Everything about it gave off the vibe of marketing teams overhyping a product and engineering left to pick up the pieces afterwards, which is very unlike how Apple usually works.
This seems like exactly what Apple would do.
If the passthrough eyes were available, clickbait journalism would also probably do things like intentionally cross their eyes and get a goofy look on it, then write and article about how the headset will make you look extra goofy.
Video of a journalist using it.
Yes, the headset exists and it works. People wore it after the keynote and wrote about the experience.
Once the goals were met they had to ship the product despite uncertainty on how exactly it would be used.
They could tell it could be used but have no insight if it will be used.
> They had AT&T, the iPhone’s wireless carrier, bring in a portable cell tower, so they knew reception would be strong. > > Then, with Jobs’s approval, they preprogrammed the phone’s display to always show five bars of signal strength regardless of its true strength. > The chances of the radio’s crashing during the few minutes that Jobs would use it to make a call were small, but the chances of its crashing at some point during the 90-minute presentation were high. [1]
This mobile data hackn was among many other problems with the product at the announcement of iPhone.
iPhone sold ~1.4 million units in the first year. But arguably, the Vision Pro is easily 10x more complex of a product than iPhone was. It is also a much bigger leap in human computer interaction than a touchscreen.
I think these sales projection numbers seem reasonable for what the tech is, and if anything the system’s stability at demo was way further along than iPhone.
most threads are of extremely low value. it is sad, it's significantly worse than even just five years ago.