Like many of you, I’ve been consuming the first reactions to the Vision Pro. The measured reviews by respected critics, those fearing the isolation from reality it might bring and the true believers using it in ways that show more fantasy than common sense. Even the occasional Macho Man Randy Savage comparison.

I love the idea in theory, but the more I read about it, and the more I reflect on the product, the more I think Apple missed the target by focusing on their vision (heh) than what their product actually could be.

Here’s the key question - when the Vision Pro’s sheen wears off, when the interface’s restrictions start to constrict rather than merely challenge, when it has to be more than just a fancy close-up high-res screen and become a tool to be used, what will it bring to the table that cheaper devices like the Quest don’t? It interfaces well with the Apple ecosystem, sure, but not everyone uses the Apple ecosystem or wants to. We already have devices with screens for doing work and keeping in contact. We already have fantastic screens for consuming media. It’s really high quality, sure, but a tool is only a tool when it’s used. How will this $3,500+ device be used a month, six months, a year after purchase?

What problems does it solve? Here’s one example: Take a look at this video of a mechanic fixing his car(1). They’re using a Meta Quest while working, but nothing is overlaid on the engine. Instead, a few virtual windows are placed to the side with repair manuals, web sites and a YouTube video. Their hands are free to do the actual work in front of him, without having to prop a phone or laptop nearby. It’s not hard to think of similar use cases.(2) Anywhere you can augment your existing job with live visual data and simple interactions while needing your hands and without juggling extra screens, these headsets can be an effective solution.

When the work is done? It can be put away, put in a bag, waiting to be used again. That’s the thing about tools, they get put away when they’re not needed. They’re not meant to interface between me and the world; they’re to help me interface with the world.

The thing is, you don’t need a $3,500+ headset to achieve the goal of having ambient data while having your hands free. The Meta Quest starts at $500. That’s about 15% of the cost of what Apple is charging, for something that does a job long after the wow factor wears off. It’s more accessible for developers to afford and play with, and it’s more accessible for consumers. It isn’t as well made as the Vision Pro, but it doesn’t need to be.

Apple missed the use case by emphasizing ways it can be enjoyed over what could be productively done with the Vision Pro. Picture this as an alternative: A headset that solved the head fatigue issue many reviewers are reporting using advanced materials and clever design. It can’t do environmental overlays and only blocks the outside world in cinema mode, which isn’t as good as a 4K TV but perfect when you want to enjoy something privately. It doesn’t have a front LCD screen trying to mimic your eyes; instead, it recognizes lifting the device up your head like a pair of sunglasses similarly to taking an AirPod out of an ear - pausing the information feed, to resume when you lower it back into your gaze. It comes with a USB-C port for power and hardware interfaces; the external battery it comes with allows passthrough for data. It works with keyboard shortcuts as well as gestures to help you navigate the interface however you’re most comfortable. And it’s built to work with existing apps and programs on your Mac, iPad and iOS devices, so you can use what you’re familiar with. (3) (4)

I’m pretty certain such a device can be made for much less than the current asking price of the Vision Pro. It would be an immediately useful tool, and be more accessible for developers and tinkerers to play with. Instead of trying to anticipate the perfect vision of a headset, this would be a solid entrance into the field focused on quality, value and exploration that other platforms can’t match. And yes, maybe they considered all this and found some technical challenges, but a first generation product doesn’t have to do everything. A first generation product doesn’t have to showboat or swing for the fences, it just has to prove there’s something there worth investing in, and be a solid foundation for future development.

As it is, I think the Vision Pro is an expensive luxury item that loses its value as soon as the rose colored lens are dirtied. The problems I have with existing platforms and devices have nothing to do with arranging panels in immersive 3D space and making me think I’m on the moon; they have to do with those apps themselves, how they’re programed and enable or interfere with my goals. This device, as is, substitutes an impressive and arrogant vision for a proposed solution and invitation to explore. I don’t know if the future involves VR or AR, but I hope it isn’t this.

(1) Yes, it’s a Youtube video of a guy talking about a TikTok video playing on a Reddit page. It’s the only copy I could find that wasn’t directly on TikTok, so…

(2) A utility pole worker who uses live data for safety and efficiency while working on the wires, comes to mind as an example. The key point here is the person could do the job without the ambient information, but it helps them to do the job in a way that’s safer, or faster, or more efficient.

(3) If the Vision Pro already does some of this, great! I’m not arguing the device doesn’t do this, just that it doesn’t have to do more, or to the degree that it does.

(4) For people who need to use it with glasses, like me? If the device can scan our faces to make an avatar, I wonder if it can scan physical glasses too, and then adjust the device output for them, along with knowing your prescription. Maybe Apple could partner with a high-end glasses manufacturer, like the Apple Watch had the Hermes band partnership - stylish glasses that are guaranteed to work with the device. For everyone else, Bring Your Own Lens!