I’m convinced that virtual reality is the future. At least, that’s what I thought after trying on a VR headset for the first time. It was back in 1991 with the arcade game Dactyl Nightmare. I was at the Imagina expo in Monaco, and I truly believed I was looking at the future, my future.
The 90s: More Than Just Grunge, There Was VR
The early 90s were a breeding ground for the evolution of consumer computing. Each year brought exciting new products that left us drooling. The year 2000 was just around the corner, embodying the very idea of the future. This era ushered in the first three-dimensional video games, like Virtua Racing. These games even made their way into our homes via platforms like the Mega Drive (thanks to the SVP processor embedded in the cartridge). Not to be outdone, Nintendo entered the fray with Star Wing, or Star Fox in Japan and the USA, which also featured its own Super FX integrated processor.
Various peripherals were announced, among them the Sega Activator and Sega VR. Virtual reality was then seen as the future of video gaming. However, developing a worthy headset was still too difficult and expensive. In the meantime, Sega released the Activator to add a bit more immersion to its games. The Activator was a flat octagon placed on the floor. Thanks to infrared sensors, the device could detect your body’s movements. By standing in the center, players could mimic movements that would be translated into the game. In reality, each segment of the octagon was linked to a button. You simply moved your arm to the right to move forward, to the left to move back, and diagonally to activate the A, B, C, and Start buttons. In my young mind, the Activator would have made me a martial arts expert (and helped me achieve an athlete’s body) just by playing Streets of Rage 2 and Street Fighter II’, two of my favorite games at the time (yes, I was a street expert).
The Sega VR, as its name suggests, was supposed to be Sega’s virtual reality headset for the arcade, the Mega Drive, and then the Saturn. Virtua Racing was intended to be the launch title. Announced in 1991, the project was eventually canceled. Sega didn’t give up and launched the Sega VR-1 in 1994, which seemed to be a revamped version for amusement parks. In 1995, Nintendo also ventured into VR with the Virtual Boy, unfortunately known for its spectacular failure and the headaches it caused.
Simply put, from the early 90s, it was clear to many that the future of gaming, and computing, would be through virtual reality. Even pop culture, like movies, grabbed onto the subject. We can mention, among others, the films The Lawnmower Man, Strange Days, or eXistenZ. But unfortunately, this didn’t last long. For the general public, no more VR-related products were released. Console generations came and went without any headsets hitting the market. The same was true for computers: the arrival of 3D graphics cards did not bring VR into the mix. A pity.
Oculus Rift: The VR Renaissance
It took nearly 20 years for a new consumer-grade headset to appear. It was the Oculus Rift, launched via a Kickstarter in 2012. Everyone was excited about this project from a then-unknown innovator. Among those interested was the head of Facebook, who subsequently bought the young company for 2 billion dollars.
We then entered a new golden age, or perhaps the only golden age, of VR. Sony announced the PS VR for the PS4 (and later the PS VR2 for the PS5), Samsung released its own headsets, Microsoft showcased its Hololens, and Google its Google Glass. This was followed by the HTC Vive and others. Even Nintendo joined in with a Nintendo Labo specifically designed for VR.
Many games began to be compatible, and some were even developed solely for VR platforms like Beat Saber or Half-Life: Alyx.
However, despite all these economic players and relative success (Meta announced in 2023 having sold over 20 million Quests, all versions combined), the general public remains largely unaware of VR. It remains a niche market. As evidence, consider sim-racing (racing simulation games): one might think a virtual reality headset would be perfect for this specific hobby, which requires fairly expensive equipment. Yet, despite promising starts, sim-racing players quickly abandoned their VR headsets in favor of either a triple-screen setup or a large curved screen like the Samsung Odyssey G9. Why? Even though the immersion and 3D vision are unmatched, using a VR headset for long sessions remains difficult with effects such as eye dryness, facial sweating, and general discomfort due to the weight.
Apple Vision Pro
It’s in this context that the Apple Vision Pro arrives. As a long-time lover of VR, I was very curious to try out the famous headset made by Apple. I had the opportunity at the Apple Store. Just make an appointment and you’ll get a 30-minute demonstration that will give you an idea of the machine.
I won’t go into too much detail, as that has already been brilliantly done. However, I must say that the level of detail is very impressive. If you look straight ahead, it’s hard to tell that you’re looking through a screen. However, there’s still a bit of a ‘ski mask effect’, meaning you can still see the edges of the headset in your peripheral vision.
The effect is so striking that, when a panoramic image taken in Iceland was displayed before my eyes, I got chills, as if I were cold (even though I tested the Apple Vision in the middle of July at the Apple Store in Montpellier…). Similarly, I experienced vertigo when I saw a person walking on a tightrope between two mountains or when I was on the rooftops of Paris with people practicing Parkour.
In a video, when someone blew out candles in front of me, the 3D smoke effect was so convincing that my brain expected my eyes to sting and to smell smoke. There are things like this that are so instinctive that one reacts despite oneself.
Technically, there’s not much to say: it works very well. The screen is excellent with no screen door effect. The sensors accurately interpret the movements of hands, fingers, and eyes. Once you understand that your gaze is the pointer, it’s easy to navigate the interface.
However, it’s not the hardware, nor even the software, that’s the problem. The biggest obstacle to acquiring the Apple Vision Pro is obviously its price. The 30-minute demonstration leaves you with great memories. However, as good as the headset is, nothing justifies a price tag of nearly $4,000. I’m not saying the headset isn’t worth it: the quality of the screens, the noble materials used (glass and metal, almost no plastic), the overall quality, the number and complexity of sensors certainly merit this exorbitant price. However, nothing can justify such a lavish expenditure. Even more so when you realize that Apple provides little content since the release of the headset. This is something I struggle to understand. Apple should have had a roadmap with regular content releases, for example, a short five-minute video every week. It’s all the more incomprehensible as with Apple TV+, the company has interesting content and could easily create 3D videos using their flagship series like Foundation, Silo, Ted Lasso, For All Mankind, Severance, and more. It would be nice to be able to “visit” the various spaceships of For All Mankind or the settings of Silo.
Moreover, in the end, few native applications are available. Apart from those offered by Apple, most of the available applications are just iPad apps. Major developers have shunned the platform: for example, there are no Netflix or YouTube apps. You can still use these services but without the app: you’re forced to use the Safari browser. In itself, this isn’t a big deal, but it speaks volumes about the difficult relationship between Apple and developers. The same goes for independent developers: few have rushed to the App Store for the Apple Vision Pro. And the recent statements from Apple’s management regarding the DMA are not likely to improve things. The result is the absence of a “killer app”, that is, an application that you can’t find anywhere else and that would push you to buy the Apple Vision Pro.
However, I highly recommend that you sign up, if you have the opportunity, to try the Apple Vision Pro. This experience has stayed in my mind for a long time, like a good theme park ride. Nevertheless, the price prevents this product from finding an audience and thus from sustaining its platform: no sales, no market for developers, no content, therefore no sales.
At the end of the demonstration, the salesperson asked me if I wanted to order the headset. I replied that at that price, it’s impossible. What then would be the price that would make me crack? And I think a similar experience, with more content, for $1,000, I might be tempted, but no more.
Apple Vision not Pro
What could a more affordable version of the Apple Vision Pro look like? To lower the price, the design would need to be completely revamped to simplify construction and use cheaper materials. Some say that the hardware alone costs around $1,500. Thus, to lower the bill, plastic could replace much of the metal elements of the headset, making it also much lighter and more balanced. Similarly, the transparent part in front of the outer screen, which is made of glass, could be replaced with plastic, which would also be more economical, easier to assemble, and much lighter. Let’s talk about the outer screen, also called EyeSight.
When you use the headset in augmented reality mode, it displays to the world an image that is supposed to represent your reconstructed gaze. Indeed, everything is artificial: it’s impossible to film your gaze which is completely compressed against the headset. The result leaves much to be desired: it is difficult in practice to see what is displayed. Moreover, the hardware necessary to pull off this trick is very costly. The famous site iFixit, which disassembled the headset, proves it: not only is an OLED screen required, but an additional lenticular layer is also needed for a multi-angle display. Obviously, by eliminating it, this would limit the complexity of the headset as well as its price.
The Apple Vision Pro also has two 4K screens, directly in front of the user’s eyes, which are very expensive: more than $200 per screen, produced exclusively by Sony. If Apple could find other suppliers (like Samsung or LG) and use less complex screens with lower resolution, this too would substantially reduce the bill. Apple is also used to using different quality screens depending on its products. The MacBook Pro has much better screens than the MacBook Air, for example, and the recent release of the new iPad Pro also demonstrates this with its stunning OLED screen of far better quality than the screens of other iPads.
A fairly simple way to lower the price would be to abandon augmented reality. Indeed, to take advantage of it, cameras and sensors (such as a LiDAR) facing outward are required. Getting rid of these would drastically reduce the price and differentiate the two products.
Another change that would save a lot of money: make sure the Apple Vision is not independent. Like many headsets for Windows-running computers, the low-cost headset could be used only when connected to a Mac, an iPad, or an iPhone. Thus, there’s no need for a battery and a hefty processor, allowing for significant savings. Moreover, in practice, this wouldn’t change much since the Apple Vision Pro is currently connected to an external battery permanently. Thus, the new headset could be connected to your iPhone using a USB-C cable. Of course, the question of usage duration arises due to the limited battery of an iPhone, as well as the heat generated by the smartphone during use.
Still, all this has made me want to get into VR. I have a real aversion to Facebook (sorry, Meta) so it’s impossible for me to buy one of their headsets. However, a headset like the Pico 4 could interest me in the future.