I’ll confess that when Apple introduced its mixed-reality Vision Pro headsets on Monday, one of my first thoughts was: Man, that thing looks weird. I wasn’t alone. On social media, the reaction to the Vision Pro was less than kind. Skeptics mocked the device’s snowboard-goggle-like appearance, its steep price tag ($3,500) and Apple’s lofty pitch about the “spatial computing” era its arrival heralded. There were comparisons to the robot WALL-E, and Twitter memes about people watching pornography in virtual reality.

I get it. I’ve been a virtual reality skeptic for years, and I have long wondered why the technology hasn’t gone mainstream, even as headset quality has improved. I was always dubious about Mark Zuckerberg’s pitch for the metaverse, which had “personal conquest” vibes more so than “actual market demand” vibes. And if you had asked me before Monday’s announcement whether I thought Apple’s mixed-reality headset signified the beginning of a huge, earthshaking platform shift, on the order of the original iPhone’s arrival, I would have said no.

But after seeing Apple demonstrate the Vision Pro on Monday — and reading the generally positive reviews from folks who have tested it — I now think it could be a big deal, and possibly even the first hint of a revolutionary new computing platform.

There are plenty of reasons the Vision Pro could flop. It could be too expensive, too ugly, too isolating. Persuading developers to build good, useful smartphone apps is easier than persuading them to build apps for a device you have to strap to your head, for an audience that has never really materialized at a meaningful scale. And Apple could discover what Meta has found so far with its forays into productivity-based VR apps — that there just aren’t a ton of people in the world who are interested in reading their emails in VR.

But I can’t dismiss the possibility that despite its limitations — such as the need to tote around a connected battery pack — the Vision Pro could be a hit. Is it expensive? Yes. But so are lots of first-generation gadgets, and the “Pro” in the name suggests that a less expensive, more consumer-oriented model may be on the way.

Is it fun and impressive to use? Early testers seem to think so, although they haven’t had much time with it, and they’re a fairly excitable group. The real test will come when the devices are shipped to users (early next year, according to Apple) and people start working them into their daily routines.

Part of my open-mindedness to the Vision

Pro, I admit, is due to a kind of tech columnist PTSD. In 2013, before the first Apple Watch was released, I wrote a column confidently declaring that smartwatches were a dumb idea. I mocked their looks, dismissed them as expensive toys and boldly proclaimed that Apple would be crazy to invest heavily in a product category that I couldn’t imagine resonating beyond young, moneyed Silicon Valley nerds. (Apple is now the No. 1 watch brand in the world, and it sells an estimated 40 million watches every year. I wear one, as do many of my friends and relatives.)

I neglected to remember that Apple is Apple, and that it has repeatedly demonstrated that it can, through sheer force of will, turn a niche product for nerds into a thing that everyone wants. That’s a testament to the company’s famous product and marketing prowess. And it’s part of why I’m reluctant to dismiss the Vision Pro’s chances.