I recently read previous podcast guest Niki Black's editorial for the Apple Vision Pro. In light of several of my respective blog postings on the product, I found her perspective interesting and consistent with my thoughts on it.

Niki and I both recognize the steep price of the Apple Vision Pro and that alone may keep lawyers from purchasing one. But we believe it is an amazing device. We agree it has the potential to transform the mundane aspects of travel for lawyers into a more bearable experience. She, too, was impressed by the immersive experience of watching movies (in 3-D), which she deemed unparalleled compared to traditional methods (2-D). Niki highlights the device's innovative interface, which does away with hand controllers, offering a more intuitive interaction through hand movements and gazes.

We agree that most lawyers should hold off on purchasing the device immediately. The current lack of productivity-focused applications and the anticipation of future improvements make it less essential for immediate adoption. Despite its high cost and initial limitations, Niki sees the Apple Vision Pro as a harbinger of the next computing era, particularly for tech-savvy lawyers willing to explore new technologies. I also think it could be a welcome addition to an attorney's toolbox, but I have a more wait-and-see attitude.

Meanwhile, I think you can better spend your money elsewhere. This is why I opted to buy two Samsung 27 Viewfinity S9 Series monitors over the Apple Vision Pro. I strongly believe that the Vision Pro's current lack of productivity capabilities for legal work and its novelty do not justify the investment for professional use today. My path to this conclusion (which may change over time with more productivity features and hardware improvements) parallels my personal journey with the iPad.

The iPad was a significant innovation at the time of its release. But it never entirely replaced laptops for productivity needs. I think Niki and I both agree to take a cautious approach if you are contemplating it more for work than pleasure. This may change with future iterations of its applications, the device itself, and its operating system, and then it may offer more compelling reasons for adoption.

Despite its current lack of productivity features, I believe Niki and I both recognize it as a phenomenal device that could innovate the legal profession!