twolf2919
A remarkably wordy article that ultimately doesn't answer the question its title poses. What is the point, really, in stating that the killer app will use features X, Y, or Z in Vision Pro? Isn't it obvious that this is the reason Apple put those features into the Vision Pro?
The article does mention use cases such as the possibility of immersive attendance to live events. But isn't the point of attending a live event that you're there 'live' with thousands of fellow attendees? It's a social thing! How many people would give up this social aspects of attending an event - and pay $3,500 for the 'privilege'? It's a pretty dystopian scenario, if you ask me. The same goes for the argument that the Vision Pro replaces a large-screen TV - it conveniently forgets that watching TV is, for many, a social activity. No, we don't have watch parties every day, but most couples or families watch the news, TV shows or movies together. A single $3.5k Vision Pro can't provide the same experience as a $1k large screen TV in that regard. And I don't think anyone would buy multiple VPs to have everyone in the family sitting isolated on the couch. Seems even lonelier than today's reality, where people are in the same room, but everyone's absorbed by the content of their smartphones. But at least with smartphones, it's a simple movement of the head to begin interaction with another human.
Don't get me wrong - I'm a strident believer in the future of AR. But AR will only become a mass market success when it no longer interferes with human interactions. Goggles on your head definitely don't do the trick. I think Apple jumped the shark with this AR "wannabe" VR headset. I'm not sure why developers - especially small ones - would write software, i.e. potential killer apps, for it when Apple has given no timeline for a device (the vaunted AR glasses) that will have mass market appeal and thus provide a return on their investment.
