- Awesome technology.
- Strong “wow” moment.
- Doesn’t do anything particularly better than the devices you already have.
It’s technology in search of a problem. There are legitimate problems it solves, but they are always elusively niche.
On a similar note, it's almost but not quite good enough to replace the displays of my working/gaming desk setup, and a version 2 or 3 with a slightly denser display - if it was actually comfortable enough to wear sitting up for more than an hour or two - would be a serious contender to replace several high-end monitors plus my audio setup.
To sum it all up, I think the 'killer app' here is the one that's so simple it seems kind of self-referential - having a display on your face instead of in the world. The UX and the display quality are already 75-100% of the way to filling that role. The basic problem is that the hardware is just too heavy and uncomfortable, so the value prop vanishes because you can't actually use it comfortably for 8-16 hours a day.
The problem is that, at the end of the day, that's just a feature, not a benefit.
It reminds my of the ongoing push for speech interfaces. Supposedly they are "more natural" but in reality, even when you have a screen, the keyboard is still significantly better (even if it's virtual like on a phone)
I know that some people even use voice assistants to do things like set timers, reminders, or initiate calls
I do mainly use voice to control my watch, which means in practice it's pretty much a read-only device (which is just fine for me).
> Think times when you can't call the person but need to send them a quick message, eg noisy festival or loud bar.
Aren't these precisely cases where speech doesn't work? Too noisy to hear you; too noisy for you to hear the message.
Is it the same rhythm & movement games like first-gen VR (slicing fruits, hitting beats, etc.) or is there something new and better these days?
The other big player is Supernatural. This is a monthly sub but has an extensive and growing catalog of boxing workouts with top notch music and impressive environments. If you are going to be serious and put in the time in a vr workout app, the sub price is a good deal.
Great way of putting it. It’s the shiny new iThing that nobody asked for. Feels more like a poor excuse to fill their quota of releasing something as significant as the iPhone. Especially considering everything else is just a rehash of iPhone technology.
In addition, it turns out that five screens isn’t as useful when there’s only one you, who can do only one thing at a time. It saves a few clicks for most, not much more; and certainly not enough convenience to wear a brick on your head.
If people found multiple screens so useful that it’s worth lugging an extra bag around, external 13” monitors should be bestsellers.
While I mostly agree... I partially disagree.
IMO, the problem isn't so much about screens not proving to be helpful - but about good screens. Here in The Netherlands it's very common to find assistants/secretaries having multiple monitors. Heck, (some of?) the staff at the court in The Hague have curved ultrawide monitors. Evidently people recognize the benefits of screen real estate.
The big problem, IMO, is that "standard" portable screens - 99% of which are 16:9 - are simply not tall enough. My 13.5" FW13 screen (3:2 ratio) is about as tall as a 15" 16:9 screen, but is much smaller than a 15" laptop. Windows particularly is excellent/terrible at having a ton of horizontal bars, making usable vertical height terribly little. Why would someone bring another monitor to see more bars?
Right now, the individual pixels are about the size of a human blood cell(!), and yet, the panels for each eye are not quite 4K.
Not quite 4K, for your entire FOV. As iFixit notes, for a virtual desktop inside that FOV, forget about it looking anything like a good 4K monitor. The Vision Pro can have 3,386 PPI and it’s still no monitor substitute.
https://www.ifixit.com/News/90409/vision-pro-teardown-part-2...
I have a 32:9 curved ultrawide monitor that I bought for games but has ended up invaluable for work (software dev). It's nigh perfect to divide into 3-4 full-size panes and gives enough space to have 6+ documents open and easily readable simultaneously, in a way I think would take three separate monitors to awkwardly emulate otherwise (and even then you'd lose the benefit of being able to go from 3 to 4 main groupings and back as needed).
The downside is, of course, the thing weighs over 30 pounds and is completely ungainly. Good luck setting it up or moving it without two people.
This is nonsense. I have essentially 6 screens on my desk, it it absolutely is very useful. Just because you can't imagine it being useful doesn't mean other people can't or don't take advantage of the extra screen real estate.
That said, I'd never use a VR/AR headset strapped to my face 8 hours a day to replace my 6 high-resolution screens. And I don't need to move my screens from place to place. If I'm not at home, that mean's I'm doing something else that isn't working, and that's a good thing.
> It’s technology in search of a problem. There are legitimate problems it solves, but they are always elusively niche.
6 screens is "elusively niche." It will never be a mass-market attraction that convinces people to strap on a headset.