Apple Exploring Lower Resolution Displays for Cheaper Vision Headset

[spaxxedout]

1) what the hell are you talking about
2) why are you presenting that as a fact
3) software cannot magically create more pixels

To be fair, there is a Metal VFX API that’s used in Juno for upscaling YouTube VR (it runs at like 15fps, no clue how that helps anything). So yeah, there’s certainly some hope in advanced dithering / antialiasing, but you’re right that software can’t create pixels.

 

[citysnaps]

I wonder how many people above commenting actually own and use an AVP, and base their assertions on actual use?

 

[Marx55]

Apple, this is the key to success:

"Vision Pro is simply a phenomenal way to watch movies, and 3D immersive experiences are astonishing. There are 3D immersive experiences in Vision Pro that are more compelling than Disney World attractions that people wait in line for hours to see".

Just support prescription lenses with Apple Vision Pro. Or sell two models: one not supporting prescription lenses (current one), and other only to watch 3D movies (or any movie on large area), allowing prescription glasses (which would also be a much much, much cheaper model, selling like hotcakes). Problem solved for all.

Probably Apple will not do that, unless forced to do it. If sales of the current Apple Vision Pro are scarce and people ask for the other model, Apple could make it. That would be awesome.

 

[spaxxedout]

I wonder how many people above commenting actually own and use an AVP, and base their assertions on actual use?

It’s very obvious on a lot of comments when someone clearly hasn’t used one.

 

[mrmod]

The field of view on the vision pro is already narrow, so that could be a bad move. Remove the front screen, use the phone as the CPU with a battery bank, drop the resolution slightly to get a better price/performance ratio.

 

[Dawn of Individual Merit]

isn't it funny ?​

1. Apple Vision Pro is released with top notch hardware and the latest in technology
2. Apple announces the price => $ 4 k
3. Everybody - well - the typical loud forum guys - respond with the usual " TOO EXPENSIVE !! "
4. Apple understands that people want a cheap version
5. Everybody - well - the typical loud forum guys - respond with the usual " TOO BAD !! "

For me that's just hilarious - I bought the current version and I am utterly happy with it - the image quality and the immersion is just mind-blowing good - would I personally buy a cheaper but worse version? No way - but I am not the typical forum guy

What's so hard to understand that Quality and price have some relation?

You always get what you pay for!​

It's not Apple that has lost connection to its users but it's some users that have lost any sense of reality. When I bought my first Macintosh 7500/100 it cost me including Monitor and laser printer inflation corrected some USD 8 .. 10 k - that time I was a student and worked in my vacation nightshifts to afford that machine and it was worth every penny.

Not I am in Management and I earn enough to afford whatever I like

This year I bought:

1. Maxed out iPad Pro
2. Maxed Out Apple Vision Pro
3. Apple Watch 10 Ti
4. Probably a new Apple TV in case it'll come next month

I would have told you that it's impressive how you are completely missing the points people are making - but then your post became "look how rich I am", so I'll have to assume you are not interested in discussion, only trolling.

 

[AdonisSMU]

lower res display for a headset? im sorry but its a no go...a device that close to your eyes needs higher resolution, not lower

I was thinking the same thing. a device without at least 4k is DOA.

 

[stinksroundhere]

3: Creating pixels on the fly is exactly what software does all the time. Think DLSS and all other kinds of super-sampling or interpolation.

You're confusing anti aliasing and sampling techniques with increasing physical screen resolution.

 

[thefredelement]

Preview of the budget digital avatars:

Is that lawnmower man?

 

[stinksroundhere]

Vision Pro has a higher resolution than 16" MacBook Pro.

Fine for the UI. Not fine for pass through camera, that's why it has lots of noise and dog **** level of low light performance and can't correctly expose objects like lamps and phones in a dark room.

 

[AppZ.Zero]

Same with the ipad, Hardware is not Apples Problem. Artifical Restrictions from Software is the problem with the ipad, no UseCase is the problem with die Vision pro.

 

[UltimateSyn]

It’s been really hard for me to think about what part of the existing Vision Pro’s BOM can be cut down without significantly impacting the experience.

I’m sure the displays are low hanging fruit cost-wise, but I would imagine that halving the PPI is going to make it a blurry mess. The existing Vision Pro’s PPI is the bottom of what I would consider usable for an AR headset.

What else could they go after, though? Maybe nix the speakers and make people BYOA with AirPods? Aluminum -> Polycarbonate build?

 

[bradman83]

Does Apple really think the problem is "oh no, too much advanced technology in this thing" instead of "there is no real use case"?

I'm sure Apple thinks the problem is that it costs too much for the average consumer, so they need to find corners to cut to bring the price down. The Vision Pro doesn't have a real use case at $3500 but at a significantly lower price it could be a more justifiable splurge for more consumers.

 

[UltimateSyn]

Same with the ipad, Hardware is not Apples Problem. Artifical Restrictions from Software is the problem with the ipad, no UseCase is the problem with die Vision pro.

Hardware is still the problem right now in the Vision line. It’s too heavy, uncomfortable, tiny FOV, color gamut is limited, battery life is short, etc.

 

[Kylo83]

One only good selling point about it vs the quest is the higher resolution; take that away and then it will be even more a wasted product

 

[wanha]

IMO, Apple should make the device (phone, iPad or Mac) do all the heavy processing and the headset would just be for displays and sensors.

Also lose the front facing display.

That way we could have a spatial computing device that is cheaper and lighter than Vision Pro, which is basically what just about everyone wants.

 

[spaxxedout]

Last time I checked, the Sony displays are $700 / pair. This move would make sense if the new panels are significantly cheaper. It honestly might not be the worst move when you think about it.

1) If you have a Vision Pro, try the accessibility option “ignore eye movements to stabilize”. This turns off foveated rendering and downsamples the image to what I assume is half resolution. Not as pretty, but definitely usable.

2) The silicon substrates are limited in die size, so larger microOLED panels are a long ways off. More flexibility with standard OLED. I would think you could use the lens itself as a substrate, but that’s probably not possible.

3) Lower resolution could enable faster frame rates. VP has bad motion blur because pixels stay persistently lit for the full frame. 120 would curtail this issue while playing nicer with 60/24fps content than 90.

I think they should stick to self-lit pixels (OLED or MicroLED). Even though the lenses give a bit of a halo effect, the high contrast is essential for text that’s easy to read. It’s funny how text is about the hardest thing to get right in this product class.

Largely agree with the ideas above. Eyesight should probably go. The panel is just $70, but removing it in favor of better camera positioning is logical. Plus I think the Vision Pro is more of a private-use computer than Apple had anticipated. Another big cost reduction would be the removal of the true depth camera. Persona Enrolment could be done on iPhone. I think that camera is only being used for that feature, which is astonishing. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

Smart concessions and scaling could get the product sub-$2000. Excited for the future of the line and, FWIW, Meta Connect 24 in a few hours. Interesting time to watch this space.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

i think I may be too old for these types of devices in general. I find the whole concept of wearing my computer on my head to be repelling. I can see it for gaming or for specific engineering or scientific use cases, but as a regular computer I use much for personal daily use I am not intrigued.

 

[wanha]

One only good selling point about it vs the quest is the higher resolution; take that away and then it will be even more a wasted product

Imo the integration with your other devices and the Apple ecosystem is a pretty solid selling point that the Quest doesn’t get close to matching

 

[wanha]

i think I may be too old for these types of devices in general.

Just about everyone turns into a technological conservative at some point. All the older folk I know want ”everything to remain exactly the same” on their devices.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Just about everyone turns into a technological conservative at some point. All the older folk I know want ”everything to remain exactly the same” on their devices.

I'm not there yet, but VR seems too niche to matter to most. My kids (11 and 14) couldn't care less about it, even after trying it out. My buddy has a Vision Pro, and his very tech-savvy son (14) doesn't want anything to do with it, nor does my friend, so it's been sitting on the shelf and untouched since June. They have a Quest that gets some use for games.

I just don't want to wear crap on my head and be isolated.

 

[Ctrlos]

Sony's PSVR2 is $500.

I am sure Apple could take that as a baseline for reducing costs. Does it really cost them an extra $3000 for the cameras and M2 chipset?

If Apple want to reduce the costs though ultimately they will have to reduce their margins.

 

[wanha]

I'm not there yet, but VR seems too niche to matter to most. My kids (11 and 14) couldn't care less about it, even after trying it out. My buddy has a Vision Pro, and his very tech-savvy son (14) doesn't want anything to do with it, nor does my friend, so it's been sitting on the shelf and untouched since June. They have a Quest that gets some use for games.

I just don't want to wear crap on my head and be isolated.

I agree with that sentiment, we need more connection and less isolation.

At the same time, I feel strongly that spatial computing will eventually become more common and useful. What the device, form factor and use case will be remains to be seen, however.

 

[newdeal]

Having people see my eyes when I am wearing an ugly headset is not needed. Especially a low quality rendering. That is just killing battery for no reason. It needs to be lighter, cheaper, and a wider field of view. Hard to feel immersed when its like you are looking through binoculars

 

[unregbaron]

I think this product will go the way of the iPod Hi-Fi.