Apple’s Vision Pro just isn’t visionary

Why? That’s what I ask myself whenever I encounter virtual reality. I was hoping Apple could finally offer an answer – the company that convinced countless customers why they should buy a PC. Or smartphone. Or tablet. Or a watch with a screen.

I hoped that Apple would be just as eye-opening as to why I need Virtual (VR) or Augmented Reality (AR) in my life. CEO Tim Cook has been raving about it for ages. Yesterday, at the World Wide Developers Conference, he finally presented Apple’s entry into the futuristic product category. The Vision Pro is the Californian’s first headset.

Technically, the device is a masterpiece by all accounts: powerful and with many times the pixel density of other headsets. Besides that, Apple also remembers other important design factors like individual fit and good solutions for eyeglasses. Awesome. Its price is accordingly astronomical. 3,500 dollars. Don’t care, pioneering products can be expensive.

A new kind of screen – so?

It’s just lacking vision. What problem will such a device solve? At the end of the day, Tim Cook and his Vice Presidents of Whatever didn’t provide me with a satisfactory answer. I ask again: why? Most of the usage cases came down to the same thing – the Vision Pro projects a large screen into my room. Cool, but I already have something similar. It’s called a monitor or a TV.

In the end, it’s something I’ll have to put on my head. A restriction on my physical freedom.

Whether I’m supposed to marvel at panoramic photos, watch movies or work on it, I can already do all that today. Gesture control à la Minority Report is certainly elegant and well implemented – but mice, keyboards and remotes will remain more effective in many cases. It also doesn’t matter how well Apple cushions and adjusts the Vision Pro to my face. Again, it’s something I’ll have to wear on my head. Restricting my physical freedom.

I hope I’m wrong

For me to accept this, I need clearly identifiable advantages. In a professional environment, that might be digital content on construction sites, in engineering offices, or at universities. As a home user, I can’t see a benefit. Disney CEO Bob Iger came closest to tickling my curiosity with vague promises of immersive 3D content. Games with such features are already the only reason I ever put on a VR headset. Speaking of games: those who, like me, were hoping for Apple’s brilliant entry into VR games were disappointed. There wasn’t a single concrete title from Cupertino.

. Apple has presented a good AR headset. Nothing more, nothing less. [First hands-on reports](https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/5/23750003/apple-vision-pro-hands-on-the-best-headset-demo-ever) confirm that it’s technically superior to the competition. But it is and will remain an AR headset, regardless of whether Tim Cook calls it a «spatial computer». It does the same things [a Meta Quest Pro can do](https://www.digitec.ch/en/page/meta-quest-pro-im-test-unfertiger-vorbote-25806). Only much better. Is this really enough? I doubt it. I hope I’m wrong. I hope a compelling vision will manifest itself out of nowhere as soon as Apple unleashes developers onto the new platform. I’m hoping for a lightbulb moment when I put on a Vision Pro for the first time. And above all, that it doesn’t gather dust in a corner after the initial thrill. It’s too expensive for that.