As an avp owner, the current resolution is the absolute bare minimum for any productivity work involving virtual monitors / text. LCD would also make the movie watching experience way worse.
I have not used the AVP. From what I understand though, apple is really not getting all they can from that resolution. Meta Quest 3 is I think just over half the resolution, and has been measured to resolve text better than AVP. I really don't understand the science behind it all, but I can imagine a world where Apple comes out with a lower resolution headset that actually looks better for productivity than their first gen headset. I really don't think 4k per eye is actually the min needed.
yeah THIS right there is my number one beef with all AR/VR options I've looked at to try and replace my daily driver monitor.. ass-loads of 1080p lightweight glasses >_> and then hefty higher res screens that aren't comfortable to wear all day... I was seriously hoping AVP would evolve into a lighter/smaller form factor and keep or even increase its DPI.. not *reduce* it wtf
You can still do most other things on a Mac, and they sell based on *how well* they do those other things. This all circles back to the question of what a VR headset does *uniquely* well.
Well Apple is advertising it as like a PC floating in your eyes. I guess if it runs anything a Mac does, it does have some real world use.
But that doesn't change the fact you can buy a top of the line MacBook Pro for nearly the same price.
If the Vision Pro had been released as literally just a Mac display (that actually supports stuff you’d expect like, I don’t know, multiple screens?) it would probably be selling like gangbusters.
At the end of the day anyone multitasking with several screens is going to find it draining to work with a virtual keyboard. And once you’ve got the physical keyboard anchoring you to one spot why not just use several monitors instead of AVP.
I can see a usage case for traveling - Stuck in an airline seat for X hours and keeping occupied working on AVP, but I’m not sure that’s a huge market to tap.
AR makes working with a virtual keyboard a non-issue as you’re probably mirroring something right in front of you with a physical keyboard.
The use case is probably laptops mostly
Outside of the few people who like VR games I literally don’t understand the point of VR goggles. Wish they’d focus on slim AR glasses instead. No one wants to live in a separate vr world - we want to add to the real world.
This is literally Apple’s entire position in this space. That’s why the headset has a dial to change the amount of AR and VR. You can be fully AR or you can dial it up and be in a fully VR environment or anywhere in between. This is the first version of the device. It can only get better from here and, if the technology to make glasses existed, Apple would be making them. The issue is that it doesn’t so they went for the experience first and will make each newer version smaller and smaller until they’re glasses. At that point, you’ll have glasses that can be AR or VR and all the kinks will have been worked out.
It's quite cool for art though. Standing in front of art pieces like 2d paintings or 3d sculptures in person gives you a very different sensation than seeing it on a photo. In VR you can kinda recreate that live sensation.
> and they sell based on how well they do those other things.
Do you remember the size of MacOS market share? They honestly don't sell all that well compared to PCs.
Edit: For those that want to know MacOS makes up less than 15% of the market and has been receding over the last 2ish years from a peak of just over 17%.
I wonder if there are stats for personal vs office use. Cuz, yeah, most offices and bulk orders are PCs, but - anecdotally - the VAST majority of people I see around in the real world are on Macs.
You are likely seeing this in airports and coffee shops; a demographic that will be heavily focused on students and higher income individuals that will likely skew heavier towards Mac. Also likely some location bias - if you are in a major coastal metro city you will be surrounded by a younger, wealthier demographic in general and the same trends will apply.
The only reason why apple has that high of a marketshare is because they're the sole company that sell mac OS computers, but if you could buy third party computers with Mac OS as you can with windows, Apple wouldn't have that high of a marketshare.
Absolutely true which is why it was one of the stupidest moves they ever actually did was license out the software back in their trending towards bankruptcy days
Sure, but found reading text on the Vision Pro to be quite painful (compared even to a 4k 27” external monitor), if they’re planning to go even lower in resolution, I don’t think it’s going to be great for productivity.
I agree - I found the 30”+ 1080p resolution to be very limiting in terms of sharpness and DPI compared to my 16” MacBook display and my 1440p 27” external monitor.
I’m extremely picky with sharpness to the point it’s literally the only reason I got a Studio Display. And I completely disagree. The VD looks about the same as a 27” 4K to me, with the bonus that I can making it much larger while keeping the image quality.
Of COURSE once I take it off and look at either my mbp or my SD it looks orders of magnitudes better for a while.
I don’t know if it’s on purpose or what, but the main point of VD is the practicality. I can see why people who don’t travel much or always work in exactly the same place would not use it all. For me, it becomes worth the price tag when I’m traveling and get a giant display in a hotel room or even a plane.
I guess maybe you’re right that it’s only noticeably bad when moving to/from it from/to some 300ppi+ display.
However I’m not sure the practically aspect of it is really there. Granted I only did a demo at the Apple Store, but I can’t imagine having it on my face for more than a couple of hours. (That might be fine for many people but not sure it is for me at that price)
At two to three times the cost.
Oh, and it's tethered to your phone. Just in case you missed the old days of snagging something on your headphones.
Sounds attractive...
A "pro level OS" where you can't access the filesystem and you can't run macOS apps? Also, it has no pro-level software to make it useful, and none of the currently existing software leverages the device's whole gimmick.
I mean you can connect it to your Mac and run everything that way which is the main way the productivity was advertised with the device. And with the upcoming ultra wide feature the productivity during mirroring should get even better
You can do the same with a Quest. Connect it your laptop and boom, productivity
Heck, you can connect it to your Mac and there’s productivity there too.
It's the same reason why Apple won't allow your iPhone to turn into a usable Mac when it is connected to a Display. Money. They want to sell you more devices.
You know what? It feels worse with the vision pro given it’s a brand new “Pro” product category and Apple had the chance to innovate and replace the Mac by making it actually pro given all the criticism surrounding Apple locking iPhones and iPad down.
Of course it doesn’t look like they learned
Metas OS is a joke. It’s a toy. While Apple doesn’t yet have a fully flushed out OS, it’ll be more stable and likely last longer than an android based OS
It was so insane to me when I got a Quest 3, and found out I literally can’t open PDF’s. I know it’s not a typical use case, but it’s just so insane to me.
Expecting every OS to open PDF is also insane.
I don't expect PlayStation 5, Samsung TV, Apple Watch to open a PDF. That's not what it is designed for. If it can, cool, but it is insane to expect every OS, every system, from toaster to fridge to open a PDF.
That's Adobe's problem.
Android-based systems gain the benefit of side loading along with a significant hobbyist & enthusiast community, Apple are making a lot of big strides in their OS to improve functionality but only when it aligns with their vision of the product. Look at the current state of the iPad Pro line, fantastic hardware but held back by arbitrary rules on its usage.
The Quest series has made massive strides in the feasibility of consumer-focussed VR, is targeted at a price point accessible to the average consumer, and is supported by several 3rd party manufacturers for physical accessories and enterprise software. Apple have positioned themselves well to make use of a lot of that innovation, and their expertise in marrying premium hardware with their OS is clearly apparent, but they also need a self-supporting market that is willing to invest in their vision for VR/XR.
I think the big question is whether consumers can see VR as a tool for productivity or just a platform for gaming & immersive experiences. Meta have shown that VR is viable for gaming and their release of Meta OS proves this, but I don't think the same case can be made for Apple's vision just yet.
As the market slowly transitions to focus on AR/XR experiences it'll be interesting to see how both product lines mature, presumably the two approaches will eventually converge to a commercially-viable middle ground.
This entire product category is a joke. Very few people want to spend $3500 on a product less functional than a MacBook of the same price. Meta has at least a decent game library and they focus on gaming, yet they are still losing sales and industry interest in developing VR software has never been lower.
I think Apple is implementing a new rule that if your app can be compatible with the VP, it must be.
Kinda the same we they now require iOS apps to be compatible with iPad.
So I would not be surprised if in a year or two that cross compatibility is a thing.
I honestly don’t see this cheaper headset doing well either with that $1500-2000 price tag that’s rumored. Even with the dual 4k screens on the Vision Pro, the pass through was not perfect in my opinion. Lower resolution and bigger screen means the PPI is going to be way worse. And there’s still no killer app use cases yet.
The thing is, this _is_ the reasonable price point. This is the cost of materials plus a profit small enough that it would still take years or decades to pay back all the R&D that went into it.
Unfortunately, Facebook has distorted people's expectations of what a reasonable price point is by selling theirs at a loss. This has driven nearly all competitors out of the market, catastrophically stunting advancement of the technology.
The main issue here is that Apple has pushed for a device that is years away from being mainstream and that makes marketing the device really difficult.
When Apple released the iPhone it was way too expensive, but apple was quickly able to slash the price by around $200 after a couple of months, essentially reducing the upfront costs for the device by a whopping 40% ($500 to $300 subsidized). The 3G device slashed the up front cost down to $100 making it comparably priced to other smartphones and because smartphones were heavily subsidized at that time, it was a no brainer for interested customers.
The iPad was a master class in pricing. Everyone was expecting Apple to launch it at around $1000. Some competitors released their tablets a couple of months before the iPad introduction at prices between $800-1200.
Suddenly, Apple released the iPad for $500 and killed any non-niche competition above this price point. Only Google nexus tablets and Kindle Fire tablets at much lower price points were able to survive in the market but they eventually fizzled out while Apple is controlling the tablet market for most price points.
Apple Watch is the same. They made the pricing so scalable that you can get a cheap sport watch for $250-300 up to a full fledged Ultra for $1000 and special editions. The “edition” watches which were in the tens of thousands were easy to cut off as they differed only in casing and materials but not in functionality.
But the Apple Vision Pro is a difficult sell. It is as if Apple would have released the AirPods Max first and struggled to miniaturize to smaller and cheaper AirPods.
Eventually they will be able to bring the price point down in a couple of years but they will be a niche product for half a decade until they will be ready for the main stream and Apple needs to be really patient until the technology is ready and given that they already spent billions on it and will need to spend further billions until they can make money out of them, it might be interesting to see if they can allow to be patient or if they will pull the plug like they did on the Apple car.
It’s the chicken and the egg technology evolution problem. At some point you have to just release the device to see what works, what doesn’t, and what can be improved.
Like you said, unlike iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch you really can’t offer massive improvements from generation to generation. The technology needed does not really exist yet/it’s not cost effective yet for mass production. Even if you cut the device cost by a thousand dollars on version 2. How many more people would buy it with the price cut?
I really think it’s going to take several generations to turn it into a device that people actually want. Which is something a lot lighter, cheaper, untethered from a battery pack, etc. Basically something that looks like a standard pair of glasses, but that might be a minimum of a decade away.
Will they ever be able to make it cheaper than an iphone, though? I think part of why the Watch was successful was because it was in “impulse purchase”/gifting price range. But anything in the iphone price range is outside that range, and that’s a lot to ask for an accessory.
Is the Vision Pro really an accessory? Apple wants consumers to believe it is a PC. I think it’s more akin to a smart TV, at least when considering its current software capabilities.
I believe this was always foolish. The target market for this device are wealthy Apple users. The target market owns recent-generation Apple devices. Do minimal on-device processing and outsource almost everything to an M-series Mac. Save money, battery, weight.
Reasonable is relative to value, and this has very low value for the average consumer. I truly have no idea what I would do with it that I can't just do on my laptop instead. I couldn't possibly care less how expensive it is to manufacture, that's not my problem.
For me, unlimited virtual monitors could provide the screen real estate I need for work while preserving the portability of a laptop.
Others might not value that, but as someone who works from home this essential feature would make the device a better replacement for a laptop.
I guess the problem is there’s a difference in what’s a “reasonable price point” based on cost of materials and what people are willing to pay. It’s like 2.5k higher than most people are willing to pay.
It’s not a reasonable price point based on the value, or lack thereof, that it’s adding to the person’s life. They got away with $1300 phones because of how valuable they are in our everyday lives
>The thing is, this *is* the reasonable price point.
no, it is not. There is simply **not a good business case** for AVP until technology improvements allow the price to come down or the functionality to go way up.
IMO, Apple, like Meta was afraid of being late to the XR game so they bought VRvana and then polished it for years. Maybe they are still too early. Maybe the AVP is the *Apple Newton* -- an idea that was good but the underlying tech was not there yet.
---
It will be interesting to see what the less expensive Apple Vision actually looks like rather than getting rumors.
It’s not like Meta is subsidising the Quest with a thousand dollars though. And nothing really prevents Apple from doing the same thing (except it not being the way of Apple).
> It’s not like Meta is subsidising the Quest with a thousand dollars though.
They only need to subsidize their VR hardware enough to ensure that no one is allowed to make money on VR hardware, and that is enough to chase all other participants out of the market. That's how [predatory pricing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing) works.
> And nothing really prevents Apple from doing the same thing (except it not being the way of Apple).
It would require Apple throwing away their entire business model.
The only way to accept a loss on hardware sales is to make that money up somewhere else. That would require changing to a business that makes a ton of paid services mandatory and/or one that harvests and monetizes user data.
Given that their current business model is extremely successful, it seems unlikely that they would be willing to toss it all away and get down into the muck with Google and Facebook and try to outcompete them at their dubious game. Nor would it be anything to celebrate for those of us who choose Apple's products specifically because they _don't_ engage in such slimy shenanigans as spying on their users.
One of Apple’s biggest revenue streams and their fastest growing revenue stream is the App Store. I’m pretty sure Apple could subsidise the Apple Vision Pro if they wanted too.
They simply haven’t had a reason to subsidise hardware before because it has always sold like hot cakes. However, that changed with the AVP.
> Unfortunately, Facebook has distorted people's expectations of what a reasonable price point is by selling theirs at a loss. This has driven nearly all competitors out of the market, catastrophically stunting advancement of the technology.
I would argue the opposite - if it wasn't for companies subsidising VR headsets, that would stunt advancement of the technology, on the basis that people just wouldn't buy them at higher prices.
It will happen but when. In 5 years? In 10 years? Without a killer app to drive adoption and the price being too high for what it does they can not get on the virtuous cycle of an exponentially growing new market driving related tech and manufacturing improvements that drive cost down.
I want AVP to succeed -- I like what Apple is doing in the XR space but we still have so far to go. I hope they can stick it out long enough for the tech to get there.
QUESTION: if you could have AVP 1 at a different price, what do you think is the highest price you could buy it at and a year later you feel fine about the purchase?
What if it was Apple Vision version which had identical specs to AVP 1 but much better comfort (the one area AVP is the worst of all head sets)?
QUESTION2: does anyone who follows Apple financial reporting know how much money they have poured into AVP? Meta has come under pressure from shareholders from burning so much money on their VR dreams...
E.g. I have a Quest 2 I bought a few years ago for something like $300. I use it once a week or so to play some social games. It was worth it.
Personally I would pay $999 for the Vision Pro, but any more than that and I would definitely regret it.
And that is assuming I find it comfortable. There is no price I would be willing to pay for an uncomfortable device I am meant to wear, just like I wouldn’t buy uncomfortable shoes. I have not tried the Vision Pro, so I don’t know if I would find it uncomfortable. I find the Meta Quest 2 I have used comfortable enough though, so if it matches that bar I’d be okay.
$999 puts it in the “very expensive secondary device” price point (similar to an iPad). But $3500 prices it squarely in the “main device” price point (similar to a Mac). Right now its core software and functionality is much closer to that of an iPad than a Mac, so its price should also be closer.
If it ever gets to the point that it can truly be someone’s main device, then maybe $3500 will be reasonable, but as it stands today it’s not even really close.
Yeah because honestly the whole “spatial computing” thing DOES seem interesting. I’ve seen a lot of the stuff people can do with it and it’s looked pretty cool to me but that price stops me from ever trying it.
The passthrough quality is on the cameras, not the screens. UI elements look perfectly crisp while the passthrough feed looks like crap by comparison. Even in bright light there’s all kinds of graininess on the passthrough feed, I haven’t found a single scenario where it looks crisp for me.
Lower-res screens will probably still be good enough for quality UI elements; my XReal Airs only have an effective 1080p screen using two slightly-larger than 1080p displays but text quality is absolutely fine. The passthrough quality honestly looks on the tier of a 720p screen so they’ve got a lot of room to drop the screen resolution before the passthrough degrades.
It’s actually the processor from my understanding.
It’ll record great footage so the cameras are fine. It’s how it processes and spits it out with nearly any input lag is the trick.
Just FYI ppi isn't the best measure for vr/ar. The distance from your eye to the screen, and the effect of the lenses, becomes more important, so something like pixels per degree is a better measure.
One of the apps for the Quest 3 that really interested me was the piano lessons one. I've always thought that good AR is going to be the main driver for these devices so I'm hoping we see more of that kind of thing. And honestly AI would actually be useful for that too.
Lower FOV, lower resolution, needs a 1000$ phone to tether and still 4 times more expensive than the competition.
I guess the reality is that all those rumour are no rumour but the reason that Apple chose to push its release by an additional year. They either need to break under the 1000$, wait for a tech breakthrough or get lucky and find a killer app people are dying to use.
edit: the Vision Pro is barely mentioned nowadays. It‘s an unaffordable tech demo in search of a problem. It‘s on pre-order in my country and the initial curiosity in my colleagues has been replaced with a “let’s wait for gen 5”
That’s why this rumor is bogus. They are going to keep the quality at least at the quality levels of the current pro. They won’t make a worse experience.
The screens aren't the bottle neck for the pass-through, it's the cameras. When using fully inmersive content (I.e. Not pass-through) I think the screens are close to perfect.
I've been following VR glasses for about 25 years. No company could yet solve the problem that convincing VR technology is ungodly expensive. Dumbing it down leads to inferior products whose coolness factor wears off quickly. It's a bit like 3D photography and TV that comes in repeating hype cycles.
I mean, what you can get for $300 today is still really quite cool. I think the bigger question is how much tech is needed to be *useful*, and beyond that, whether any amount of tech solves the usefulness problem.
The current state of the VR market has shown its ability to be **fun**, the question for Apple is whether they can make it **productive** too.
I think we have a fair way to go before people wear headsets in everyday work, but we're definitely at the point where children will ask for them for Christmas.
I mean the whole 3d spacial thing is premised on being fun. Even the AVP’s headlining feature is the solo theatre and 3d images/videos thing. I don’t know what Apple is trying to solve in the productivity space here with the Apple vision pro, especially that it runs ipados
In terms of usefulness, I think Apple bet on the wrong horse. An AR device sounds (theoretically) much, much more useful than a VR device. And that’s coming from someone who loves VR.
Maybe they’ll slowly transition into an AR device, I think their UI design will allow for it.
GIVE ME A PAIR OF XREAL AIRS WITH 4K DISPLAYS (and the same FOV) AND I'LL FINALLY BE HAPPY
I am a simple man. I just want high a viable/comfortable alternative to my physical monitors ;-;
In each hype cycle, the audience gets a little bigger though. VR is so much less niche today than it was in the 90’s, or even 10 years ago. Shouldn’t we expect that trend to continue over time until VR is ubiquitous? The VR industry saw the most powerful company in the world launch its first headset in 2024. What will the industry see in 2034?
People have been saying that for at least 10 years.
Ultimately the core issue is wearing a bulky headset. What we want is Tony Stark's glasses, but that is a long way away, not least because of the core issues with things like battery that are down to simple physics.
I think its best not to conflate VR headsets with AR glasses. People do it ALL the time and realistically they are not the same. The Vision Pro is a weird hybrid because it is designed like a VR headset, but they want you to primarily use pass-through and AR and that is how they market it. This is where I think Apple is going wrong currently, they are standing in no mans land satisfying no one.
Whilst people do want glasses, this would almost definitely be an AR use case only due to light and form factor. VR headsets would still need to exist for entertainment and gaming use cases. The smart companies will have a VR headset with passthrough for some light AR usage, and then work separately on pure AR glasses. This keeps the concepts separate.
I believe Meta is going this route and separating the teams completely, which makes complete sense. Apple need to do the same. Keep Vision Pro as the VR orientated headset with some AR productivity coolness, but work separately on true AR glasses.
Yeah but the point they’re making is that AR might be much much more useful. Before this thing released, there were rumours that Apple was developing both an AR and a VR product and they pulled the plug on the AR product to focus on the Vision Pro. A lot of people (myself included) think Apple probably bet on the wrong horse. Although I am willing to believe that they pulled the plug because the tech simply isn’t ready yet.
The tech has to change. It has to be as wearable and light as a pair of glasses. Once it *does* get that light, then everyone will have it.
Your analogy of 3DTV fits this, too. When they can create TVs (and movie theaters, for that matter) that have 3D *without 3D glasses*, then 3D will become the norm, almost instantly.
We literally don't have the technology for these things, but if they can just get it done, some early adopters would fuel the cheaper second version, and so on. But this kind of thing has to be as unobtrusive as possible.
Keep the optics/display, make it out of plastic, lose eyesight and remove the speaker array.
They’ve got to at least, half the cost for thing to make even a small dent in the mainstream consumer market. It’s simply $2k too expensive.
[Here](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/apple-vision-pros-components-cost-1542-but-thats-not-the-full-story/) is the estimated component cost breakdown.
It costs $1542 just for all the components on the headset. Before assembly. Without any other overhead.
The eyesight panel costs all of $70 in raw components. The speaker is not even considered expensive enough to be listed on its own.
Who knows what manufacturing costs their removal might save, but....it's hard to avoid the reality this is simply not a product that can be realistically scaled down to a mainstream price-tag without losing some core features like display quality.
There have been reports of Sony’s display costs - or competitor equivalents - being roughly half the current cost by end of next year.
- Main display savings -$225
- A-series chip: -$100
- Lose sub-display: -$70
- Cheaper build: -$40
- Reduced cameras / 3D sensor costs: -$40
You end up with a bill of materials of roughly $1029. Apple’s margin on the Vision Pro is 127%. By comparison the iPhone 15 has a BoM of $423 so a profit margin of 75%.
An equivalent margin on the non-pro Vision would lead to a sales price of roughly $1800, which sounds about right to me.
I didn’t “forget” about it - that is a part of eyesight imo so I thought it was implied. In either case, that really isn’t contributing as much as you think it is. Designing the manufacturing process might, i.e. the R&D for it, but that money is already spent and stopping including it isn’t going to change that. Certainly, it would lower the cost somewhat, but it is not half.
That is true, but they're unlikely to lower their margins so in that sense they are related. Apple will try anything they can think of to lower price while keeping margin the same before they start lowering price by cutting in to their margin.
I think the price needs to get even lower than that tbh. The reality of the world we live in is that most people own one main computer: their smart phone. Something as affordable as an ipad usually winds up being the family computer. This is why marketing things towards professionals has become such a big deal, and they bet big on that with the Vision Pro, but it hasn’t paid off.
For the Vision platform to gain mass market appeal there needs to be at least one version of it that has the same pricing as an iPhone *accessory,* think AirPods, Apple Watch (although you could get away with AirPods Max, Apple Watch Ultra)
I really think this is important because that’s how you get developer support, and developer support is how the perceived value of the product snowballs. Successful platforms usually start affordable and then offer more luxurious options, not the other way around.
I’m with you there. I’m waiting for something to really blow me away. I’d be willing to spend 5000 on a device that can convincingly transport me to anywhere in the world. Like think how awesome live sports or live concerts could be.
Seriously – they should be iPhone/iPad/Mac dependent. Like CarPlay. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I feel like this ultra expensive product is already, fundamentally flawed, and they are trying to make it cheaper?
We're talking about a device that's light, stylish, has computing power of a high end macbook while being smaller than a watch but needs a battery that lasts as long as a watch. That is sure as shit not happening in 10-15 years. 20-30 if we're lucky.
I dunno, I think it’s dependent solely on battery tech. Everything else can currently be fudged for an early gen product. So if we have major battery breakthroughs in the next couple of years then we’re cooking, and 10-15 seems realistic, maybe even less. Otherwise yeah it’ll be as long as it takes to have better batteries.
I dunno, it feels to me like it’s far further away than 15 years.
Just look at the Apples other products from 10-15 years ago and compare them to today.
The iPhone 4 (14 years ago) was a metal and glass sandwich with multiple cameras, a high resolution screen, a thriving App Store and App ecosystem, and decent battery life. Sure it didn’t have the raw horsepower of todays devices, and it was much smaller (which some would argue is not necessarily worse), but the fundamentals of what the iPhone was have not changed all that much in 14 years.
It’s all been slow incremental progress of slightly bigger screens, slightly better cameras, slightly better battery life, and slightly better software. Add it all up and you get an iPhone 15.
The Mac has been even slower and even more incremental. Put a 2010 MacBook Pro side by side with a 2024 MacBook Pro, and most people are not going to see a significant difference. Sure the horsepower has again increased substantially, as well as the battery life, screen quality, etc. but the general product is basically the same as it was 15 years ago.
The Apple Watch is probably the most incremental or them all, with a Series 0 and a Series 9 being basically indistinguishable from one another by most normal people. It’s added some sensors over the years, and the software improved quite a bit, but again, the product was basically defined by its first version and hasn’t fundamentally changed.
What has changed in the past 15 years is the ubiquity of devices like smart phones, but not their core functionality or form. 15 years ago not everyone had one, but nowadays it’s basically expected that everyone does.
I don’t expect the Vision Pro to change all that much fundamentally in the next 15 years. It’ll get slightly slimmer, slightly faster, have slightly better battery life, and slightly better software. But for better or worse, it will still fundamentally be the same product it is today. That’s just how Apple works.
technically you can have it today, there are tethered glasses that act as a display. apple could easily release one like with usbc, considering they dont mind tethered AR products. Getting standalone stark glasses is indefinite until there is breakthrough in battery technology
Honestly I would be curious to see Apple tackle VR in more of the Google Glass like direction.
Edit: Here it’s more appropriate to say *AR* and I think honestly Apple would and has killed it there already.
We've had AR glasses for a handful of years now. Just look at the XReal Airs, it's basically a straight up pair of glasses that can do 3dof IIRC. The only issue with those is how all of these vendors are stuck using the same sheisty 1080p displays, which just isn't sharp enough to use for any actual work - only really works to watch videos and play games.
I love the potential of XR but I'm not buying an Apple Vision that has less features than AVP 1. I'm also not paying AVP1 prices. It will probably be 5-10 years before things line up.
One of the big use cases I'm interested in is *Apple Vision* *as multiple virtual monitors*. The current AVP is (by all accounts) just barely good enough for this resolution wise.
I thought this was going to be a product I might showing interest in for the second generation. Now, I’m starting to think it’s gonna be more like the 4th generation.
The one thing that I hung up on regarding VR was the resolution. Said to myself I’d wait till a 4K model but wasn’t enticed by Apples enough (and didn’t have the money), but this would dumb to do.
I demo'd the Vision Pro recently. I recall a few wow moments, amidst a generally disappointed experience. Hardware was uncomfortable - was my big takeaway. Feels to me Apple should focus on getting the hardware right. Less on price.
Did a demo at the Apple Store. The tech is super impressive, but I got really bad eye strain causing head/eye pain and had to end the demo a little early. Not sure how common that is, but it definitely helped me decide this isn’t for me.
This makes zero sense. Apple Vision's resolution is not good enough and the passthrough required very bright lighting. Anything but great lighting and you get super grainy passthrough.
They need better resolution, better FOV, better passthrough, a way cheaper price, and a better OS. The technology just isn't there yet. I think they should still keep going at it, and periodically release hardware updates so people can work on the app side of things, but it's going to be at least a decade before there exists a truly breathtaking Apple Vision experience with an acceptable price and "the killer app."
Yeah this was my thoughts too. Larger screen means the convergence strength needed on the lenses would be less too. So maybe they could use cheaper lenses that would have less issues. If further away it would cause more weight issues but they can offset that with lighter materials used and removing eyesight.
Basically maybe let's pause before calling this a bad idea.
It seems honestly a little shortsighted that Apple decided to suspend making improvements to the original Vision Pro in favour of developing a cheaper version first. I mean, the current Vision Pro is already kind of a ‘draft’ device, begging for improvements & advancements - why not perfect that before actively starting to make it worse?
Contemplating buying a lower-priced version to use as a virtual display with the Apple Mac Studio but if they lower the resolution then I will definitely not be buying it. What's the point, the pixel resolution goes down --> the text clarity suffers.
The problem is not only the price; the problem is these glasses are expensive and useless. Solving the first part of the problem is not the solution for the whole statement.
Rock and a hard place. At $1500-2000 the “cheaper” headset had better be less intrusive to wear AND able to take over for my iPhone in most ways. In a couple of years they could make a pair of everyday sized glasses that overlay everyday tasks into my life (messages, mail, web, maps, music etc). The camera is the thing they’ll have trouble with here. But if they nail this, they will start to eat their own tail and affect iPhone sales.
Alternatively they pair it back to be a watch level companion to the iPhone (cash cow) but they’ll have to chill on the “future of computing” stuff.
If they’re looking at it as a Mac replacement then we are many years off impacting the consumer Mac market.
The problem Apple finds themselves in is that EVERYONE is sitting on the sidelines waiting for a V3 or V4 where it really takes off. But if no one’s buying them now in these first few stages it makes it very hard to get off the ground.
Apple NEEDS a killer app that sells this to the masses just like the original Xbox had Halo (which Apple ironically passed on)
Meta was wise to jump in early and buyout the rights to Beat Saber, a casual yet repetitive game that is easy to pickup, hard to master, and is extremely comfortable (no headaches) with recurring revenue from song packs.
For what I'm personally interested in doing with a headset, this will move things in the wrong direction.
Put simply, for everyday, primary use, I want virtual displays. I want to be able to be in whichever part of my home is most comfortable or convenient, and have my "desk" - complete with several large monitors - move with me between those locations.
I can do something approximating that now with my nReal glasses, or my Index, but the resolution of the virtual screens isn't high enough to make this work for me long-term (and the weight of the Index becomes an issue over time). For watching movies it's fine, but it breaks down when needing to do work. Text clarity is the primary issue, and that's mostly dependent upon the display hardware being used.
Lmao. Welp this thing is dead on arrival. The only thing that set the VP apart was the screen resolution. I was hoping future generations they can keep the resolution without lowering quality.
Screen resolution is NOT the way to save money on a cheaper Vision. Strip the front display, strip the auto eye adjusting motor contraption, skip a few sensors, hell, use an M2 in 2026 if they have to! There’s so many things they can skip without significantly impacting user experience. Screen resolution is NOT one of them.
The price was an issue but not the reason the VP failed. It’s the lack of use cases. I guess the next one will have to fail too for Apple to give up on this product category.
As an avp owner, the current resolution is the absolute bare minimum for any productivity work involving virtual monitors / text. LCD would also make the movie watching experience way worse.
I have not used the AVP. From what I understand though, apple is really not getting all they can from that resolution. Meta Quest 3 is I think just over half the resolution, and has been measured to resolve text better than AVP. I really don't understand the science behind it all, but I can imagine a world where Apple comes out with a lower resolution headset that actually looks better for productivity than their first gen headset. I really don't think 4k per eye is actually the min needed.
All headsets are that way, it’s because most displays are rectangular whereas our eyes are round. And the lost pixels are way lower than half.
yeah THIS right there is my number one beef with all AR/VR options I've looked at to try and replace my daily driver monitor.. ass-loads of 1080p lightweight glasses >_> and then hefty higher res screens that aren't comfortable to wear all day... I was seriously hoping AVP would evolve into a lighter/smaller form factor and keep or even increase its DPI.. not *reduce* it wtf
So a meta quest without all the games?
yeah like a Mac, compared to a PC.
You can still do most other things on a Mac, and they sell based on *how well* they do those other things. This all circles back to the question of what a VR headset does *uniquely* well.
Well Apple is advertising it as like a PC floating in your eyes. I guess if it runs anything a Mac does, it does have some real world use. But that doesn't change the fact you can buy a top of the line MacBook Pro for nearly the same price.
If the Vision Pro had been released as literally just a Mac display (that actually supports stuff you’d expect like, I don’t know, multiple screens?) it would probably be selling like gangbusters.
Well, the quest 3 has desktop mirroring apps that allow multiple “monitors”, and those aren’t exactly flying off the shelves…
At the end of the day anyone multitasking with several screens is going to find it draining to work with a virtual keyboard. And once you’ve got the physical keyboard anchoring you to one spot why not just use several monitors instead of AVP. I can see a usage case for traveling - Stuck in an airline seat for X hours and keeping occupied working on AVP, but I’m not sure that’s a huge market to tap.
AR makes working with a virtual keyboard a non-issue as you’re probably mirroring something right in front of you with a physical keyboard. The use case is probably laptops mostly
Outside of the few people who like VR games I literally don’t understand the point of VR goggles. Wish they’d focus on slim AR glasses instead. No one wants to live in a separate vr world - we want to add to the real world.
I think the assumption is that VR googles is an intermediary step towards the ideal end goal of glasses.
This is literally Apple’s entire position in this space. That’s why the headset has a dial to change the amount of AR and VR. You can be fully AR or you can dial it up and be in a fully VR environment or anywhere in between. This is the first version of the device. It can only get better from here and, if the technology to make glasses existed, Apple would be making them. The issue is that it doesn’t so they went for the experience first and will make each newer version smaller and smaller until they’re glasses. At that point, you’ll have glasses that can be AR or VR and all the kinks will have been worked out.
It's quite cool for art though. Standing in front of art pieces like 2d paintings or 3d sculptures in person gives you a very different sensation than seeing it on a photo. In VR you can kinda recreate that live sensation.
> and they sell based on how well they do those other things. Do you remember the size of MacOS market share? They honestly don't sell all that well compared to PCs. Edit: For those that want to know MacOS makes up less than 15% of the market and has been receding over the last 2ish years from a peak of just over 17%.
I wonder if there are stats for personal vs office use. Cuz, yeah, most offices and bulk orders are PCs, but - anecdotally - the VAST majority of people I see around in the real world are on Macs.
You are likely seeing this in airports and coffee shops; a demographic that will be heavily focused on students and higher income individuals that will likely skew heavier towards Mac. Also likely some location bias - if you are in a major coastal metro city you will be surrounded by a younger, wealthier demographic in general and the same trends will apply.
How many PC companies have 15% of the market share or more?
Looks like Dell, HP, and Lenovo. https://canalys.com/newsroom/global-pc-market-q1-2024
His whole belief system shattered after this comment
The only reason why apple has that high of a marketshare is because they're the sole company that sell mac OS computers, but if you could buy third party computers with Mac OS as you can with windows, Apple wouldn't have that high of a marketshare.
Absolutely true which is why it was one of the stupidest moves they ever actually did was license out the software back in their trending towards bankruptcy days
This will do basically nothing that a quest doesn't already do.
More like an iPad compared to a PC. It’s a completely closed down “pro” operating system.
Tbh I don’t want one for games I just want to expand my Mac. Bonus points if it works on PC too.
Sure, but found reading text on the Vision Pro to be quite painful (compared even to a 4k 27” external monitor), if they’re planning to go even lower in resolution, I don’t think it’s going to be great for productivity.
I agree - I found the 30”+ 1080p resolution to be very limiting in terms of sharpness and DPI compared to my 16” MacBook display and my 1440p 27” external monitor.
I’m extremely picky with sharpness to the point it’s literally the only reason I got a Studio Display. And I completely disagree. The VD looks about the same as a 27” 4K to me, with the bonus that I can making it much larger while keeping the image quality. Of COURSE once I take it off and look at either my mbp or my SD it looks orders of magnitudes better for a while. I don’t know if it’s on purpose or what, but the main point of VD is the practicality. I can see why people who don’t travel much or always work in exactly the same place would not use it all. For me, it becomes worth the price tag when I’m traveling and get a giant display in a hotel room or even a plane.
I guess maybe you’re right that it’s only noticeably bad when moving to/from it from/to some 300ppi+ display. However I’m not sure the practically aspect of it is really there. Granted I only did a demo at the Apple Store, but I can’t imagine having it on my face for more than a couple of hours. (That might be fine for many people but not sure it is for me at that price)
At two to three times the cost. Oh, and it's tethered to your phone. Just in case you missed the old days of snagging something on your headphones. Sounds attractive...
Being able use your basically your phone is the big selling point over meta IMO. You’re still completely connected to everything while in the headset.
If the goal is handling UI then downgrading the resolution is the wrong move
A quest with a pro level OS? Yes please.
A "pro level OS" where you can't access the filesystem and you can't run macOS apps? Also, it has no pro-level software to make it useful, and none of the currently existing software leverages the device's whole gimmick.
I mean you can connect it to your Mac and run everything that way which is the main way the productivity was advertised with the device. And with the upcoming ultra wide feature the productivity during mirroring should get even better
You can do the same with a Quest. Connect it your laptop and boom, productivity Heck, you can connect it to your Mac and there’s productivity there too.
But it has an M2 inside it, why can't it just run macOS? Why do I need to buy another thousand dollar computer to make it useful?
It's the same reason why Apple won't allow your iPhone to turn into a usable Mac when it is connected to a Display. Money. They want to sell you more devices.
You know what? It feels worse with the vision pro given it’s a brand new “Pro” product category and Apple had the chance to innovate and replace the Mac by making it actually pro given all the criticism surrounding Apple locking iPhones and iPad down. Of course it doesn’t look like they learned
Without that resolution, it won't be anywhere near as useful.
Then what are benefits of vOS?
It’s cool to watch tv and movies in. I do own one so I can speak on it being fairly useless outside of content consumption.
Metas OS is a joke. It’s a toy. While Apple doesn’t yet have a fully flushed out OS, it’ll be more stable and likely last longer than an android based OS
It was so insane to me when I got a Quest 3, and found out I literally can’t open PDF’s. I know it’s not a typical use case, but it’s just so insane to me.
Expecting every OS to open PDF is also insane. I don't expect PlayStation 5, Samsung TV, Apple Watch to open a PDF. That's not what it is designed for. If it can, cool, but it is insane to expect every OS, every system, from toaster to fridge to open a PDF. That's Adobe's problem.
In macOS you open PDF’s with Preview, a built in macOS app. Is there no Windows equivalent? Does it still rely on adobe?
PDFs can open in Edge for viewing.
Doing work on current day VR would be such a headache anyway
PDF has been an open standard since 2008.
Android-based systems gain the benefit of side loading along with a significant hobbyist & enthusiast community, Apple are making a lot of big strides in their OS to improve functionality but only when it aligns with their vision of the product. Look at the current state of the iPad Pro line, fantastic hardware but held back by arbitrary rules on its usage. The Quest series has made massive strides in the feasibility of consumer-focussed VR, is targeted at a price point accessible to the average consumer, and is supported by several 3rd party manufacturers for physical accessories and enterprise software. Apple have positioned themselves well to make use of a lot of that innovation, and their expertise in marrying premium hardware with their OS is clearly apparent, but they also need a self-supporting market that is willing to invest in their vision for VR/XR. I think the big question is whether consumers can see VR as a tool for productivity or just a platform for gaming & immersive experiences. Meta have shown that VR is viable for gaming and their release of Meta OS proves this, but I don't think the same case can be made for Apple's vision just yet. As the market slowly transitions to focus on AR/XR experiences it'll be interesting to see how both product lines mature, presumably the two approaches will eventually converge to a commercially-viable middle ground.
This entire product category is a joke. Very few people want to spend $3500 on a product less functional than a MacBook of the same price. Meta has at least a decent game library and they focus on gaming, yet they are still losing sales and industry interest in developing VR software has never been lower.
If I was single I would've bought the $3k vision pro just for a great immersive movie watching experience. Not doable now coz I have a family to feed.
Since when is iPadOS with extra feature a “pro” level OS lol.
Well, if it’s priced like a quest, then yes, but I doubt Apple plays that game.
I think Apple is implementing a new rule that if your app can be compatible with the VP, it must be. Kinda the same we they now require iOS apps to be compatible with iPad. So I would not be surprised if in a year or two that cross compatibility is a thing.
Haha so true
And a lot more expensive.
I honestly don’t see this cheaper headset doing well either with that $1500-2000 price tag that’s rumored. Even with the dual 4k screens on the Vision Pro, the pass through was not perfect in my opinion. Lower resolution and bigger screen means the PPI is going to be way worse. And there’s still no killer app use cases yet.
Agreed. I have no interest in a still expensive worse version.
This is the fundamental problem. They seem to be unable to actually get the price down on this product to a reasonable point.
The thing is, this _is_ the reasonable price point. This is the cost of materials plus a profit small enough that it would still take years or decades to pay back all the R&D that went into it. Unfortunately, Facebook has distorted people's expectations of what a reasonable price point is by selling theirs at a loss. This has driven nearly all competitors out of the market, catastrophically stunting advancement of the technology.
The main issue here is that Apple has pushed for a device that is years away from being mainstream and that makes marketing the device really difficult. When Apple released the iPhone it was way too expensive, but apple was quickly able to slash the price by around $200 after a couple of months, essentially reducing the upfront costs for the device by a whopping 40% ($500 to $300 subsidized). The 3G device slashed the up front cost down to $100 making it comparably priced to other smartphones and because smartphones were heavily subsidized at that time, it was a no brainer for interested customers. The iPad was a master class in pricing. Everyone was expecting Apple to launch it at around $1000. Some competitors released their tablets a couple of months before the iPad introduction at prices between $800-1200. Suddenly, Apple released the iPad for $500 and killed any non-niche competition above this price point. Only Google nexus tablets and Kindle Fire tablets at much lower price points were able to survive in the market but they eventually fizzled out while Apple is controlling the tablet market for most price points. Apple Watch is the same. They made the pricing so scalable that you can get a cheap sport watch for $250-300 up to a full fledged Ultra for $1000 and special editions. The “edition” watches which were in the tens of thousands were easy to cut off as they differed only in casing and materials but not in functionality. But the Apple Vision Pro is a difficult sell. It is as if Apple would have released the AirPods Max first and struggled to miniaturize to smaller and cheaper AirPods. Eventually they will be able to bring the price point down in a couple of years but they will be a niche product for half a decade until they will be ready for the main stream and Apple needs to be really patient until the technology is ready and given that they already spent billions on it and will need to spend further billions until they can make money out of them, it might be interesting to see if they can allow to be patient or if they will pull the plug like they did on the Apple car.
It’s the chicken and the egg technology evolution problem. At some point you have to just release the device to see what works, what doesn’t, and what can be improved. Like you said, unlike iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch you really can’t offer massive improvements from generation to generation. The technology needed does not really exist yet/it’s not cost effective yet for mass production. Even if you cut the device cost by a thousand dollars on version 2. How many more people would buy it with the price cut? I really think it’s going to take several generations to turn it into a device that people actually want. Which is something a lot lighter, cheaper, untethered from a battery pack, etc. Basically something that looks like a standard pair of glasses, but that might be a minimum of a decade away.
Will they ever be able to make it cheaper than an iphone, though? I think part of why the Watch was successful was because it was in “impulse purchase”/gifting price range. But anything in the iphone price range is outside that range, and that’s a lot to ask for an accessory.
Is the Vision Pro really an accessory? Apple wants consumers to believe it is a PC. I think it’s more akin to a smart TV, at least when considering its current software capabilities.
It may not be an “accessory” but it’s definitely a supplementary device. Nobody is fully replacing their laptop or TV with these for a long time.
I believe this was always foolish. The target market for this device are wealthy Apple users. The target market owns recent-generation Apple devices. Do minimal on-device processing and outsource almost everything to an M-series Mac. Save money, battery, weight.
But then we can’t use the Vision Pro while driving our Cybertrucks!
Reasonable is relative to value, and this has very low value for the average consumer. I truly have no idea what I would do with it that I can't just do on my laptop instead. I couldn't possibly care less how expensive it is to manufacture, that's not my problem.
For me, unlimited virtual monitors could provide the screen real estate I need for work while preserving the portability of a laptop. Others might not value that, but as someone who works from home this essential feature would make the device a better replacement for a laptop.
I guess the problem is there’s a difference in what’s a “reasonable price point” based on cost of materials and what people are willing to pay. It’s like 2.5k higher than most people are willing to pay.
It’s not a reasonable price point based on the value, or lack thereof, that it’s adding to the person’s life. They got away with $1300 phones because of how valuable they are in our everyday lives
Yeah and I can get a $1300 phone for a few years of $40/mo payments. The Vision Pro is $291/mo for 12 months.. not very phone-like.
>The thing is, this *is* the reasonable price point. no, it is not. There is simply **not a good business case** for AVP until technology improvements allow the price to come down or the functionality to go way up. IMO, Apple, like Meta was afraid of being late to the XR game so they bought VRvana and then polished it for years. Maybe they are still too early. Maybe the AVP is the *Apple Newton* -- an idea that was good but the underlying tech was not there yet. --- It will be interesting to see what the less expensive Apple Vision actually looks like rather than getting rumors.
If Facebook didn’t make vr affordable there would be no market lol.
It’s not like Meta is subsidising the Quest with a thousand dollars though. And nothing really prevents Apple from doing the same thing (except it not being the way of Apple).
> It’s not like Meta is subsidising the Quest with a thousand dollars though. They only need to subsidize their VR hardware enough to ensure that no one is allowed to make money on VR hardware, and that is enough to chase all other participants out of the market. That's how [predatory pricing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing) works. > And nothing really prevents Apple from doing the same thing (except it not being the way of Apple). It would require Apple throwing away their entire business model. The only way to accept a loss on hardware sales is to make that money up somewhere else. That would require changing to a business that makes a ton of paid services mandatory and/or one that harvests and monetizes user data. Given that their current business model is extremely successful, it seems unlikely that they would be willing to toss it all away and get down into the muck with Google and Facebook and try to outcompete them at their dubious game. Nor would it be anything to celebrate for those of us who choose Apple's products specifically because they _don't_ engage in such slimy shenanigans as spying on their users.
One of Apple’s biggest revenue streams and their fastest growing revenue stream is the App Store. I’m pretty sure Apple could subsidise the Apple Vision Pro if they wanted too. They simply haven’t had a reason to subsidise hardware before because it has always sold like hot cakes. However, that changed with the AVP.
> Unfortunately, Facebook has distorted people's expectations of what a reasonable price point is by selling theirs at a loss. This has driven nearly all competitors out of the market, catastrophically stunting advancement of the technology. I would argue the opposite - if it wasn't for companies subsidising VR headsets, that would stunt advancement of the technology, on the basis that people just wouldn't buy them at higher prices.
It will happen but when. In 5 years? In 10 years? Without a killer app to drive adoption and the price being too high for what it does they can not get on the virtuous cycle of an exponentially growing new market driving related tech and manufacturing improvements that drive cost down. I want AVP to succeed -- I like what Apple is doing in the XR space but we still have so far to go. I hope they can stick it out long enough for the tech to get there. QUESTION: if you could have AVP 1 at a different price, what do you think is the highest price you could buy it at and a year later you feel fine about the purchase? What if it was Apple Vision version which had identical specs to AVP 1 but much better comfort (the one area AVP is the worst of all head sets)?
QUESTION2: does anyone who follows Apple financial reporting know how much money they have poured into AVP? Meta has come under pressure from shareholders from burning so much money on their VR dreams...
E.g. I have a Quest 2 I bought a few years ago for something like $300. I use it once a week or so to play some social games. It was worth it.
Personally I would pay $999 for the Vision Pro, but any more than that and I would definitely regret it. And that is assuming I find it comfortable. There is no price I would be willing to pay for an uncomfortable device I am meant to wear, just like I wouldn’t buy uncomfortable shoes. I have not tried the Vision Pro, so I don’t know if I would find it uncomfortable. I find the Meta Quest 2 I have used comfortable enough though, so if it matches that bar I’d be okay. $999 puts it in the “very expensive secondary device” price point (similar to an iPad). But $3500 prices it squarely in the “main device” price point (similar to a Mac). Right now its core software and functionality is much closer to that of an iPad than a Mac, so its price should also be closer. If it ever gets to the point that it can truly be someone’s main device, then maybe $3500 will be reasonable, but as it stands today it’s not even really close.
Yeah because honestly the whole “spatial computing” thing DOES seem interesting. I’ve seen a lot of the stuff people can do with it and it’s looked pretty cool to me but that price stops me from ever trying it.
The passthrough quality is on the cameras, not the screens. UI elements look perfectly crisp while the passthrough feed looks like crap by comparison. Even in bright light there’s all kinds of graininess on the passthrough feed, I haven’t found a single scenario where it looks crisp for me. Lower-res screens will probably still be good enough for quality UI elements; my XReal Airs only have an effective 1080p screen using two slightly-larger than 1080p displays but text quality is absolutely fine. The passthrough quality honestly looks on the tier of a 720p screen so they’ve got a lot of room to drop the screen resolution before the passthrough degrades.
It’s actually the processor from my understanding. It’ll record great footage so the cameras are fine. It’s how it processes and spits it out with nearly any input lag is the trick.
Just FYI ppi isn't the best measure for vr/ar. The distance from your eye to the screen, and the effect of the lenses, becomes more important, so something like pixels per degree is a better measure.
Thanks for this, I didn’t think about it like that
One of the apps for the Quest 3 that really interested me was the piano lessons one. I've always thought that good AR is going to be the main driver for these devices so I'm hoping we see more of that kind of thing. And honestly AI would actually be useful for that too.
Lower FOV, lower resolution, needs a 1000$ phone to tether and still 4 times more expensive than the competition. I guess the reality is that all those rumour are no rumour but the reason that Apple chose to push its release by an additional year. They either need to break under the 1000$, wait for a tech breakthrough or get lucky and find a killer app people are dying to use. edit: the Vision Pro is barely mentioned nowadays. It‘s an unaffordable tech demo in search of a problem. It‘s on pre-order in my country and the initial curiosity in my colleagues has been replaced with a “let’s wait for gen 5”
That’s why this rumor is bogus. They are going to keep the quality at least at the quality levels of the current pro. They won’t make a worse experience.
I’d consider using it if i could switch my two 4K monitors for remote work (coding), with this at a reasonable price…
The screens aren't the bottle neck for the pass-through, it's the cameras. When using fully inmersive content (I.e. Not pass-through) I think the screens are close to perfect.
I've been following VR glasses for about 25 years. No company could yet solve the problem that convincing VR technology is ungodly expensive. Dumbing it down leads to inferior products whose coolness factor wears off quickly. It's a bit like 3D photography and TV that comes in repeating hype cycles.
I mean, what you can get for $300 today is still really quite cool. I think the bigger question is how much tech is needed to be *useful*, and beyond that, whether any amount of tech solves the usefulness problem.
The current state of the VR market has shown its ability to be **fun**, the question for Apple is whether they can make it **productive** too. I think we have a fair way to go before people wear headsets in everyday work, but we're definitely at the point where children will ask for them for Christmas.
I mean the whole 3d spacial thing is premised on being fun. Even the AVP’s headlining feature is the solo theatre and 3d images/videos thing. I don’t know what Apple is trying to solve in the productivity space here with the Apple vision pro, especially that it runs ipados
Problem is that it is only $300 because Meta sells it at a loss.
They lose with RnD factored in, but I'm not sure that the headset itself costs more than that to manufacture. It would be a slim margin indeed though.
In terms of usefulness, I think Apple bet on the wrong horse. An AR device sounds (theoretically) much, much more useful than a VR device. And that’s coming from someone who loves VR. Maybe they’ll slowly transition into an AR device, I think their UI design will allow for it.
GIVE ME A PAIR OF XREAL AIRS WITH 4K DISPLAYS (and the same FOV) AND I'LL FINALLY BE HAPPY I am a simple man. I just want high a viable/comfortable alternative to my physical monitors ;-;
In each hype cycle, the audience gets a little bigger though. VR is so much less niche today than it was in the 90’s, or even 10 years ago. Shouldn’t we expect that trend to continue over time until VR is ubiquitous? The VR industry saw the most powerful company in the world launch its first headset in 2024. What will the industry see in 2034?
I feel like it's still too early, we need like 10-20 years until it's insanely good
People have been saying that for at least 10 years. Ultimately the core issue is wearing a bulky headset. What we want is Tony Stark's glasses, but that is a long way away, not least because of the core issues with things like battery that are down to simple physics.
I think its best not to conflate VR headsets with AR glasses. People do it ALL the time and realistically they are not the same. The Vision Pro is a weird hybrid because it is designed like a VR headset, but they want you to primarily use pass-through and AR and that is how they market it. This is where I think Apple is going wrong currently, they are standing in no mans land satisfying no one. Whilst people do want glasses, this would almost definitely be an AR use case only due to light and form factor. VR headsets would still need to exist for entertainment and gaming use cases. The smart companies will have a VR headset with passthrough for some light AR usage, and then work separately on pure AR glasses. This keeps the concepts separate. I believe Meta is going this route and separating the teams completely, which makes complete sense. Apple need to do the same. Keep Vision Pro as the VR orientated headset with some AR productivity coolness, but work separately on true AR glasses.
Yeah but the point they’re making is that AR might be much much more useful. Before this thing released, there were rumours that Apple was developing both an AR and a VR product and they pulled the plug on the AR product to focus on the Vision Pro. A lot of people (myself included) think Apple probably bet on the wrong horse. Although I am willing to believe that they pulled the plug because the tech simply isn’t ready yet.
20 years? lmfao what ?
That’s probably about how long we have before image quality is actually lifelike.
The tech has to change. It has to be as wearable and light as a pair of glasses. Once it *does* get that light, then everyone will have it. Your analogy of 3DTV fits this, too. When they can create TVs (and movie theaters, for that matter) that have 3D *without 3D glasses*, then 3D will become the norm, almost instantly. We literally don't have the technology for these things, but if they can just get it done, some early adopters would fuel the cheaper second version, and so on. But this kind of thing has to be as unobtrusive as possible.
It’s the one thing they should not compromise on.
Keep the optics/display, make it out of plastic, lose eyesight and remove the speaker array. They’ve got to at least, half the cost for thing to make even a small dent in the mainstream consumer market. It’s simply $2k too expensive.
[Here](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/apple-vision-pros-components-cost-1542-but-thats-not-the-full-story/) is the estimated component cost breakdown. It costs $1542 just for all the components on the headset. Before assembly. Without any other overhead. The eyesight panel costs all of $70 in raw components. The speaker is not even considered expensive enough to be listed on its own. Who knows what manufacturing costs their removal might save, but....it's hard to avoid the reality this is simply not a product that can be realistically scaled down to a mainstream price-tag without losing some core features like display quality.
There have been reports of Sony’s display costs - or competitor equivalents - being roughly half the current cost by end of next year. - Main display savings -$225 - A-series chip: -$100 - Lose sub-display: -$70 - Cheaper build: -$40 - Reduced cameras / 3D sensor costs: -$40 You end up with a bill of materials of roughly $1029. Apple’s margin on the Vision Pro is 127%. By comparison the iPhone 15 has a BoM of $423 so a profit margin of 75%. An equivalent margin on the non-pro Vision would lead to a sales price of roughly $1800, which sounds about right to me.
There is no way that eyesight, speakers, and aluminum are half the cost.
You’re forgetting about the custom manufactured and shaped glass which makes up half the body.
I didn’t “forget” about it - that is a part of eyesight imo so I thought it was implied. In either case, that really isn’t contributing as much as you think it is. Designing the manufacturing process might, i.e. the R&D for it, but that money is already spent and stopping including it isn’t going to change that. Certainly, it would lower the cost somewhat, but it is not half.
Maybe it could be designed for use with AirPods? Saves the use of speakers
The price is barely related to the cost. My understanding is that Apple has insane profit margins on all their products.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/o34jmcAhTI The cost for just the components of the AVP is around 1500$.
That is true, but they're unlikely to lower their margins so in that sense they are related. Apple will try anything they can think of to lower price while keeping margin the same before they start lowering price by cutting in to their margin.
I think the price needs to get even lower than that tbh. The reality of the world we live in is that most people own one main computer: their smart phone. Something as affordable as an ipad usually winds up being the family computer. This is why marketing things towards professionals has become such a big deal, and they bet big on that with the Vision Pro, but it hasn’t paid off. For the Vision platform to gain mass market appeal there needs to be at least one version of it that has the same pricing as an iPhone *accessory,* think AirPods, Apple Watch (although you could get away with AirPods Max, Apple Watch Ultra) I really think this is important because that’s how you get developer support, and developer support is how the perceived value of the product snowballs. Successful platforms usually start affordable and then offer more luxurious options, not the other way around.
VR is *not* a technology you want to cut corners on. It would result in a product that’s simply not worth it. Save up for it or don’t get it.
I’m with you there. I’m waiting for something to really blow me away. I’d be willing to spend 5000 on a device that can convincingly transport me to anywhere in the world. Like think how awesome live sports or live concerts could be.
Agreed.
I for one, would like to see apples visionOS hardware get better not worse.
Because cheaper parts was Steve Jobs’ motto. SMH. 🤦♂️
Cheaper parts ≠ Taking features off/lowering specs.
u/Vanhouzer That’s why I ended with “SMH.”
Not interested if they downgrade the displays.
Seriously – they should be iPhone/iPad/Mac dependent. Like CarPlay. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I feel like this ultra expensive product is already, fundamentally flawed, and they are trying to make it cheaper?
Technology is not there yet for me. Maybe another 10 years
The general public wants it to be as simple as putting sunglasses on… that’s like 10-15 years away
We're talking about a device that's light, stylish, has computing power of a high end macbook while being smaller than a watch but needs a battery that lasts as long as a watch. That is sure as shit not happening in 10-15 years. 20-30 if we're lucky.
Word
I dunno, I think it’s dependent solely on battery tech. Everything else can currently be fudged for an early gen product. So if we have major battery breakthroughs in the next couple of years then we’re cooking, and 10-15 seems realistic, maybe even less. Otherwise yeah it’ll be as long as it takes to have better batteries.
I dunno, it feels to me like it’s far further away than 15 years. Just look at the Apples other products from 10-15 years ago and compare them to today. The iPhone 4 (14 years ago) was a metal and glass sandwich with multiple cameras, a high resolution screen, a thriving App Store and App ecosystem, and decent battery life. Sure it didn’t have the raw horsepower of todays devices, and it was much smaller (which some would argue is not necessarily worse), but the fundamentals of what the iPhone was have not changed all that much in 14 years. It’s all been slow incremental progress of slightly bigger screens, slightly better cameras, slightly better battery life, and slightly better software. Add it all up and you get an iPhone 15. The Mac has been even slower and even more incremental. Put a 2010 MacBook Pro side by side with a 2024 MacBook Pro, and most people are not going to see a significant difference. Sure the horsepower has again increased substantially, as well as the battery life, screen quality, etc. but the general product is basically the same as it was 15 years ago. The Apple Watch is probably the most incremental or them all, with a Series 0 and a Series 9 being basically indistinguishable from one another by most normal people. It’s added some sensors over the years, and the software improved quite a bit, but again, the product was basically defined by its first version and hasn’t fundamentally changed. What has changed in the past 15 years is the ubiquity of devices like smart phones, but not their core functionality or form. 15 years ago not everyone had one, but nowadays it’s basically expected that everyone does. I don’t expect the Vision Pro to change all that much fundamentally in the next 15 years. It’ll get slightly slimmer, slightly faster, have slightly better battery life, and slightly better software. But for better or worse, it will still fundamentally be the same product it is today. That’s just how Apple works.
technically you can have it today, there are tethered glasses that act as a display. apple could easily release one like with usbc, considering they dont mind tethered AR products. Getting standalone stark glasses is indefinite until there is breakthrough in battery technology
This
Honestly I would be curious to see Apple tackle VR in more of the Google Glass like direction. Edit: Here it’s more appropriate to say *AR* and I think honestly Apple would and has killed it there already.
you say that yet google glass flopped.
We've had AR glasses for a handful of years now. Just look at the XReal Airs, it's basically a straight up pair of glasses that can do 3dof IIRC. The only issue with those is how all of these vendors are stuck using the same sheisty 1080p displays, which just isn't sharp enough to use for any actual work - only really works to watch videos and play games.
Pfft, higher resolution it’s literally -and’s probably- the only appeal.
No, the User experience and Ui navigation are also the best part. The resolution doesn’t make the software better.
I love the potential of XR but I'm not buying an Apple Vision that has less features than AVP 1. I'm also not paying AVP1 prices. It will probably be 5-10 years before things line up. One of the big use cases I'm interested in is *Apple Vision* *as multiple virtual monitors*. The current AVP is (by all accounts) just barely good enough for this resolution wise.
I thought this was going to be a product I might showing interest in for the second generation. Now, I’m starting to think it’s gonna be more like the 4th generation.
The one thing that I hung up on regarding VR was the resolution. Said to myself I’d wait till a 4K model but wasn’t enticed by Apples enough (and didn’t have the money), but this would dumb to do.
I demo'd the Vision Pro recently. I recall a few wow moments, amidst a generally disappointed experience. Hardware was uncomfortable - was my big takeaway. Feels to me Apple should focus on getting the hardware right. Less on price.
Well, that would be a mistake as it becomes the lowest common denominator for the vision is to support. It doesn’t need to be dumber to sell.
Did a demo at the Apple Store. The tech is super impressive, but I got really bad eye strain causing head/eye pain and had to end the demo a little early. Not sure how common that is, but it definitely helped me decide this isn’t for me.
The Vision Pro already only has 256gb. I’m scared of the compromises this thing would make.
This makes zero sense. Apple Vision's resolution is not good enough and the passthrough required very bright lighting. Anything but great lighting and you get super grainy passthrough. They need better resolution, better FOV, better passthrough, a way cheaper price, and a better OS. The technology just isn't there yet. I think they should still keep going at it, and periodically release hardware updates so people can work on the app side of things, but it's going to be at least a decade before there exists a truly breathtaking Apple Vision experience with an acceptable price and "the killer app."
The screen bigger so that it can be a little further from the eyes and not need the crazy resolution?
Yeah this was my thoughts too. Larger screen means the convergence strength needed on the lenses would be less too. So maybe they could use cheaper lenses that would have less issues. If further away it would cause more weight issues but they can offset that with lighter materials used and removing eyesight. Basically maybe let's pause before calling this a bad idea.
It seems honestly a little shortsighted that Apple decided to suspend making improvements to the original Vision Pro in favour of developing a cheaper version first. I mean, the current Vision Pro is already kind of a ‘draft’ device, begging for improvements & advancements - why not perfect that before actively starting to make it worse?
so quest3 is best buy?
That would make sense.
Even the Vision Pro you could tell you are looking at a screen
Still will be useless.
I'm just hoping this leads to more adoption. I really wanna port my apps to it but it just doesn't make sense for my company yet.
Contemplating buying a lower-priced version to use as a virtual display with the Apple Mac Studio but if they lower the resolution then I will definitely not be buying it. What's the point, the pixel resolution goes down --> the text clarity suffers.
It’s too bulky. That was my first impression and it still is too bulky…
Cheaper product will likely have cheaper components. News at 11.
So it does nothing in even crappier resolution?
So *heavier* and not as good?
Happy I have my AVP1. Feel confident it’s going to be better than what ever this next gen is
The problem is not only the price; the problem is these glasses are expensive and useless. Solving the first part of the problem is not the solution for the whole statement.
nobody is going to buy this device unless its worth 499!!
You can make an amazing product but It will not succeed unless it has a healthy array of apps compatible for it. Look at windows phone, the ouya, etc
Rock and a hard place. At $1500-2000 the “cheaper” headset had better be less intrusive to wear AND able to take over for my iPhone in most ways. In a couple of years they could make a pair of everyday sized glasses that overlay everyday tasks into my life (messages, mail, web, maps, music etc). The camera is the thing they’ll have trouble with here. But if they nail this, they will start to eat their own tail and affect iPhone sales. Alternatively they pair it back to be a watch level companion to the iPhone (cash cow) but they’ll have to chill on the “future of computing” stuff. If they’re looking at it as a Mac replacement then we are many years off impacting the consumer Mac market.
The problem Apple finds themselves in is that EVERYONE is sitting on the sidelines waiting for a V3 or V4 where it really takes off. But if no one’s buying them now in these first few stages it makes it very hard to get off the ground. Apple NEEDS a killer app that sells this to the masses just like the original Xbox had Halo (which Apple ironically passed on) Meta was wise to jump in early and buyout the rights to Beat Saber, a casual yet repetitive game that is easy to pickup, hard to master, and is extremely comfortable (no headaches) with recurring revenue from song packs.
For what I'm personally interested in doing with a headset, this will move things in the wrong direction. Put simply, for everyday, primary use, I want virtual displays. I want to be able to be in whichever part of my home is most comfortable or convenient, and have my "desk" - complete with several large monitors - move with me between those locations. I can do something approximating that now with my nReal glasses, or my Index, but the resolution of the virtual screens isn't high enough to make this work for me long-term (and the weight of the Index becomes an issue over time). For watching movies it's fine, but it breaks down when needing to do work. Text clarity is the primary issue, and that's mostly dependent upon the display hardware being used.
We NEED the magic of VisionOS in the form factor of glasses. That is the next iPhone.
Lmao. Welp this thing is dead on arrival. The only thing that set the VP apart was the screen resolution. I was hoping future generations they can keep the resolution without lowering quality. Screen resolution is NOT the way to save money on a cheaper Vision. Strip the front display, strip the auto eye adjusting motor contraption, skip a few sensors, hell, use an M2 in 2026 if they have to! There’s so many things they can skip without significantly impacting user experience. Screen resolution is NOT one of them.
The price was an issue but not the reason the VP failed. It’s the lack of use cases. I guess the next one will have to fail too for Apple to give up on this product category.