> The company that looks most poised to capitalize on a product like this is still Apple.

It's also possible they don't ever put out an offering in this form factor. They never released a dual screen phone. They never released a touchscreen laptop. This might be one of those things they just don't touch.

Also, I wonder if they'll have a tough time filling the form factor with stuff to do. The lack of apps was a huge reason the APV flopped, while Meta has a large headstart in making it possible for devs to build for their device, even those without exp in spatial dev / game dev / etc.

> It's also possible they don't ever put out an offering in this form factor

Couldn't disagree more, if it was possible to bet on this I would bet all my money that they do release something like this. It'll probably be called the Vision Air or something. I don't remember which article it was, but there are reports that Tim Cook only agreed to fund and ship the Vision Pro because he was told that the same tech will be put into glasses in a few years.

I'll gladly take that bet. Apple is known to be very conservative with hardware form factors, and the AVP was a huge risk for them, and a departure from their previous ways of working that they'll be reluctant to return to after its failure.

If there is a secure/verified way to take the bet I will gladly put some money up! So if Apple sells an eyeglass-like form factor AR product, then I win right? I guess we need a deadline? 2040?

Apple selling a device that causes privacy issues (a camera always in your face as a non-user)..seems like a stretch.

Facebook seems better aligned in that regards.

That's literally all Apple sells, though, in terms of hardware.

They sell hardware that prompts privacy issues? Many conversations you will have when you wear smart glasses (I wear meta's ray bans often since October '23) is people's concerns..oh u are filming me and I don't know ..stuff to that extent.

If we're talking "privacy concerns for the people the device is used on", Apple already did that with AirTags.

Rather everyone not wearing Apple glasses and how they feel that's an invasion of privacy (a camera in their face everywhere they turn).

The 100 degree field of view in the AVP is noticeable because it is a VR headsets. Most VR headsets like the Meta Quest 3 have greater field of view than the AVP, which is why the 100 degree is so noticeable.

For an AR headset, 70 degrees is pretty good.

70° is superb for an AR headset, are there even better ones?

AVP is AR. They made a big deal of being able to place windows all around and above your workspace, but taking advantage of this requires large head movements.

I had a Quest2 but sold it years ago. I'm not comparing AVP to any previous VR experiences, I don't even remember what the FOV felt like.

Not the same thing. AVP uses passthrough video, which is subject to the same field of view as the virtual content. These glasses are actually glasses, so the real world has an "unlimited" field of view -- only virtual content exists in the 70 degree FoV.

You can emulate this on the Vision Pro by removing the light seal entirely. It makes a dramatic difference, but also makes it impossible to use virtual environments or any immersive experiences.

Ok I see. Allowing the real world through would still make you turn your head to see content placed around you though.

So is the Quest 3 (now 3s). It was significantly better than the 2