this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
28 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

38048 readers
8 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Album@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 week ago

Another buyer, Tovia Goldstein, had a similar opinion of the headset. "After 60 minutes, you can't, you just have to throw it down. I wouldn't recommend anyone buying it, unless you're really rich and you don't know what to do with your money."

You need to get your head checked if you didn't think this was true from day 0.

[–] NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

No shit. It was very clearly a device to test the waters (and for consumers to show off for Apple in the media). And even if you're all-in on Apple's ecosystem:

  1. No one is going to seriously use these in public (apart from for all the social media videos; it already happened)

  2. It has an external battery pack that just hangs

  3. It's $3,500, and cannot function entirely on its own (realistically, regardless of what Apple claims)

  4. At least in earlier iterations, the lens glass has been prone to crack

  5. It's bulky for what it is

You can argue it's "ahead of its time", but we already have had VR and AR glasses that more or less accomplish the same core things. I'm not saying Apple's isn't better, but not for that price.

The main function is, "it's a giant virtual screen" ["for your other devices"], right? I recognize it has its own OS and all that, but Apple always shows it acting as like a monitor for your MacBook Pro or whatever. Boom: $400, and from a known brand in the space:

For $3,500, you can buy a Mac Mini, a MacBook Air/Pro, and iPhone 16 Pro, and still have money left over.

[–] Knuschberkeks@leminal.space 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No one is going to seriously use these in public

Tbf I thout so about wireless earbuds when the first Airpods were announced and now they are everywhere. Also iirc people tought so about headphones back when the first Walkman came out and that was a huge succes aswell (Don't quote me on that, I wasn't alive yet.)

[–] NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

You're valid. I too remember when Airpods "encouraged" (heh) other brands to go TWS. My comment is more specifically pointed at their VR/AR googles.

[–] junkthief@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

I would add on that XREAL and Rokid also have similarly priced and specced AR glasses.

Also, if you want to get spendy, bigscreen beyond 2 is $1,200. It’s definitely an enthusiast device, but it’s still half the price of the Vision Pro