The first reviews for Vision Pro are live, highlighting a ton of great, good and not-so-great things about Apple’s first mixed reality headset.

The $3,500 Vision Pro is set to launch on February 2nd, but it seems the first reviews are already out from a select number of outlets, including CNET, The Verge, The Wall Street Journal, and CNBC.

CNET’s Scott Stein took the lead on the Vision Pro review, lauding the headset for its clear micro-OLED display, mostly fluid hand-eye control interface, great mixed reality capabilities, impressive list of compatible iOS apps, and chance to view spatial video captured both on iPhone 15 and the headset itself.

On the flipside, Stein criticized the $3,500 price tag, imperfect hand-eye input, lack of native VisionOS apps, cabled battery, and lack of space for glasses, requiring special prescription inserts instead.

Dual Loop band | Image courtesy Apple

Nilay Patel from The Verge called it “magic, until it’s not,” echoing many of Stein’s highlights and concerns in addition to noting that video passthrough wasn’t perfect, the 3D avatars for video calls, called ‘Personas’, are uncanny “and somewhat terrifying,” and criticizing the social isolation of not being able to instantly share what you can see with others in the room.

Joanna Stern of The Wallstreet Journal took it to a new extreme by wearing Vision Pro for nearly 24 hours straight (that’s a tight review embargo if we’ve ever seen one). On the positive side, Stern notably didn’t puke, got a lot of work done, and cooked a delicious meal, but also thought Personas were weird. Apparently you’re not supposed to cook when using Vision Pro (knifes, boiling water, and all that) but being able to look up a recipe, have a floating timer, and watch a tutorial video while you cook sounds pretty handy.

Report: Apple Focuses on More Affordable Vision Headset Over High-end Follow-up

CNBC’s Todd Haselton calls Vision Pro “the future of computing and entertainment,” as Haselton was the only one of the bunch to actually like the Personas feature in addition to headset’s strong suit: serving up traditional media. Still, Haselton says it lack key apps such as Uber, DoorDash, Amazon, and Facebook, and popular mobile games likes Diablo Immortal and Genshin Impact.

We’ll eventually get ahold of a Vision Pro for another one of patented deep-dive reviews, so make sure to check back soon. We’ll be going through a lot of the things others haven’t mentioned, such as how the FOV stacks up against the competition, passthrough camera limitations, display and optical artifacts, and also what sort of apps you would expect as an XR enthusiast, developer, prosumer—whoever. That, and more.

In the meantime, Marques Brownlee hasn’t released a proper review as such, but you can watch his unboxing and initial impressions below:

Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.

Well before the first modern XR products hit the market, Scott recognized the potential of the technology and set out to understand and document its growth. He has been professionally reporting on the space for nearly a decade as Editor at Road to VR, authoring more than 4,000 articles on the topic. Scott brings that seasoned insight to his reporting from major industry events across the globe.
  • Rudl Za Vedno

    I’ve watched them all and they’re pretty bad for $3.5K device. In summary: uncomfortable after longer use, FOV smaller than Quest 3, sweetspot worse than Quest 3, great Oled panels. $499 Q3 beating AVP when it comes to lenses, FOV and sweetspot is totally unacceptable imho. $3499 device should wipe the floor with Q3 in every single regard.

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      AVP and Quest 3 are targeting different audiences. So the real question is whether someone trying both AVP and Quest 3 would pick the Quest 3 instead because whatever AVP offers extra isn’t worth 7x the price. If they are critical of the AVP, but would rather not use an HMD at all than using a Quest 3 instead, the feature/price ratio isn’t all that relevant.

      • Lucidfeuer

        Those are non-sensical arguments

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          It’s not that difficult to understand. Apple put all that very expensive tech into their first HMD to enable a specific level of experience they considered to be the minimum of what the average consumer would accept. Something the Quest 3 clearly hasn’t achieved yet.

          So if the average review ends up with “I’d use it if it wasn’t USD 3500/heavy/lacking software”, Apple was right about the acceptable experience, and visionOS will probably succeed. Most customers will wait for one, two or more generations for the technology to mature, get cheaper and offer more apps, but very few will get a Quest 3 instead due to it providing a very different experience.

          If the average review ends with “just get a Quest 3 instead”, Apple misjudged and AVP will only be interesting to a small number of enthusiasts like Meta’s VR HMDs.

          • Lucidfeuer

            That’s interesting, but I think it’s more specific: Meta’s strategy has been to sluggishly iterate with additive approach while missing critical conceptual components that should’ve been in the headset from the beginning, like passthrough-AR. The reason why is they saw XR headsets for it’s rough VR capability first and AR as an extension of it, when it actually comes first in ergonomic and UX logic. Apple did the opposite: they pushed the device in order to serve an AR approach first in order to target the most common usage denominator for XR, which is watching videos, augmented apps and virtual screens for which the technology has only been recently available (and surfing on the varied progresses and pre-established standards).

            Both are now converging towards a same offer and standard, the difference being that the Quest is more established, with a bigger library and affordability, while Apple has a lot of firepower but a non-existing usage base for amateurs. And they both suffer from the same short-coming and limitations of the technology, namely FOVs, functionality and ergonomy.

            The truth is that Meta is closer to unlocking the market if they were to concentrate on the most mobile, cinema and casual usage of VR in the most ergonomic, mobile and affordable enough package, while Apple’s vision targets a usage for which the technology is not ready and will take years, even with more affordable and ergonomic Vision Air devices.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      Do not forget that the Quest is “subsidized” by Meta, if it were to generate money as a hardware device it would be over $1000 already. So the AVP is wildly overpriced, but the consumers” version will be much closer to the unsubsidized retail price of Q3.

      • ViRGiN

        There is no evidence of it being subsidized.

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        We basically deliver our devices at cost or at a slight subsidy, or slightly more than cost in some cases.

        Mark Zuckerbert 2022-07

        Based on that, production cost of a USD 299 Quest 2 is about USD 345, a little more for the USD 399 256GB model when accounting for the price of extra flash memory. Estimates for AVP production cost based on two released BOMs were between USD 1300 and USD 1800, incl. USD ~125 just for the assembly.

        I haven’t seen a Quest 3 BOM, but based on the same “sligthly below/above” logic, it should cost USD ~520-550 to produce. So just the current production cost for AVP would still be about 3x the cost of Quest 3. But Quest 3 was designed as a mass consumer product, while AVP is still mostly a polished proof-of-concept prototype produced/sold in small numbers to developers and first movers. Tim Cook was hired as vice COO in 1998 for his supply chain expertise and had a big part in Apple’s success by ensuring their manufacturing costs stayed incredibly low compared. So I’d expect the 3:1 ratio to significantly decrease once Apple comes out with a true mass market HMD after a few generations.

    • Jason Born

      3500k is an investment in your future if you are an AR developer. its the price panzies are unwilling to pay to put food on their families table.

  • Sumiter

    I’ll preface my comments by saying i have no intention of paying $3500+ for any HMD. I was one of the $1500 Quest Pro buyers and i wont even go that high again. $1000 MAX.

    The AVP will be an amazing device. No questions asked. 90% of the current complaints can be fixed in software updates or good sale numbers for app developers to push resources to AVP/XR.

    Weight – gonna be heavy, get over it… I am sure there will be 3rd party accessories to fix this or make it better.
    FOV – Someone saying its less than Q3? If thats true, thats not good at all. IMO this feature should be top of the list to improve in all of the XR industry. 110 on Q3 is good but we really need 120+. Binoculars are much cheaper than a headset lol.
    Lenses – i am sure that most people wont be able to dissect the differences. Anyone complaining is tech people that complain about everything.
    No controllers – at $3500 this is 100% a deal breaker. Yeah yeah yeah this isn’t for gaming. That’s fine but we should be able to buy separate controllers at the very least but Apple should have included them for $3500. I am sure virtual desktop or steam link will work with AVP but no controllers makes this a very expensive setup with lighthouse trackers and a separate controller.

    I understand that this is Apples jump into XR and they will rewrite a ton of what we know. that’s gonna happen if we want it or not. I however think that they fell just a bit short on this device. Too much invested into design and gimmicky things like the front screen rather than the 3-4 things all XR enthusiasts are still waiting for. Better FOV, lighter, frictionless UI etc…

    So far companies are trying to bring out this WOW factor. The problem is they are trying to do that with hardware. Spend resources on software to bring people back to the headset day after day. Make it easy to grab and go. make it light enough to wear for 3-4 hours. Make the lenses big enough where reality and the virtual world mesh better.

    Like i said, its Apple so it will be successful if they want it to be and who knows maybe next year they release a consumer version for a much less price point. After this one is out for a bit they will know what features are being used most or less.

    • Rudl Za Vedno

      Sorry but $3499 device should blow Q3 out of the water. It should not even be a comparison and yet Verge and WSJ compare it to Meta’s devi ce and Verge even says it loses in terms of FOV and sweetspot and enge to edge clarity. That says one thing to non tech ppl, that state of technology is just not good enough for mainstream. That sends a really bad massage imho.

      • ApocalypseShadow

        In some areas it does. The clarity is better. Apps are already there to use and you can do productivity just like the phone or tablet or Mac. Watching video is better. Multiple Windows can be placed in front of you. Avatars are subjective so it’s a hit or miss. But Apple has them right now. While Facebook keeps telling us about the future of realistic avatars that still don’t exist today to use. Don’t show us future headsets or avatars unless you plan on releasing them soon. Right now, it’s just them dangling a carrot in front of consumers saying don’t leave, we’re planning the next model.

        Apple also has the support of the consumers even while being an expensive concept model. While a lot of consumers don’t trust Facebook to do business at all. Which is why Quest Pro failed hard.

        It’s still early going. But anyone with app support from phones are going to be the front runners regardless of price. The fact that Facebook has pivoted to try to be a lower priced Vision Pro tells you right there on which company is scared of who.

        • Andrew Jakobs

          But most of the positive stuff you mention can be easily fixed by Meta, if they wanted too. The headset is already running an android clone.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            Meta wanting to fix stuff is a problem all by itself, but the Android app problem is something they cannot easily fix. Sure, the Quest runs Android and therefore can run Android apps, but Meta doesn’t get access to the Google Play store were most Android users get their app. They’d have to create their own store, like Amazon did for their Fire tablets, and then convince developers to also publish their apps there, and Quest users to buy them there (again).

            That’s a lot of very difficult steps that depend on the willingness of others. Apple has a clear advantage there, with lots of available apps. Microsoft Teams now supporting XR meetings on the Quest was newsworthy a few days ago. Zoom and Microsoft Teams and Cisco Webex now supporting AVP personas in their conferencing apps wasn’t, because those companies already support iOS, so adding XR features for AVP takes only a small step.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      I agree, FOV is something that needs to improve now, any new headset with a lower FOV as the Q3 is just not worth the effort IMHO. Even if enlarging the FOV is done by lower resolution towards the edge of your vision, that would already make it much better.

      • Quest 3’s FOV is *spectacular*.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      This is not a “consumers” version. Wait for AVP2 or AVP3 which will likely be lighter/better /cheaper and then judge it. This is a kind of prototype for developers and people that do not know what to do with their money. I would certainly like to take a peek – but that’s it.

      • ViRGiN

        If they are offering direct sales to Consumers, it is a Consumer product.
        Just like Quest Pro, even though I always saw it as devkit for MR/eye tracking apps.
        But it is a Consumer device.

  • eadVrim

    Let’s wait for its applications to be released before judging. Currently, it is a high-tech device which doesn’t do much.

    • ViRGiN

      Were you also this forgiving when Quest Pro came out?
      “lets wait for its apps to be released”?
      They failed to secure Netflix on it.
      There is nothing to look forward to on AVP. Just like on PSVR2.
      If they launch dogshit like this, they get launch-content ready reviews.

  • Gildahl

    About exactly the response I expected. Now if they give it away for “free” with the purchase of an iPhone and just increase payback time to 20 years, they may be able to sell-out immediately.

  • xyzs

    Not sharp edge to edge says The Verge guy..?
    I thought this was like the main advantage over competition to have full ultra sharp lenses, even if the FOV was not top-notch. That’s quite disappointing!

    I think the AVP2 will be a strong update, but the true good versions will start with v3 likely. I hope that creates a XR hype, however.

    I can’t wait to see the first liquid crystal (holographic) lenses.

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    Honestly, the only thing I really care about getting from the first reviews is more insight on the comfort. The AVP is intended not for short gaming sessions, but to be worn for a long time while doing other tasks, using productivity apps or serving as a separate Mac display. And this very much depends on how comfortable to wear it can be made, either with one of the default straps or some added hacks.

    I really want a headset that at least could be used as my main computing device, allowing me to carry my office with me in a small bag also including a bluetooth keyboard and a trackpad. Everything else like missing XR apps, still imperfect hand-eye input or creepy avatars/personas can be fixed in software updates, but comfort can not.

    • Newlot

      How much do you sleep a night, dear VR knowledge god?

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        Most of the time I wake up after 6h +-5min without using an alarm, and have been for decades, as I also never had issues falling asleep. But please don’t do that. I’m just trying to discuss VR with others, mostly for fun and curiosity, and comments like this make me feel very uncomfortable and awkward.

        • Newlot

          I apologize for making you feel that way. I’m a fan of your comments and have been for a long time.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            Don’t worry about it. I took your comment as a compliment, as you intended. This is just a weird me-thing, I’ve always been uncomfortable with attention drawn to my person instead of what I say/write/do, no matter when or where. For example I’d rather disintegrate than having others sing Happy Birthday for me.

          • Mr. Fox

            I can absolutely second Newlots compliment, it is always a pleasure to read your informative takes / analysis on all XR topics. Thanks.

  • Rudl Za Vedno

    The problem with these big companies is that they think they’re best in everything. Apple could easy ask company like Zeiss to develop lenses for AVP that would put Meta’s optics to shame, yet they’ve opted for inhouse solution. I understand that is sound from business perspective, but not so sound when you wanna market your product as the best thing since sliced bread.

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Because Zeiss has 177 years of experience in making pancake lenses covered with surface coatings for polarized light reflection/refraction? Apple partnered with Zeiss for the prescription inserts due to their long history of high quality optical glass, and Zeiss does a lot of high tech optics from machines for chip manufacturing to telescopes, but that doesn’t make them the absolute know-it-all about all things glass.

      Companies like Corning specialize in other types/uses, and their flexible and scratch resistant Gorilla Glass covers a lot of smartphones, including iPhones. Over the past few years Apple bought a lot of startups, including some specializing in optics for headsets, that added a lot of in-house competence that Zeiss wouldn’t have gotten just from their expertise in e.g. producing microscopes.

      • Rudl Za Vedno

        So why are their lenses on AVP so underwhelming according to mainsteam reviewers? $3.5-4K device optics should compete with the likes of Varjo XR-4 not poor man’s Quest 3. Optics and panels make or break high end XR product.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          The XR-4 uses custom shaped aspheric lenses that allow the PPD to be higher at the center than the edges. Aspheric lenses provide excellent clarity compared to pancakes, but are large, heavy and come with some problems like chromatic aberration and pupil swim.

          Varjo is pretty good at handling those, but the remaining problem is that they require a large lens-display distance, making it impossible to create a very slim HMD like AVP with the weight very close to the face. The excellent Varjo HMDs always need complex head strap constructions with lots of adjustments to counter their front heaviness.

  • Star Centurion

    Seems like potentially a good headset to pick up when you can find it pre-owned or refurb’d at $2000, and by then people have likely made it work w/ SteamVR.

    Then it’s an excellent standalone productivity device + excellent PCVR headset.

    The Quest 3 does this and it’s already good at $499. I don’t see why this can’t either.

    • gothicvillas

      Smaller FOV than Quest 3 can’t be good for SteamVR!!!

      • Star Centurion

        It’s Quest 2/CV1 FOV, so honestly it’s whatever. I think people forget previous Meta products had inconsistent FOV.

    • ViRGiN

      How brainwashed you have to be to even think about SteamVR in 2024 LMAO.
      Seriously, what is wrong with you?

      • Star Centurion

        Considering the chances of playing one’s Quest library on the Vision Pro being 0%, why shouldn’t I be able to play at least my SteamVR library on a Vision Pro if it can work as a wireless headset?

        Maybe think before commenting next time.

        • ViRGiN

          SteamVR is outdated and not really maintained at all.
          It failed to make people jump on board. Extremely locked down for being made for open PC platform; is broken on Linux and Valve even abandoned the Mac version.
          There is no technical reason why it could not work; but if it were to do so, it’s not really a desired feature at all.
          Apple plays by it’s own rules; maybe they will allow it (if anyone even wants to make it), but it’s irrelevant to XR as a whole.

          • Star Centurion

            SteamVR isn’t abandoned, and even if it was I still have a lot of games there.

            To me, what sells me on these devices is that they should be able to try and attempt to do everything.

            Currently, the Quest 3 is the best headset that best accomplishes that very broad goal. That’s why I use mine every day. I play native games, I play SteamVR games, I use the standalone apps, I use passthrough, you name it, I’ve done it.

            The AVP is kind of forgettable to me if it doesn’t get SteamVR support at minimum, officially or unofficially.

            The game/app library for AVP is going to be lacking and will be lacking until at least the 3rd or 4th headset from Apple, so the choices to me are

            1. Ignore Apple XR efforts until they get more games/apps that run natively
            2. Open up more opportunities and access to my PCVR library on AVP by being able to use it on SteamVR (where I own a lot of games) then just deal with lackluster native apps until the situation improves.

            I understand I’m the niche within a niche if that’s what you’re trying to say. I don’t think there’s any denying that.

          • ViRGiN

            You are ignoring _one more thing_.
            AVP isn’t positioned as gaming device. They don’t even use VR anywhere in their marketing. So not being compatibible with SteamVR isn’t a missing feature, just like they don’t advertise being able to play Mac games on it (despite certainly having enough power to do so).
            AVP appears to be nothing more than an iPad strapped to your face. And it works with hyper large number of iPad apps out of the box.
            If you’re looking for universal headset that can do ‘everything’, then this is not the product you want.
            And that has near-always been a thing with Apple devices. They do what Apple wants them to do; and anything else can break at any moment and likely not even worth the effort from community fighting the uphill battle.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      Plus a set of controllers, not currently available for it… will external bridge work?

  • Foreign Devil

    I detect a bias and emotional attachment to a certain brand.

  • Octogod

    It has been interesting to see the reviews mention how Apple Vision Pro is heavier than than Quest 2 and 3, while also calling out the strap as distributing the weight on the front. Very odd choice that was called out in advance and you’d think two straps would solve.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      As I understand it, the retail version also has the top strap included, so maybe the test versions didn’t have it in the box yet.
      But it being heavier as the Quest 3 and not even having the battery in the headset is really laughable.

      • Octogod

        It really is laughable. Imagine if the battery was in HMD!

        Some of the reviews do mention having the two straps, but preferring the less secure/more comfortable one. Hopeful they can revise this down the line, as it’d help so much in feeling lighter.

  • Lucidfeuer

    Remember kids! The first reviews are fake reviews and actually disguised op-ed astroturfing. Wait for a month and you’ll get a few actual reviews with the true caveats

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      What is this, a pre-emptive strike against established tech news sources because their first impressions don’t provide the “AVP is doomed” you were looking for? Having an opinion is fine, though ideally one would keep their own bias at least somewhat in check. Immediately switching to defamatory media conspiracy theories when confronted with unwanted review results, to not even have to acknowledge that other people might have a different opinion, is pretty sad.

      • Arno van Wingerde

        Hm… I disagree: First impressions are useful, but often do not paint the full picture.
        First reviews of Q3 were also exaggerated, Remember RM2 that was soooooo much better …. until the better textures came out for the Q2 as well, reducing the benefit to 15% higher resolution and shadows (not the 30% as reported in those reviews; resolution is pixels per inch or degree).
        pPblishing a review a day after you got the device is unlikely to give the true experience, rather the first “wow” effect. The BOBO Strap for the Quest3 was the best until the battery problems came up. The device looks heavy and the strap less than optimal: do you get used to that or does it become a nuisance?

        • ViRGiN

          Q3 reviews exaggerated?
          Maybe you are watching youtubers whos sole point of existence is to get sponsorships from third party headstrap manufacturers and shoving down affiliate links every chance they get.
          Quest 3 was not over hyped at all – peoples expectations were; people who consume everything on a tiny mobile phone screen and they could not imagine that stretching the image across your ‘entire’ field of view will make things not look as good.
          I never believed in any of that BOBO trash. Meta accessories are more costly, but you buy once and are done forever. Elite Strap with Battery is still excellent.
          Same with graphics – they are on par for $500 mobile device that constantly has to track it’s space.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          I mostly reacted to the “fake reviews/disguised op-ed astroturfing” implying reviewers are deliberately lying. I fully agree that first impressions or early reviews are to be taken with a grain of salt, as many issues will only show after extended use.

          I’m very aware how impactful the effect of seeing new tech for the first time is, leading to enthusiastic speculation how much better this will make things. It usually turns out to not be quite as useful, and we very quickly get used to the revolution. After watching several enthusiastic AVP reviews, I started to wonder how long it will take for people to begin puzzling how something “normal” like placing multiple screens in mid air or simply moving virtual objects with your hands could ever excite someone. Watching early VR demonstrations today already feels similar.

          One of the developers of VisiCalc, the first spreadsheet app from 1979 on Apple II, described presentations to accountants. They’d start to physically shake, saying “That’s what I do all day. I could do it in an hour!” and shove credit cards into his face. An early “Shut up and take my money”, hard to comprehend for digital natives.

      • Jason Born

        But please don’t do that. I’m just trying to discuss VR with others, mostly for fun and curiosity, and comments like this make me feel very uncomfortable and awkward.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          Hm, I don’t remember calling you out personally several times for your postings about the validity of reviews. I’m sorry if I did, as it isn’t my intention to forcefully put anyone in the spot light, unless they utterly fuck up due to deliberate ignorance.

      • Lucidfeuer

        Most news and worse, video/social “review” channel are completely non-objective, non-factual and non-informational disguised op-eds with not an once of criticisms. Only young people and impressional latecomers might be tricked, which is why they continue, but otherwise there’s not an ounce of objective or critical review in those first article presenting the Vision Pro.

    • ViRGiN

      Fake reviews?
      What are you even talking about?
      Are we supposed to be exclusively amazed by it, or extremely disgusted? Which one isn’t fake?
      So far from what I’ve seen, this product is nowhere near consumer ready for anything more than media consumption. Frankly, it seems like $3500 trash with no real use cases; it doesn’t even let you escape reality; just traps you in grainy reproduction of it.

      • Arno van Wingerde

        Come on! Yes it is not heaven on Earth by any means, but in many aspects by far the most capable standalone VR device available today. I wouldn’t”t buy it either, but I would love to take a look…

        • ViRGiN

          I’d like to try it obviously once available – but there is nothing of interest for me here.
          I’m not in Apple ecosystem either. Even if I got one for 1/3 the price, it would just collect dust.
          It doesn’t seem innovative _enough_ on any front outside of implementing eye tracking as primary input.
          Headset is still super heavy, and requires tethered battery.
          My productivity isn’t made of adding agendas to Calendar app, or drag-n-dropping from one mobile app to PowerPoint.

          Trying one on won’t suddenly change my perception of it.

      • Lucidfeuer

        I’m talking about astroturfing, which has become the norm on the internet ie. there’s very rare objective/critical information and review in tech anymore.

  • knuckles625


    Verge article was pretty even keeled and had a lot of insight in why eye -tracking plus finger buttons not only didn’t work well now, but are likely a dead end in the future.

  • MackRogers

    Thank god I pre-ordered. I can not wait. Just what I thought it would be!

    So excited. and so glad I am not poor and angry/bitter and have to just sit and watch and listen to how cool it is. Thank god I am not poor, jesus, thank god.

  • Andrew Jakobs

    Well, Meta has it’s Pro controllers which tracks by using inside out tracking through camera’s. Hope we’ll see more like that, so they can be used independant of the headset used.

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Apple (currently) doesn’t allow 3rd parties to offer VR controllers, but if the Quest Pro controllers can be connected via Bluetooth, there is technically nothing Apple can do to prevent it. They allow connecting a PS5 DualSense for use with Apple Arcade and other iOS games, even sell it as an AVP accessory. I wonder if AC Mirage or RE8, recently released for iPhone 15 Pro, will work on AVP too, which should be fast enough.

      USB/Bluetooth define HID (Hardware Interface Design) classes, to no longer require installing drivers for every keyboard or mouse. So if Quest Pro controllers can connect with the HID for game controllers, they should work just fine.

      Of course their 6DoF tracking wouldn’t be picked up by default, and I’m not sure how exactly the data would fit into the controller HID. But Meta or a third party could provide a Unity plugin that allows to use these values in AVP apps, and also sync the AVP and Quest Pro controller tracking space at the beginning.

      Whether Meta would want to do that or developers will support the small group of people that own both an AVP and the Quest Pro controllers is questionable, but at least it should be possible.

  • Dragon Marble

    It turned out the eye-tracked UI is a potential concern. I pointed it out when it was first revealed, and said that I’d probably prefer Direct Touch on Quest 3.

    That was based on my experience with some versions of it on Ques Pro and PSVR2. The main problem is that, in real life, your eyes and hands work independently, and you don’t really look at the things you interact. Having to stare at the stuff you need to grab/click gets annoying very fast.

    You know what I am talking about if you have ever played Puzzling Places on Quest Pro with eye tracking. It’s an option there, but you have no choice on AVP.

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Hm, I’m pretty sure that you always look at an icon when you click on it with your mouse, so having to stare at the stuff you need to click is how you use every computer. And I’m also sure that you don’t look at the mouse while clicking, instead follow the pointer on the screen, just like you “click” on AVP by pinching with your hand that could be resting in you lap, without a need to look at it.

      That’s a big difference to the hand tracking on Quest Pro, where you basically have to be able to see both the interface and your hands for tracking to work, meaning your hands have to be lifted up in front of your face, which will obviously get annoying very fast.

      • Dragon Marble

        I’ll quote Verge as it describes exact the same problem I had with Puzzling Place: “[A] game called Stitch […] quickly became maddening because I kept looking away from the piece I wanted to move to the place I wanted to move it, which meant I wasn’t picking it up when I tapped my fingers.” Your eyes are always one step ahead of your hands.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          Still in the middle of the Verge review, but my first take would be that a) gaming on AVP won’t be a good idea unless games optimized for their hand tracking will become available and b) there is a good reason why Apple offers the PS5 DualSense as an AVP gaming accessory.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          I’ve watched/read the Verge review now, your “potential concern” was more a “not perfect yet”.

          Apple is very proud of […] the hand and eye tracking control system, which is light years beyond any other consumer hand or eye tracking systems out there. […] It actually takes a minute to realize you don’t have to gesture out in front of you with your hands in the air[…]

          That should have hinted that maybe your Quest Pro/PSVR2 experiences won’t translate directly.

          His eye tracking problems are connected to a fundamental issue: our eyes don’t move continuously, but “jump” close to the target, making hitting the “too small” UI elements hard, but that should be fixable or trainable. The gaze is continuous only when following an object, you’d have to imagine a moving object to e.g. draw a line/curve. He had more issues with the battery and even the best passthrough being inferior to (the amazing) human vision.

          The 30min video is worth watching. He pretty much confirms this as a very polished prototype with lots of compromises due to hardware limits. It proofs that the concept works, but only developers and those willing to spend USD 3500 for an experiment/TV should consider buying a 1st gen AVP. It’s still very early, everybody else should wait.

          • knuckles625

            Respectfully, I think you’re heavily minimizing the actual conclusion the Verge reviewer came to about eye tracking as a control scheme (one which I heartily agree with):

            “But the shocking thing is that Apple may have inadvertently revealed that some of these core ideas are actually dead ends — that they can’t ever be executed well enough to become mainstream…This is the best hand- and eye-tracking ever, and it feels like the mouse, keyboard, and touchscreen are going to remain undefeated for years to come.”

            The human eye doesn’t (and biologically can not, without something pre-existing to follow) move smoothly. Eyes jumps around, and it’s not something that can be trained away. (You’re welcome to try to trace a smooth circle with your eyes in a blank white piece of paper). So all the software optimization in the world can’t morph that signal into a “good” control scheme for instances that need smooth continuous input XY, much less XYZ input.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            I tested “smooth moving” by recording my eyes. I can only move the gaze with rather huge jumps, but can smoothly follow my finger. And after trying (a lot) I managed to smoothly follow an imagined (high contrast) object. It’s probably an illusion, just leading to a large number of small jumps, but that’s good enough for eye tracking.

            The reviewer projects his experience into a future “dead end”, but fails to consider that people might adapt. An important question is how Apple engineers could have missed how difficult it is to “aim precisely”, making the UI hard to use. My guess: they didn’t miss anything, it just takes time to learn to look exactly at the right spot. Something you’d normally never have to do, as you’ll still see everything with your jumping gaze a few degrees off.

            So concluding that “visionOS feels also designed for an eye tracking system that’s just slightly more precise than it actually is” may be an artifact of not having it used long enough to learn to properly “aim”. Future reviews will clarify this, but it’s unlikely a review based on a few hours of use found a fundamental flaw in a UI Apple worked on for a decade.

          • Arno van Wingerde

            That, as well as adaptations to the software. Meta is certainly showing improvements over the years.

          • Dragon Marble

            It’s not just that your eyes jump; they jump/move too soon, before your hand can tap. They always want to get there first to witness something you know is about to happen. It’s an irresistible instinct.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            I of course can only speculate, but doubt that this is a big problem that Apple somehow overlooked. I’ve now spent way too much time looking at reviews from people who had AVP for a few days, and at least some like Brian Tong describe the hand/eye tracking as “incredible accurate”.

            This may be a question of getting used to aiming/controlling the urge to move the eyes too soon, with some adapting easier than others. Or it could be different from person to person due to their perception working slightly different, like comfort on Quest Pro depending a lot on individual head shape. Or those without issues will only start noticing it after spending more time with it and becoming aware of all the small idiosyncrasies.

            I’ll probably spend more time after a week, month and half a year watching/reading another wave of reviews from people who spent more time with AVP, tried to do more things via tracking, and may by then be either more accustomed to or more annoyed by it. Or maybe Apple learns that (some) users move their eyes away sooner than expected and introduces a “delay”, with the pinch selecting at the positions the eyes were 250ms earlier.

  • ViRGiN

    Vision Pro seems extremely boring; Spatial Computing isn’t here, and won’t be for many many years, if not for over a decade longer.
    Headsets are for entertainment – I hope it’s time someone realises that eyetracking Ray Bans that work with your existing desktop setup will be far more unlocking, than ANY amount of Virtual Screens can possibly be. One 1080p monitor, especially if you upscale it, is far more efficient than anything ever presented from any company.

  • James Walker

    Like what I hear, but for that price tag, Productivity, and leisurely watching videos, should be WORLDS better than what is delivered on the Quest. I know they’re marketing towards productivity, more than gaming/entertainment, but my goodness even for that amount, I want some type of edge, even for what it doesn’t cater towards. Right now, regarding this price, I can get by with just enough within the productivity field, using a Quest 3, and have gaming, YouTube, Netflix to boot, along with good XR components. We know that Apple is more closed Marketed, and bullish on any versatility, that’s not allowed through Apple itself, whereas on the quest, and other VR headsets, Modding, and PC accessibility is all open. Yeah you’ll have eventual jailbreaking Tom foolery, but right now I’m rocking a VR 3ds Emulator, and Unreal Engine gaming Mod for Pancake games that weren’t even meant for VR, as well as other flat 2 VR Mods, that Apple will prevent in every chance they get. Just saying, I know in a lot of avenues it’s better, but HOW MUCH for over THAT AMOUNT. They gotta sell this to me and most definitely probably others, a little better for that price tag.

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    I recommend taking a look at iJustine’s “Apple Vision Pro – Unboxing, Review and demos!” YouTube video. youtu_be/CaWt6-xe29k?t=1048

    You can skip the first half that is a lot of excitement, basic info, unboxing and way too much enthusiasm about a piece of cloth, but the second half is about using a lot of apps like keynote, an iPad DJ app with now added 3D XR and hand tracking support for scratching and “pulling” records (gimmicky, but interesting for some ideas where things might go), video editing and more. It is less technical or focused on general usability than the other reviews, but so far pretty unique in showing how people might actually use the AVP after the initial phase of excitement is over.

  • Octogod

    Exactly! Each time I hear VR is isolating, I can tell how they get their information. VR is far more social than mobile games or TV, yet it’s never a talking point.