I don't think this is gong to be a success. I feel like the tech is a solution without a problem. I think the only sensible application is niche, enthusiast gaming, and valve is already pretty established there.
We'll see though. Apple will probably have thought about this and identified usecases and developed software for their vr platform

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.

Given Nilay has a good amount of experience with headsets, I'm surprised at how surprised they appear to be with this statement.

Back when I was in uni in the late 00s, AR and VR were a big thing, to the point that we had a module on it as part of our course. Even then it was clear that any hardware that physically closed you off (digital pass through is still a physical barrier) fundamentally stops the feeling of an argumented reality and puts you firmly in a disconnected (from physical reality) headspace. As in, you feel like you're in a virtual reality.

Google cardboard, which Nilay references:

Apple is also making immersive versions of some of its Apple TV Plus shows, which basically means a 180ish-degree 3D video that feels like the best Google Cardboard demo of all time

Came out 9 years ago, and proved the exact same thing for 1% of the cost of a Vision Pro.

As others have pointed out since the announcement, Glass also failed even without having that physical barrier between you and reality.

Lastly,

Do you want to use a computer that is always looking at your hands?

Nope!

And unlike any other TV in your life, the Vision Pro can literally DRM your eyes — if you’re watching a movie in the Apple TV app or Disney Plus and go to take a screen capture, the content blacks out. It’s strange to experience a reality where big companies can block you from capturing what you see, even if all you’re trying to do is show people how cool it looks in a review. You can get around DRM screenshots on an iPhone by just taking a photo of the screen, but there’s no such off-ramp for the Vision Pro.

Hey, I found the reason why I would never never never ever buy something like this. It’s going to be the Black Mirror episode that forces you to watch ads.

Can you imagine talking to someone in public with one of them strapped to their noggin?

This is the best summary I could come up with:

In Apple’s photos, it looks like a big, bright screen that shows a video of your eyes to people around you so they feel comfortable talking to you while you’re wearing the headset — a feature adorably called EyeSight.

On the top edge, you’ll find what feel like larger versions of some familiar Apple Watch controls: a digital crown that adjusts both the volume and the level of virtual reality immersion on the right as you look through the headset and a button on the left that lets you take 3D photos and videos.

You can also see Apple’s incredible video processing chops right in front of your eyes: I sat around scrolling on my phone while wearing the Vision Pro, with no blown-out screens or weird frame rate issues.

A lot of work has gone into making it feel like the multitouch screen on an iPhone directly controls the phone, and when it goes sideways, like when autocorrect fails or an app doesn’t register your taps, it’s not pleasant.

I asked about this, and Apple told me that it is actively contributing to WebXR and wants to “work with the community to help deliver great spatial computing experiences via the web.” So let’s give that one a minute and see how it goes.

There’s a part of me that says the Vision Pro only exists because Apple is so incredibly capable, stocked with talent, and loaded with resources that the company simply went out and engineered the hell out of the hardest problems it could think of in order to find a challenge.

The original article contains 8,148 words, the summary contains 264 words. Saved 97%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!