The consensus is not a surprise: everyone is waiting for Moore's law to kick in and make this device wearable. The hiccup is that we're talking about Moore's law as the one about microchip power, but other tech power laws about battery size (Koomey's law), screen technology, and other material technologies. Chances that these different Moore's laws kick in for an Apple Vision Pro (or non-Pro) V2 or V3 are mostly zero.
Until then, there's no chance proper use cases appear as any problem you'd like to solve with such a weighty and limited device would be solved more efficiently by more standard means.
I'm always primarily bullish on what Apple does, and my get-go analysis is that they know what they're doing. In that regard, I can't believe they would have mistimed how far technologies are to properly unlocking this field.
Here, my view is that they are ready to just sit there for the next five years and put tremendous pressure on Meta and others if they even try to get into the field. Think about it: anytime anyone puts a new VR or AR device on the market, it will be compared to the current Apple Vision Pro model–whether Apple sells a lot or not. In that position, not only Apple doesn't really have to make money with the device, but they poison the well for other companies that would have to a) make money and b) match unrealistic expectations. That's the perk of sitting on a $61.5 billion cash reserve that goes up 20-30% yearly. You can single-handedly asphyxiate a market until you are ready to do something about it at scale—someday.
This is why Apple Vision Pro is a smart strategic move, not because of what the product does or not in all the tech reviews you've been reading.
Last tidbit that made me smile? The only consensual use case that tech journalists saw was using the Apple Vision Pro on a plane to watch movies. As someone who travels by plane quite frequently, it seems irrational that anyone would trade off his carry-on luggage to haul this beautiful, NASA-like hulk of a case.
