to zoom into a web page, putting a desktop-quality browser on a phone, putting accelerated 3D graphics on a phone… there are too many things that were new with the iPhone to remember them all now, especially when Android went and did all the same things. It’s true that Apple capitalized on it being possible to put all that hardware in your pocket. They tend to be the ones to actually try it and figure out the UX paradigms. Make it not suffer from prominent lag, make the touchscreen good, the display quality good, the multitasking appropriate for the device’s capabilities, despite the research and cost of parts, and then figure out what the user experience is that takes advantage of the tech being able to keep up with the human, is simple to operate, and is going to make people want to spend a thousand dollars on it.

"I get what you’re saying, but I think people underestimate the novelty of Apple’s design decisions on things like the iPhone, declaring them obvious in hindsight."

I'm not saying the iPhone was obvious. I'm saying it wasn't coming after years of failure in the product space. They did a good job and leaped very quickly to a good solution. Absent Apple, the rest of the market would have gotten there, though. They weren't swimming upstream, they just got where the stream was going faster than anyone else by quite a lot.

iPad was swimming upstream. So is a VR headset.

I think the issue with the OP is that it does not strike me as very well considered in a way that’s similar to ‘old iPhone criticism’. It seems anchored to past decisions[1] for other devices and the reasons they were made, and seems overconfident for an opinion on a device which the author does not have detailed specifications for.

I think two things could have made the article more useful:

1. A better structured article. This was a mix of random details and jargon with speculation about the new device that didn’t feel well tied together.

2. I would expect the view of a sceptical expert to be more cautious and considered; to say what things might be difficulties, why they were difficulties for things in the past, how Apple seems to be planning to deal with them, where that approach might fail or succeed, and then some estimate of whether it seems easy for them to solve the problem. That is, it should be more clear what the assumptions are that are being relied on for the estimation.

To take a stereotypical iPhone criticism for example, it would be bad to merely say that the lack of keyboard or badness of touchscreens makes it impossible and better to say that good touchscreens and some kind of solution to keyboard problems would be needed, and you don’t think improved sensor resolution would work and the problem seemed hard because X or Y. Like, I’m not saying that the author needs to be right but I think they could do a better job of having convincing reasons that they have tried to thought of the ways they might be wrong.

[1] There was some discussion of a device the author worked on in the ‘90s(!) but I didn’t see discussion of more recent work. Capabilities of much of the tech going into this Apple thing will be quite different.