Elegantly advanced as the Vision Pro has proven, I was not expecting such a reconigzble feeling.

I now recall reflexively thinking not "wow, I should consider saving up for this," or "wow, should I consider spending a little more than is comfortable on this?", but "wow: perhaps if times and circumstances have changed further into the future than I can see or imagine, I'll be in a position to even think about affording this." That was a routine feeling during Steve Jobs' golden years at Apple, and it's affirming to realize I'd forgotten it. My heart was once set on PowerBooks and Mac Pros, and now, even my entry-level M1 Mac mini has dealt easily with all graphics- and audio-related tasks I've ever passed it.

The "price it aggressively and go for volume" philosophy with which Jobs launched the iPad is not the strategy here. The launch of the Vision Pro more closely resembles that of the first Macintosh, which I'm given to understand cost about 2500 US dollars (nearer the Vision Pro's 3500), and that was one of the only mouse-and-keyboard-type computers it was possible to buy.

After watching and reading many reviews, I've noticed a thickly familiar "1.0" feeling. The possibility of that feeling attests to Apple's positioning of this device as a computer, and of VisionOS as a computing platform. Because it's emerged as a discernible common denominator across their devices' software, the term "computing platform" itself seems more particularly "Apple" than ever. Like the operating systems for the Mac, the iPhone, the iPad, the Apple TV, and the Watch, VisionOS has a perceptible system layer upon which run apps, which leverage foundational and higher-level internal frameworks. One might have thought a headset and a smartphone incomparably different devices, but this is the first time since the iPhone's launch 17(!) years ago that something has felt this much like the first iPhone. There it is: a home screen with a few built-in apps. Not "all of them" – just the essentials plus a few more. The app icons apparently can't be freely rearranged or placed in folders. There are already native apps from other developers, but it's well under a thousand – still a lot, but the fewest there will ever be.

The battery life of this 3500-dollar device? About two-and-a-half hours, and to use it without the battery's charge, you still have to plug in the battery. Aside from that, the broad message I'm perceiving is that the device's size, field of view and weight are the biggest challenges most in need of addressing if not revolutionizing.

Even for a first version, it's ambitious and excels in several areas. I've heard only one reviewer say they perceived visible pixellation. The team really did go for easily-captured and fully-rendered "personas" for use in lieu of what would normally be the purpose of a webcam. With all this interpolation of the real world with every foreground app, all in super-high resolution and in stereo 3-D, I've heard no complaints about the latency or frame rate. People seem to marvel at the naturalness and precision of looking and tapping, and the fixedness of app windows to locations around their room, and even around other rooms. To achieve that much that well required the decade following the resurrection of the modern headset marked by the Oculus Rift. For a "1.0" moment, it's one of the better ones.

And I know this little symphony of technology will only evolve from here, and the "1.0" moment will fade swiftly. It is relatively quiet and temporary, and I shall enjoy it for that. It's one more moment those who will come later might wish they could have witnessed.