Apple Vision Pro: Just Beta Testing?

As I said I am an Apple fan, so please bear with me if out of nowhere I'll start praising Apple. ??

See we all would agree on one thing, Apple has consistently positioned itself as an industry leader, well renowned for its innovative products and forward-thinking approach. With the recent unveiling of the Apple Vision Pro, the company has once again captured the attention of tech enthusiasts and industry analysts alike. But the company's foray into AR/MR with the Vision Pro has sparked heated debate.

Now the question with which I am currently living is - Is Apple Vision Pro a Path to the future or is it just a Beta Testing model?

This case study delves into the arguments surrounding this popular device, offering insights into Apple's potential long-term vision and analyzing similar instances from their past.

But before starting I want to make an announcement - Yes, I AM A BELIEVER in the concept of augmenting the reality and also truly believe that with Vision Pro, the possibilities can be endless. But at present IMO this version of Vision Pro is not meant to be a mass success but rather it is just a stepping stone to Apple's future Vision. Yes, I have possible (yet debatable) analogies to prove this.

Let's do a bit of a revision first:

What is an Apple Vision Pro:

At its core, the Vision Pro is a wearable headset that integrates digital information and experiences into the user's physical environment. Equipped with advanced sensors, high-resolution displays, and spatial audio capabilities, the Vision Pro offers users an immersive AR/MR experience. It costs in the US around $3,499/-.

So, what can users expect from the Vision Pro?

Imagine being able to overlay virtual information onto the world around us ?? – from navigation directions and real-time translations to interactive games and educational content.

Apple's track record of interconnected devices, like the iPhone and Apple Watch, is renowned. With the Vision Pro, Apple extends this ecosystem into AR/MR, promising a user experience that effortlessly bridges the gap between the physical and digital worlds.

How is this different from the Google Glass?

While both devices share some similarities – namely, their ability to overlay digital information onto the user's field of view – several key differences set them apart.

• The Vision Pro by merging Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixed Reality (MR), is designed with a focus on immersive experience capabilities. Unlike Google Glass, which primarily served as a tool for accessing information on-the-go, the Vision Pro offers users an AR/MR experience that enhances the interactions with the physical environment.
• AR overlays digital info onto reality, such as navigation on glasses and MR integrates virtual elements into the user's environment, creating a seamless blend with reality.
• But perhaps the most significant difference between Vision Pro and Google Glass lies in their respective approaches to ecosystem integration. Unlike Google Glass, Vision Pro integrates into Apple's ecosystem. Users can switch between iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Vision Pro, ensuring a unified experience across all devices, a feature absent in Google Glass's standalone design.

Some of the biggest factors that at present will hinder the Vision Pro's mass adoption are:

• Pricing
• Lack of Free Applications
• Lack of Use case and hence low market demand
• Design and Comfort

Here are the real questions:

1. Does a tech giant like Apple not see these factors as challenges?
2. What exactly is Apple now up to?

According to me, Apple is aiming for something known as a 'Complete AR Immersion' - Wait I will explain this in the latter half of this case study.

Before I explain Apple's probable plan of 'Complete VR Immersion', below are my reasons based on which I gave this statement that maybe Apple was aware that this version of Vision Pro could fail but still they went ahead and launched it:

• The Vision Pro isn't so much a product, it represents a collaborative endeavour in public development and R&D. So-called tech enthusiasts will explore this, the company will adapt from the feedback, and by the time it's ready, people will have already used photogrammetry, drones, lidar, etc to map out the real world and would have augmented all kinds of interesting things in physical space.
• Today, Apple has established the canvas, inviting developers to craft AR/MR content. Now crucial hardware is in place, creating the way for a transformative future. Redefining interaction with the world, this product sets the stage for revolutionary content development.
• It's setting the foundations. And going forward, this product's design principles will impact every future product in this category. Apple or not.
• Last but maybe most important reason - Apple's track record for implementing technologies and products that paved the way for future success despite initially being a failure. The company believes that the "stepping stone" products often provide valuable insights and technological advancements that are incorporated into future, more successful products. Following are some of the past examples:

The Apple Lisa (1983): It was the first commercial machine that used a graphical user interface (GUI) instead of a command line. However, the Lisa introduced many new ideas that were later used in more successful products, such as the Macintosh.

Apple Newton (1993): This Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), introduced innovative handwriting recognition. It wasn't a commercial success, but it laid the foundation for future devices like the iPhone and iPad that refined the concept of pen-based computing and touchscreen interfaces.

Apple Power Macintosh G4 Cube (2000): A compact computer blending design, hindered by limited upgrade options and a hefty price tag, curbing its appeal. Despite commercial failure, the Cube's design echoes successes like the Mac mini and iMac G4.

Apple AirPower (discontinued in 2019): The wireless charging mat aimed for simultaneous device charging faced heat management issues and was never released. Despite this, its development contributed to MagSafe technology and spurred broader wireless charging adoption in Apple devices.

Apple's long-term vision is to achieve 'Complete AR Immersion' - Let me explain this!

But what is a Complete AR Immersion and how can it be achieved?

1. 'Complete AR Immersion' stands for a complete transformation of how we live and perceive the world around us. This means completely augmenting the physical world around us. In other words, placing digital objects all over the real world and not being confined to using AR while using any specific device. Unlike the Vision Pro which is majorly advised to be used in a static environment (e.g., closed premise) complete AR Immersion is something that is meant to be mobile. So the user should be able to do this everywhere. Leveraging Apple's existing ecosystem, integrated lidars, and sensors the company aim to establish a 3D network, fostering a shared augmented reality experience where users perceive identical virtual elements simultaneously and in the same spatial context. (I hope that makes sense)
2. The second point plays a very important role in achieving 'Complete AR Immersion' i.e., Hardware. I am sorry to say but the current headset no matter how aesthetically good-looking it might be, cannot have mass adoption. I cannot imagine myself wearing those glasses all day long. The maximum I am comfortable with is with my old-school spectacles. In short, Apple will have to rebuild or rather reinvent the headset hardware to create something that looks minimalistic and orthodox just like regular glasses.

Conclusion

Wait does this mean all the current or early users are indirectly the beta testers? Well maybe yes! ??

JK, maybe none of the above can be true and maybe all of it can be exactly what Apple is aiming for. It's all way too early to comment. Only time will tell if Vision Pro becomes a groundbreaking success story or a footnote in Apple's history.

Am I buying this? Umm ?? Well I am okay testing it for Apple but as of now falling short of a few bucks. (I mean falling short of $3400/-)