Apple has set up a UX bar on its standalone headset. As soon as a company can put the same experience in smaller, cheaper packages, it becomes very appealing to a wider range of people.
Apple has charged Vision Pro for “Today’s Technology.” And frankly, when you’re talking about the core user experience of a headset, it feels very accurate. Vision Pro is simple and intuitive. It may not be as good as a headset like a quest, but what is it? I’ll do it Do it, it works very well. But it’s still undeniably big, bulky and expensive… my recommendation is that it’s not worth buying largely people.
And that’s probably why there seems to be a widely held concept that Vision Pro is a bad product… an unusual flop for Apple. But as someone who has been using a headset since launching, you can clearly see all the ways in which a headset is better than anything else.
To say that the Vision Pro is a bad product is a bit like saying that the Ferrari is a bad car because it’s not as popular as the Honda Accord.
I don’t know if the first generation of Vision Pro met Apple’s sales expectations or if they haven’t reached them. But what I know is that the headset offers a very compelling experience and is significantly reduced by its price and size.
If Apple can take it Exactly the same We believe that fitting specifications, capabilities, experience and half the size and half the cost will greatly increase the demand for headsets.
Reducing it to half the size will reduce it by about 310 grams. It’s certainly not easy, but it’s completely unrealistic, especially when you’re sticking to offboard batteries. After all, the Bigscreen Beyond is around 180 grams. It may not be a standalone headset, but it shows how compact the housing, optics and display will be.
Half the cost means a price tag of about $1,750. It’s not as cheap as most headsets, but it’s very achievable, especially when Apple can sell it as the best TV that most people have at home.
This may seem obvious. It’s good to make high-tech products smaller and cheaper.
But my point here is that Vision Pro is Disproportionately It is controlled by its size and cost. For example, you should get it by halving the size and cost than a quest. The core UX of Quest is still very clunky.
Fit your quest experience to half the size and half the cost NiceHowever, the core UX still holds that down in a big way.
Vision Pro, on the other hand, feels like it’s waiting for its core UX to be unlocked…it’s more than just halving its size and cost Niceit must be conversion.
Of course, this is much easier than you would say. After all, I think the reason Vision Pro’s Core UX is so big is that it’s so expensive. It must be expensive hardware that makes the difference between Quest and Vision Pro.
This is probably the case in certain cases, but in many cases it’s a software experience, and Vision Pro is easy to use. For example, we have previously explained that Quest 3 actually has a higher resolution that is more effective than Vision Pro, but it is Vision Pro’s thoughtful software design that leads us to the conclusion that Vision Pro looks much better visually.
And when I say that the Vision Pro takes off when it reaches half its size and half its price, I don’t consider some important improvements.
Apple has set up a high bar on how a headset should feel and how easy it is to use. The question is not ifbut when Can a company offer the same experience in small, inexpensive packages?
