Beyond Gadgets: The Social and Ethical Challenges of Apple’s Vision Pro

In 1943, Thomas J Watson, chairman of IBM, said that he believed there was a world market for maybe five computers. History has shown that this was a gross underestimate of the potential of technology. The question is whether the same could be said about Apple’s recently released AR headset, the Vision Pro.

The Vision Pro is a standalone spatial computer that does not require a computer to function. Apple claims that it will revolutionize how we interact with the world. But is it really what Apple says it is, or is it just another AR headset, albeit one that uses cutting-edge technology?

There is no denying that the Vision Pro is innovative. It has a sleek design, a cutting-edge R1 chip, and retina-scorching displays that can create unparalleled immersive experiences. Compared to other AR/VR headsets on the market, the Vision Pro’s hand tracking, eye tracking, and spatial audio are seamlessly integrated, creating a sense of presence that goes beyond the limitations of flat screens. Imagine collaborating with colleagues on a virtual whiteboard, dissecting complex concepts through interactive 3D models, or exploring the Martian landscape from your living room. These are just a few examples of the transformative potential that the Vision Pro promises.

However, the Vision Pro also has some significant drawbacks. The base model costs $3,499, which is a major barrier to entry for many people, even early adopters. Additionally, there is a lack of spatial apps available for the Vision Pro. While Apple has made its Vision iOS apps available in the App Store, the current AR/VR app development is not very good. Many apps are simply the same as their iPad versions, but ported to AR. It seems that developers only need to tick a box to make their apps available on Vision OS. Many existing experiences are more gimmick than game-changer, and do not justify the high price tag. Even major companies like YouTube and Netflix have not created Vision OS-specific apps, and their apps can only be accessed through the browser, which is not a satisfactory experience.

Another concern is the potential for health problems associated with the Vision Pro’s immersive nature. The headset could encourage extended use, which could lead to isolation and neglect of real-world interactions. While Apple emphasizes the pass-through mode, the potential for addiction and sensory overload cannot be ignored. Regulatory frameworks and ethical considerations need to evolve alongside this technology to ensure responsible use.

Finally, the digital divide is another issue that needs to be considered. Access to cutting-edge technology often exacerbates existing inequalities. If devices like the Vision Pro become essential for education, healthcare, or other crucial aspects of life, those who cannot afford them will be left behind.

In conclusion, while the Vision Pro is a technological leap forward, its actual impact remains uncertain. Its success will depend on several factors, including affordability, app development, responsible use and guidelines, and ensuring equitable access. While it may not be the five computers of our era, its potential to change how we interact with information, collaborate, and even perceive reality cannot be dismissed. This brings us back to Watson’s miscalculation. His mistake was not underestimating the power of technology, but rather failing to anticipate its diverse applications and societal impact. The Vision Pro presents a similar challenge. It is not just a piece of hardware; it is a gateway to a new spatial computing paradigm. Success or failure will depend on whether we can harness its potential responsibly, shaping it as a technological marvel and a tool for positive change in our world.