Anyone think this might actually "replace" a TV?

[klasma]

This is assuming the batteries would actually be in the glasses, something I don’t see as likely.
If it were ever possible to shrink everything that Vision Pro does down to something the size of a pair of sunglasses, I assume the external battery pack would still remain.
Maybe they can figure out a way to deliver true wireless power from the pack in your pocket to the glasses on your face, but even if not there’s still plenty of room for success in that market.
Look at Apple‘s best selling product, it’s not like people are afraid to have something in their pocket.
And people are already more than comfortable these days carrying around battery banks and chargers, it’s not like a product is going to live or die by an external battery pack.

But even then, I never see these type of head worn products as being something that everyone has like a smart phone, because something being on your face doesn’t always mean that it’s the most convenient.

The optics are actually the more serious problem IMO, but it’s more technically involved to explain why, and I’m too lazy. That being said, imagine smartphones requiring an external wired battery pack at all times. I don’t think it would have become that much of an ubiquitous success.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

In the comfort of my own home with no neighbors nearby I will not be using anything on my face or in my ears.

Intuitively I feel the same way; speakers versus headphones for instance. But then I find myself using AirPods Pro as my preferred comms device at home; hmm... The AVP will be a totally new thing so I will keep an open mind.

 

[Jensend]

It will effectively be less than 4K. The pixels also aren’t 1:1, meaning that even for 1080p content, I would expect more “upscaling” artifacts than when using a regular 4K TV.

We can speculate all day long, but in the end you’ll have to try it out in practice if it’s good enough for you or not. Presumably there will be the usual 14-day return period.

Lower than 4K shouldn't be too bad. I believe most movie projectors are 2K, and a lot of films are mastered in 2K, including, for example, most of the Marvel movies.

 

[klasma]

Can't wait to use one of these whilst ironing. 🤣

You’ll feel like iron man!

 

[erikkfi]

No, because Apple will never allow you to pipe in whatever content you want onto your Vision Pro. If there isn’t an app for the thing you like using your TV for — I’m thinking emulators here — you can forget it.

 

[Jensend]

No, because Apple will never allow you to pipe in whatever content you want onto your Vision Pro. If there isn’t an app for the thing you like using your TV for — I’m thinking emulators here — you can forget it.

It's a bit more complicated than Apple "never allowing."
The Vision Pro doesn't have an HDMI port, so you won't be able to directly connect gaming consoles or Blu-ray players.

You'll be able to stream from your Mac desktop—or PC desktop through an app—but that will always have more input lag than a native app or a direct wired connection.

Then there's HDCP, which may prevent you from wirelessly transmitting video from a Mac/PC Blu-ray player to the Vision Pro.

But, yeah, the end result is the same, anything that you'd plug in to your TV via HDMI (besides an Apple TV) either won't work as easily, or won't work at all.

 

[Jonnod III]

Input lag is tiny compared with the lag that comes with watching live TV over the internet. It is so great that you can watch goals and wickets ’as they happen’ after you get a notification of them and then switch to a ’live‘ streaming source.

 

[Jensend]

Input lag is tiny compared with the lag that comes with watching live TV over the internet. It is so great that you can watch goals and wickets ’as they happen’ after you get a notification of them and then switch to a ’live‘ streaming source.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about live broadcast/cable/satellite TV, which I last had at home 25 years ago.

 

[StellarVixen]

I would say, if you’re alone, maybe. If you are not the only one watching the TV, then as many of you as there are need one headset each

 

[0339327]

I REALLY want to try and get this device, so I am coming up with reasons why I should . Anyone think they could actually try and replace a TV with it? If you look at it as your new "TV" suddenly the price might not be QUITE as bad.

My main hobbies are shows/movies and games. I am starting to think if I am ok with putting it on for shows and playing games on (remote play) as my "main" screen. I have a MacBook as well, so would it make me more effective to have a GIANT screen instead of just sitting on my lap> Anyway, am I crazy for thinking it could actually work? Obviously no super long sessions as it would get annoying, but maybe it could be a replacement. What if we dont need to arrange our living rooms around a TV going forward, as it could be anywhere with a headset........

We don’t have a TV in our house. For content viewing, we use our phones or a 24” iMac.

Then again, we severely limit non-educational programming to a few hours per week, so it’s not crucial for us.

If you spend hours watching daily, this may not work for you, especially if you watch with a spouse or partner.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

No, because Apple will never allow you to pipe in whatever content you want onto your Vision Pro. If there isn’t an app for the thing you like using your TV for — I’m thinking emulators here — you can forget it.

A: although I don’t agree with it, I’m sure the EU will have something to say about that…
B: The Vision Pro isn’t any more locked down than the majority of gaming consoles, smart television sets, and streaming boxes.
Except that the Vision Pro also has safari, and anything you have available on all of your other devices.
C: emulators? You don’t think visionOS is going to be jailbroken eventually? And again, sideloading laws that are quickly being introduced internationally.

 

[MarkNewton2023]

I REALLY want to try and get this device, so I am coming up with reasons why I should . Anyone think they could actually try and replace a TV with it? If you look at it as your new "TV" suddenly the price might not be QUITE as bad.

My main hobbies are shows/movies and games. I am starting to think if I am ok with putting it on for shows and playing games on (remote play) as my "main" screen. I have a MacBook as well, so would it make me more effective to have a GIANT screen instead of just sitting on my lap> Anyway, am I crazy for thinking it could actually work? Obviously no super long sessions as it would get annoying, but maybe it could be a replacement. What if we dont need to arrange our living rooms around a TV going forward, as it could be anywhere with a headset........

The best answer is to get and try it then you will decide if it will replace a tv for shows/movies and games for you. Everyone has their preference. Nobody can decide someone’s preference. Keep calm, get and try Vision Pro, decide if it can replace a tv and be happy with your decision!😊 life is too short to be unhappy😊 Cheers 🥂and have a happy and great new year 🎊

 

[ke-iron]

For me I will use this exclusively when watching content by myself. As of right now I only watch content via the Apple TV, and the Apple TV app is on the Vision Pro so I’m set. I prefer to be fully enveloped whenever possible and this will undoubtedly do that better than a TV.

 

[Mac_Convert]

Additional thoughts after reading everything:

- When I discuss replacing a TV, I more meant this technology down the line I guess. Once we can have multiple for shared viewing experiences.

- There is definitely a large chunk of people that are not ever willing to put something on their face. Although, the passthrough is top notch. To me, I dont think I will feel isolated at all. Will be able to carry on a conversation with whoever is with me in the room like normal.

- Another use is watching a YouTube tutorial while doing a task you dont know much about. While setting an iPad next to you will do the same, there is one potential area I like the idea of. I want to imagine an app that lets others "see" what you're seeing. Maybe they can even draw in your vision to point out something. This would be crazy complicated and never perfect since they dont have "depth" but intriguing. An example situation: Looking at your circuit breaker not knowing which one to flip, but your spouse is "seeing" what you see. Maybe they can make an arrow appear in your vision, pointing to the right one.

**Side note** I know I have seen videos already of people wearing the Quest 3 headset while cooking. They have a floating youtube tutorial playing while they cook the dish. However, even I dont see how that is more helpful than just setting an iPad up next to you on the counter.

 

[rcarter3636]

I see it as more of an enhancement of tv or movie watching.
I have 77” OLED that I was going to replace with UST projector but really didn’t want to give up the blacks and picture quality.
Now I can watch a movie with 100’ screen instead of UST 150”………and save about $3 in the process

 

[Dj64Mk7]

It will quickly adopt all the existing streaming services.. specifically because it is a computer. It has safari and it will have many iPad and iPhone apps day one. Will it replace shared TV viewing? Not until everyone has a future pair of these goggles / glasses.

Someone said VP is a niche product. It is not niche. It's Apples vision for the future of computing. For everyone who isn't vision impaired- this will be the go to for computing. Especially once it's a pair of glasses instead of headset VR, which is probably 5-6 years from now. Apple is going to invest billions into manufactures making this product.

And what about for those of us who are vision impaired?

I’ve stated before on these forums that while I’m not fully blind or even legally blind, I do have a significant enough vision issue that the script on my glasses is too strong for every existing producer of VR lenses that I’m aware of.

And that’s to say nothing of this being the first time I can remember where Apple is selling a breakthrough device in a category they’ve never done so before, and, by nature of the type of product it is, not including everything absolutely necessary for a large portion of the population to use the product out of the box, in the box.

 

[VPsmith]

And what about for those of us who are vision impaired?

I’ve stated before on these forums that while I’m not fully blind or even legally blind, I do have a significant enough vision issue that the script on my glasses is too strong for every existing producer of VR lenses that I’m aware of.

And that’s to say nothing of this being the first time I can remember where Apple is selling a breakthrough device in a category they’ve never done so before, and, by nature of the type of product it is, not including everything absolutely necessary for a large portion of the population to use the product out of the box, in the box.

I would imagine with Apples level of accessibility they will have the script you need. I couldn't imagine them not having this. Its just Apple to support as best they can accessibility.

 

[chrisn123]

I don't think it will be a 1:1 TV replacement, but would be great for certain use cases. I think a lot of people sit down to watch sports on TV with laptop on your lap and you switch you attention back and forth. VP would let you have Video in one window, safari in anther and maybe Mail in a third. That would be cool. Something cool happening in the game you're watching? No problem-- make that screen bigger for a bit. Need to stand up and walk around to do some chores but don't want to miss a key moment? No problem-- pass-through is more than good enough for that (while keeping the game up in a medium sized window...

 

[Dj64Mk7]

I would imagine with Apples level of accessibility they will have the script you need. I couldn't imagine them not having this. Its just Apple to support as best they can accessibility.

Thanks for the enthusiasm! After seeing the article saying the prescription lenses should be around $150, I’m starting to get excited again, especially considering that a regular pair of glasses (frame+lenses) normally costs me (well, my parents alongside insurance) between $300 and $500, sometimes even up to around $700 at one point. Of course, these are single-use lenses, but between the potential for the headset to replace my devices (mainly iPad and Apple TV) and the incredible accessibility opportunities (magnification of digital content in real-space, easing usage of computers by not having to hold a device or sit at a table, improving posture by the ‘screen’ adapting to me instead of the other way around, and being able to use the fine motor skills I am proficient with to interact with the device versus contorting myself and becoming uncomfortable), there’s so many ways for these to effectively be “digital glasses” as opposed to “single-use lenses”.

Then again, starting at $3500, it’s a major expense no matter how you swing it. Hopefully there’s still Apple Card financing offers despite it being a brand new category. Scratch that; I hope Christmas comes two months late XD.

 

[TheColtr]

Yes and no, yes it totally can for an individual, but no for any communal viewing. If I lived by myself I don’t think I would have a tv. I would just use VP, iPad, etc for shows. But having a family and wanting to have a shared viewing experience a tv is essential.

 

[zakarhino]

For the family room? No
For when it's just me? Absolutely, there's no question.

It's all going to depend on comfort and resolution but the idea of having a massive 80 inch equivalent TV at the foot of my bed with class leading HDR (as far as I can tell, no TV will beat the HDR capabilities of the Vision Pro) and the virtual light 'spillover' effect shown in the demo sounds way too good. If I want it smaller, I can do that. If I want it to be an IMAX screen I can do that. If you want the best HDR TV experience today you're looking at $5k for Sony's best QD-OLED 77" A95L TV.

The best part is I can use it anywhere. In bed, on the couch, at my desk (virtual Mac display mode), at a hotel, anywhere. If the only thing I did with Vision Pro was consume media it would be worth it on that basis alone, but I plan on using it for a lot more than just that. For me it's a no brainer.

 

[Jensend]

It's all going to depend on comfort and resolution but the idea of having a massive 80 inch equivalent TV at the foot of my bed with class leading HDR (as far as I can tell, no TV will beat the HDR capabilities of the Vision Pro) and the virtual light 'spillover' effect shown in the demo sounds way too good. If I want it smaller, I can do that. If I want it to be an IMAX screen I can do that. If you want the best HDR TV experience today you're looking at $5k for Sony's best QD-OLED 77" A95L TV.

It will have lower brightness, contrast, and resolution (for 16:9 or wider video) than any OLED TV available today.
Resolution: the Vision Pro is less than 3840 pixels wide per eye.
Brightness: although the panel can be extremely bright, it’s turned off most of the time and a lot of efficiency is lost through the lenses. (If Apple though it offered higher peak brightness than any TV, they would have said so)
Contrast: There will be some level of glare from the optics that will raise the black levels when brighter objects are in a darker scene.

I’m sure it will still be a great experience but it won’t be better than the best OLED TV except in apparent size.

 

[Macalicious2011]

I don't think it will be a 1:1 TV replacement,

The term TV is old fashioned. There are millions of people who can afford a TV but choose not do. Yet they happily consume streaming services on their phone, laptop or tablet.

In the 80-90s, Many households had a single screen. Today, household members have several screens each. Even communal/family watching has changed.

Today, communal “watching” TV includes family members watching casually whilst browsing on their phones.

 

[roland.g]

The obvious answer is the VP is best suited to POV 3D Porn.

 

[rcarter3636]

It will have lower brightness, contrast, and resolution (for 16:9 or wider video) than any OLED TV available today.
Resolution: the Vision Pro is less than 3840 pixels wide per eye.
Brightness: although the panel can be extremely bright, it’s turned off most of the time and a lot of efficiency is lost through the lenses. (If Apple though it offered higher peak brightness than any TV, they would have said so)
Contrast: There will be some level of glare from the optics that will raise the black levels when brighter objects are in a darker scene.

I’m sure it will still be a great experience but it won’t be better than the best OLED TV except in apparent size.

Not sure how you come to the conclusion on brightness, contrast and resolution.
OLED tv and display in the AVP are the same. Both use filters.
How can the AVP be less bright, contrast and resolution?