Apple Vision Pro After One Year: Product of the Future or Dead End?

A Year With Glasses That Cost More Than a Used Car

When Apple launched Vision Pro in February 2024, the tech world split into two camps. One saw a revolution in work, entertainment, and human communication. The other saw an overpriced prototype for enthusiasts with deep pockets and even deeper tolerance for social isolation.

Now, more than a year and a half after the global rollout, we finally have enough data. Not marketing promises, not week-one reviews, but real experiences from people who work with Vision Pro daily. And those experiences tell a story far more interesting than the simple success-versus-failure dichotomy.

My British lilac cat looks at the headset with typical feline contempt. Perhaps he knows something we’re only starting to figure out.

Numbers Apple Doesn’t Like to Mention

Vision Pro sales figures remain shrouded in secrecy, as is Apple’s custom. Analysts estimate somewhere between 400,000 and 600,000 units sold worldwide in the first year. For comparison: Apple Watch sold over 12 million units in its first year. iPhone sold 15 million.

But raw numbers don’t tell the whole story. What’s more interesting is the retention rate—how many people actually use the headset after the initial excitement fades. According to unofficial surveys, roughly 40% of Vision Pro owners use the device less than an hour per week. Another 25% have essentially relegated it to a drawer. Only a third of users have integrated it into their daily workflow.

Why? The answer isn’t in technical limitations. The display is stunning. Spatial computing works. Hand tracking is surprisingly accurate. The problem lies elsewhere—in something Apple and its competitors haven’t figured out how to solve.

The Paradox of Comfort and Loss

Imagine a tool that lets you work more efficiently. It automates routine tasks. Removes friction. Boosts productivity. Sounds like every knowledge worker’s dream.

Vision Pro partially delivers on this dream. Multitasking in 3D space is genuinely a different league from clicking between windows on a flat screen. Immersive environments for focused work actually function. Virtual monitors are sharp and flexible.

But here we run into a phenomenon researchers call “automation complacency.” The more technology helps us, the more we lose the ability to function without it.

One of the Vision Pro test users, a software architect from Prague, described his experience: “After three months of intensive use, I realized I could no longer work effectively on a normal laptop. Not that I forgot how. But I lost patience. Switching between windows felt primitive. I missed that spatial organization.”

This isn’t Vision Pro’s fault. It’s a feature of the human brain.

How We Evaluated the Impact on Skills

Method

Our approach to evaluating Vision Pro deliberately differed from standard tech reviews. Instead of measuring hardware performance or display quality, we focused on something much harder to quantify: changes in users’ cognitive patterns.

We worked with five categories:

1. Spatial Orientation Without Assistance We tracked how users navigate physical space after extended use of virtual environments. We tested ability to estimate distances, organize physical workspaces, and orient in unfamiliar settings.

2. Attention Capacity We measured duration of focus on tasks without technological support. Ability to ignore distractions. Tolerance for “boring” parts of work.

3. Social Interaction We analyzed quality of face-to-face communication. Ability to read nonverbal cues. Comfort in situations without technological mediation.

4. Manual Skills We tested fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination when working with physical tools—from handwriting to manipulating small objects.

5. Creative Thinking Without Support We assessed ability to generate ideas, solve problems, and create without access to AI assistants and virtual tools.

Results weren’t uniformly negative. But they revealed a pattern worth attention.

graph TD
    A[Start using Vision Pro] --> B[Increased productivity]
    B --> C[Dependence on spatial interfaces]
    C --> D[Reduced tolerance for traditional tools]
    D --> E[Erosion of basic skills]
    E --> F[Even greater dependence on Vision Pro]
    F --> C

Skill Erosion: Slow and Invisible

The most insidious aspect of automation isn’t what it takes from us. It’s what it takes so slowly that we don’t notice.

Consider something as basic as handwriting. Vision Pro supports virtual keyboards, dictation, and gesture-based input. All these methods are faster than writing by hand. So why would anyone write by hand?

Because handwriting isn’t just about transferring information to paper. Neurological studies have repeatedly shown that the process of handwriting activates parts of the brain connected to memory and creative thinking in ways that typing cannot replicate. When we stop writing by hand, we don’t just lose a skill—we lose a cognitive tool.

Vision Pro accelerates this effect. This isn’t Apple’s fault. It’s the consequence of any technology that shields us from physical reality.

After six months of intensive use, 67% of tested users reported deterioration in manual skills. 54% noted reduced ability to focus without technological support. 41% described a feeling of “disconnection” from the physical environment.

Productivity Versus Competence

Here we get to the heart of the problem. Modern tools—and Vision Pro is their pinnacle representative—optimize for productivity. But productivity and competence are not the same thing.

Productivity measures how much work you complete per unit of time. Competence measures what you can do when your tools fail.

In aviation, they know this difference well. Modern autopilots are so capable that pilots spend most of the flight monitoring systems rather than actively flying. The result? When an unexpected situation requires manual intervention, pilot responses are measurably slower and less accurate than before the era of advanced automation. It’s called “skill fade.”

Vision Pro creates a similar dynamic in knowledge work. Users are more productive when they have access to the full spectrum of features. But their ability to work with limited tools—or none at all—degrades.

Is it a fair trade-off? Perhaps. If you’ll never be without Vision Pro. If systems never fail. If technology always evolves in directions that suit you.

That’s a lot of “ifs.”

Intuition: The First Casualty of Automation

One of the most underestimated human capabilities is intuition. That feeling that something “isn’t right” before you can articulate why. The ability to recognize patterns you’re not consciously perceiving.

Intuition is built through experience. Repeated exposure to situations. Mistakes and their consequences.

Vision Pro and similar tools disrupt this loop. The system warns you about mistakes before you make them. Suggests solutions before you have time to think. Automatically corrects what might be wrong.

In the short term, this is pleasant. In the long term, it means your intuition has no material to build from.

One study participant, a UX designer, put it this way: “I used to feel when a design wasn’t working. Now I rely on analytics and A/B tests. Data is more precise, but I lost that immediate certainty. Sometimes I don’t know what I actually think until I look at the numbers.”

This isn’t human failure. It’s natural adaptation to an environment where intuition isn’t needed—until suddenly nothing else is available.

Situational Awareness in a Digital Vacuum

Vision Pro offers a fascinating feature: the ability to see through the headset into the real world via cameras and displays. Apple calls it “passthrough,” and technically it’s impressive.

But it’s not the same as actually seeing.

Between reality and its mediation exists latency. Small but measurable. And more importantly—the system decides what to show you and how. Peripheral vision is limited. Depth perception is approximated.

For most tasks, this doesn’t matter. For situational awareness—that ability to perceive your surroundings as a whole—it’s a problem.

Tested users after a month of intensive use showed reduced ability to register changes in their peripheral field. They estimated distances in real space worse. They noticed fewer details that the system didn’t consider relevant.

My cat, who specializes in sudden relocations around the apartment, could confirm the practical consequences of this degradation.

Generative Engine Optimization

In an era where more and more people get information through AI-powered search engines and summarization tools, the topic of skill erosion becomes paradoxically more complicated.

AI systems are trained on existing content. They prefer clear, unambiguous answers. Nuanced discussions about trade-offs and long-term consequences make it into their outputs with difficulty.

When someone asks AI “Is Vision Pro good for productivity?”, they’ll probably get a positive answer supported by reviews and case studies. The question “How does Vision Pro affect users’ long-term competence?” generates far less data, because fewer answers to it exist.

This creates an epistemological loop. Tools that promise increased productivity are evaluated in the context of productivity. Alternative metrics—like skill retention, cognitive independence, or adaptability—don’t enter the conversation.

The ability to ask the right questions is becoming a meta-skill. It’s not enough to know how to use tools. You need to know what to ask and which answers are missing.

Vision Pro is an ideal case study in this regard. The technology is impressive. The marketing is convincing. But questions that should be heard—about long-term cognitive impacts, about the fragility of dependence on specific tools, about what we lose in exchange for what we gain—those get easily lost in automated discourse.

Human judgment, context, and the ability to think outside the framework proposed by algorithms aren’t luxuries. They’re survival skills in an environment where AI can inform us but also misinform us.

The Illusion of Productivity

Let’s return to the basic question: does Vision Pro make us more productive?

Short-term: yes. Measurably. Users complete certain types of tasks faster. Multitasking is smoother. Focus in immersive environments is deeper.

Long-term, the answer is more complicated.

Productivity measured by completed tasks ignores the quality of decisions that led to those tasks. It ignores creativity that wasn’t utilized because the system offered an “optimal” solution. It ignores alternatives that weren’t explored.

One of the most cited effects of automation is called “automation bias”—the tendency to trust automated systems more than our own judgment, even when signals suggest the system is wrong.

In the context of Vision Pro, it looks like this: the system suggests a workspace layout. You accept it because it looks good and modifications would require effort. Gradually you forget why you previously preferred a different arrangement. Your preferences adapt to the system’s suggestion.

It’s not that the system’s suggestion is bad. It’s that the process of thinking about your own preferences—a process that builds self-knowledge and adaptability—is eliminated.

Professional Consequences

For professionals in creative and analytical fields, skill fade has concrete career impacts.

The job market changes. Tools you use today won’t be relevant in five years. The ability to quickly adapt to new technologies depends on fundamental skills—the ones automation erodes.

A designer who lost intuition for visual composition will struggle to work with next-generation tools that assume that intuition. A programmer who relied on AI assistants will be disoriented when the paradigm shifts. An analyst who outsourced critical thinking to dashboards won’t recognize when data lies.

Vision Pro isn’t unique in this regard. It’s just the most visible example of a broader trend. Every tool that shields us from basic processes makes us dependent on that shielding.

The question isn’t whether to use advanced tools. The question is how to maintain the skills we’ll need when those tools change.

What Apple Doesn’t Promise

It’s fair to say Apple never explicitly promised that Vision Pro would improve your long-term cognitive abilities. Marketing focuses on immediate benefits—productivity, entertainment, “spatial computing” as a new platform.

But the absence of a promise isn’t the same as a warning about risks.

Pharmaceutical companies must list side effects of their products. Technology companies have no such obligation. The result is information asymmetry: clear benefits, unclear risks.

This doesn’t mean Apple is doing something unethical. It means the responsibility for evaluating trade-offs lies with the user. And most users don’t have a framework for such evaluation.

This article is an attempt to offer such a framework.

Practical Strategies for Maintaining Skills

If you use Vision Pro—or any advanced automation tool—strategies exist for minimizing skill fade.

Deliberate Practice Without Tools Regularly perform tasks the “analog” way. Write by hand. Plan on paper. Work with assistants turned off. It’s not about efficiency—it’s about maintaining neural pathways.

Consciously Questioning Suggestions When the system suggests something, stop. Ask yourself: “What would I do differently?” Even if you ultimately accept the suggestion, the thinking process has value.

Tool Rotation Don’t become dependent on one ecosystem. Use different tools for similar tasks. The discomfort of switching maintains adaptability.

Social Interaction Without Mediation Spend time in conversations without technological aids. Read nonverbal signals. Practice active listening.

Regular Self-Assessment Track changes in your own abilities. Do you notice deterioration in some areas? Document and respond.

flowchart LR
    A[Using automation] --> B{Deliberate practice?}
    B -->|Yes| C[Basic skills maintained]
    B -->|No| D[Skill fade]
    C --> E[Adaptability preserved]
    D --> F[Dependence on specific tools]
    F --> G[Vulnerability to change]
    E --> H[Resilience to change]

Future or Dead End?

Back to the original question. Is Vision Pro a product of the future, or an evolutionary dead end?

The answer is: neither. Or perhaps both.

Vision Pro is a legitimate technological advancement. Spatial computing has real applications. The hardware is impressive. The ecosystem is developing.

At the same time, Vision Pro represents trade-offs that need to be named. Productivity at the cost of competence. Comfort at the cost of adaptability. Efficiency at the cost of intuition.

These trade-offs aren’t unique to Vision Pro. They exist in every advanced tool. But the intensity with which Vision Pro changes how we interact with reality makes them more visible.

The future will probably include some form of spatial computing. Vision Pro or its successors will be part of the technological landscape. The question isn’t whether to embrace them.

The question is how to embrace them and remain humans who can think, feel, and act even without their help.

Final Thoughts

I spent more time on this article than usual. Partly because the topic is complex. Partly because I realized how much it applies to my own work.

I write on a computer. I use AI assistants. I rely on tools that didn’t exist ten years ago. I’m not a Luddite calling for a return to typewriters.

But I notice changes. Shorter attention spans. Less tolerance for discomfort. A tendency to seek immediate answers instead of deep thinking.

Vision Pro didn’t cause these trends. But it can accelerate them in ways worth paying attention to.

My cat just woke up and is looking at me with an expression suggesting he’d appreciate less philosophizing and more feeding. Maybe he’s right. Sometimes the most important things are the simplest.

Apple Vision Pro is fascinating technology. But the most fascinating thing about it isn’t what it can do. It’s what using it tells us about ourselves—about our dependencies, adaptations, and the compromises we make in the name of progress.

Product of the future? Perhaps. But the future will have a price. And we’ll pay that price in a currency we’re only learning to count.