Starting with Google Glass, all face computers have been plagued with the same issues, even as Apple plunges into the market with its Vision Pro. — Ariel Davis/The New York Times
After years of anticipation, Apple’s first major new product in nearly a decade has arrived.
The Vision Pro, a face computer that resembles ski goggles, was released last week in the United States, though Malaysia has yet to receive a launch date.
So, what can we expect?
The device, which includes high-resolution displays and sensors that track eye movements and hand gestures, is one of Apple’s most ambitious products.
It bills the headset as the beginning of an era of “spatial computing”, which blends data with the physical world to make our lives better.
Imagine giving a presentation with digital notes shown in the corner of your eye, for example.
I was among the first group of journalists to try the Vision Pro last year and walked away impressed with the quality of the picture but ultimately not sure that people would want to wear it.
My scepticism of the US$3,500 (RM16,550) headset was coloured by my experience wearing more than a dozen headsets in the last 12 years from companies like Google, Meta, Snap, Samsung and Sony, including virtual reality (VR) goggles that plugged into bulky desktop computers and smart glasses that shot photos.
The devices were intended to create immersive experiences for getting things done by moving the body instead of typing on keyboards.
In an undated photo via Meta, Brian X. Chen wears the Quest 3, which Meta is marketing as the first mainstream mixed-reality headset. — Via Meta via The New York Times
Broadly speaking, the problem with headsets has less to do with technology and more to do with behaviour: People quickly get tired of wearing a computer on their face, the devices end up in closets, and software developers lose interest in making apps.
Sales of mixed reality and VR headsets fell 8.3% last year, according to the research firm IDC, though they may rebound this year with Apple entering the market.
Even though Apple has a reputation for being late to the party with superior products, as it was with music players and smartphones, the Vision Pro is not guaranteed to be a breakthrough hit, especially with its breathtaking price.
“Is this Apple entering a market late but coming in with the best product and therefore will be successful?” asked Michael Gartenberg, a technology analyst and former Apple marketing director.
“Or is there not an existing market because there are no US$3,500 headsets aimed for the mass market?”
To better understand how an Apple face computer may (or may not) fit into our lives in the future, it’s worth taking this moment to look back at the many face computers I’ve worn that set the scene for the Vision Pro.
Smart glasses
In 2012, Google unveiled a mixed-reality headset, Google Glass. It was essentially a headband with a camera and a monocle, positioned above your right eye, that contained a transparent display showing a calendar and map software.
To demonstrate its exciting potential, Google produced a video of people wearing the face computer while leaping out of an aeroplane.
When I tried an early prototype of Google Glass that year, the only working feature was a map app that showed directions as I walked around a path.
This could be useful, in theory, to keep my eyes on the road while driving or bicycling, but at a significant cost: I looked like a Star Trek character.
Chen wearing the Meta glasses with a built-in camera in Oakland, California on Dec 8, 2023. After testing the second-generation Meta glasses and concluding that while they looked satisfyingly hip, Chen said the privacy concerns remained because no one noticed when he was taking pictures of them. — Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Sure enough, after Google Glass made its public debut, pandemonium ensued.
A blogger in San Francisco was assaulted for wearing one. Memes emerged, including a vulgar term for anyone who could potentially be recording video of people without their permission.
Google eventually marketed the monocle as a business device but finally killed the product in 2023.
After Google Glass flopped, the tech industry regrouped and tried to address the design and privacy issues. In 2016 and 2021, Snap and Meta released stylish glasses with cameras and tiny lights that indicated when a user was recording. Both products were unpopular.
I recently tested the second-generation Meta glasses and concluded that while they looked satisfyingly hip, the privacy concerns remained because no one noticed when I was taking pictures of them.
Smartphone-powered VR
The tech industry was also eager to sell people on a different type of headset for VR.
The headsets, which looked like plastic goggles, blocked out your view of the outside world so you could immerse yourself in a 3D digital environment and experience something as if you were actually there – by moving your head around to look at the Grand Canyon, for example.
To make VR headsets an easier sell, tech companies like Google and Samsung tried relying on smartphones for their screens and computing power.
Brian X. Chen wears Sony’s Playstation VR in Oakland, California. Although the headset dominated the high-powered VR space for years, a Sony executive recently called VR a ‘challenging category’ because VR had not changed much for the games industry. — Jason Henry/The New York Times
In 2015, Samsung collaborated with the VR company Oculus to design Gear VR, a headset into which the user could insert a smartphone to look at VR content. In 2016, Google released Daydream VR, a similar product for Android phones.
While the products lowered the cost for people to try VR, I ran into problems with them.
The smartphones running VR software became very hot, their batteries drained rapidly, and the applications were gimmicky – one simulation I tried involved staring at a virtual dinosaur.
Google killed Daydream VR in 2019, and Samsung announced the end of its VR content services in 2020.
Plugged-in VR
In 2016, Oculus, which Meta had acquired for US$2bil (RM9.46bil) two years earlier, released the Oculus Rift, a high-end VR system that plugged into a powerful desktop computer.
The full bundle, which included the headset, a game controller and a computer, cost US$1,500 (RM7,070). With 30 games at launch, the product was marketed as a next-generation gaming device.
VR games were designed to let you move around as if you were inside the game.
Apple’s Vision Pro on display in Cupertino, California, on June 5, 2023. Chen was among the first group of journalists to try the Vision Pro last year and walked away impressed with the quality of the picture but ultimately not sure that people would want to wear it. — Jim Wilson/The New York Times
A shooting game could involve looking for guns, bending over and using motion controllers to pick them up and fire them at opponents.
Other similar products followed, including Sony’s US$400 (officially priced at RM1,849) PlayStation VR, a headset that plugged into PlayStation consoles.
For years, the PlayStation headset dominated the high-powered VR space because it lowered costs by eliminating the need to buy a separate computer. The second-generation PlayStation headset came out last year.
Nonetheless, a Sony executive recently called VR a “challenging category” because VR had not changed much for the games industry.
Most people still prefer to play video games on television.
In my experience testing all of these products over the years, they shared the same flaws: The headsets felt heavy, the hardware and wires created clutter in a living room, and there weren’t many compelling games to play.
Enter mixed reality
Stand-alone headsets, which cram the computer, display and sensor technologies into one product, have become the most convenient VR products to date.
Since 2019, Meta’s Quest headsets, which range from US$250 to US$1,000 (RM1,180 to RM4,730), have used this approach, but the products are still not mainstream hits.
Last year, Meta released the US$500 (RM2,365) Quest 3, its first consumer headset with a focus on mixed reality, which uses cameras to see into the real world while using the headset.
When firing a gun inside a shooting game, you can take cover behind the couch in your living room, for example.
In my tests, I concluded that while the graphics had greatly improved, the headset felt too heavy on my neck after about 15 minutes.
I also felt unimpressed with the games and the device’s short battery life of two hours.
This brings us all to the product in question: The Vision Pro, which Apple is marketing as a productivity tool to replace your laptop with a virtual screen and digital keyboard, a 3D movie player, and a gaming device.
At about 600g, the Vision Pro is just as heavy as Meta’s products, and my eyes and neck felt similarly fatigued after I wore it for half an hour.
The Apple headset’s battery, a separate brick that connects to the goggles via a wire, delivers two hours of life like Meta’s – not enough to finish most feature-length movies, let alone get much work done.
As for video games, no major game studio has yet announced any made specifically for the Vision Pro.
The headset does include an app for looking at a 3D dinosaur, though. – The New York Times
