Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Exploring Lower Resolution Displays for Cheaper Vision Headset
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wonder if the Apple Vision Pro will be to this new device what the Lisa was to the Macintosh.
The massive gaming library, VR controllers and lack of hostility towards actually working with major gaming developers
That and the ability to connect to hdmi. My buddy's kids occasionally hook their Switch to their Occulus.
Also a great use!
Definitely will never get that from Apple Hubris Inc
They won't even put a 2nd input on their bloody monitors (one of many reasons I'll never buy one)
I tried the Vision Pro at an Apple Store and it was honestly incredible. That said the price especially in Canada is just way too high.
I can appreciate the desire to put glass and a display on the outside. But you could functionally accomplish the same sort of ‘can this person see me, can they not?’ With either a ring of LEDs in the shape of open and closed eyes. Or use eInk or something. Don’t get me wrong the current look is clearly better looking on a billboard. But how much does that display cost?
I feel like the plan was to make this really good in public… and then price it in a way you’d never take it out.
I know Apple is averse to plastics but they could do a strong metal grating covered with fabric or something. But the weight on it was just a lot.
I have no idea if displays at that density would be viable. I’d definitely want to test them out. But they need to look like reality the same way the Vision Pro currently does.
I can appreciate the desire to put glass and a display on the outside. But you could functionally accomplish the same sort of ‘can this person see me, can they not?’ With either a ring of LEDs in the shape of open and closed eyes. Or use eInk or something. Don’t get me wrong the current look is clearly better looking on a billboard. But how much does that display cost?
I feel like the plan was to make this really good in public… and then price it in a way you’d never take it out.
I know Apple is averse to plastics but they could do a strong metal grating covered with fabric or something. But the weight on it was just a lot.
I have no idea if displays at that density would be viable. I’d definitely want to test them out. But they need to look like reality the same way the Vision Pro currently does.
I wouldn't demean the people with more sense than money.
I wonder why you're worried about it?
It's a fools errand to worry about contextualizing or gate-keeping opinions and reactions about any of this
Use one? Own one?
I haven't even seen one in person. And I don't need to see one to know it's a worthless product that I don't need, much like I don't need to stab myself in the eyeball to know stabbing myself in the eyeball is a really stupid thing to do.
There is no conceivable use case for me to put one of those things on my head. I've put a VR headset on before, and it was pointless but a little bit cool. Somebody gave me one, it's sitting in a box because it was not useful. And it was not useful connected to an actual computer that could have software normally installed on it, not reliant on an idiotic walled garden app store, with an idiotic attempt at making it a standalone device with idiotic cameras to show me the outside world that I could just see by taking it off.
I love my vision pro and use it all the time. A lower resolution version would be fine for watching movies and playing games. Meta created a pretty incredible product with the Quest 3, but no one cares because it has the stink of Meta on it. An Apple version of the Quest 3 with Apple's eyetracking+pinch controls and app ecosystem would be a great product at a much more reasonable price than the launch avp.
Apple purposely went out of their way to avoid the established use cases for VR/AR headsets (fitness and gaming), in favor of highlighting a "spatial operating system" that they couldn't even be bothered to port their own apps to. I'd argue this is specifically the source of Apple's problems. They saw dollar signs at the prospect of launching the locked down iPhone App Store 2.0 and forgot that users and developers need a reason be on the platform.
Umm, we don't have exact numbers but it safe to say the Quest 3 has easily outsold the AVP, as has the Quest 2.
"No one" ... except all the people using it for gaming -- which is a user base that I guarantee you totally dwarfs that of AVP
Nope. Not worried or gatekeeping.
As someone who is curious about AVP... Just wondering if all of the negative responses are from people who actually own and use AVP. Or are simply conjecturing.
That helps me understand the credibility of comments, as I might purchase an AVP and want to know if people actually own and use one. There are people here who do.
Why do you take such a strong interest in how I evaluate information that helps me make a purchase decision? That doesn't seem healthy.
meta quest 3 has fallen way short of the sales juggernaut of the quest 2 was more my point. no one cares about getting a nicer product from Meta. Meta built a price-sensitive market that did not reward them for putting out a nicer quality headset. Apple's core audience would be thankful for a $1,499 vision headset, while Meta's audience struggles to justify a $499 headset.
Whoever is the one telling Apple it's best to down grade the LCD in the Vison headset so they can reduce it's costs need's firing because that is the one thing VR headset owners have been complaining about ever since the introduction of VR headsets. I've used Oculus Rift VR and PS4 VR headset and even still there issues. When we look at a 1080p Television picture or on a 1080p monitor, we want that crystal clear sharp definition in our VR headsets but we don't because there is always issues with them.
Top quality crystal clear LCD's is what VR owners want and the company that can provide that will in my opinion be the one who will win over VR customers.
Top quality crystal clear LCD's is what VR owners want and the company that can provide that will in my opinion be the one who will win over VR customers.
How about coming up for a reason for this to exist?
People with the AVP have 3499 reasons to justify their purchasing decisions. If you aren't considering the viewpoints of people who evaluated the product and decided it wasn't worth the asking price, you're not collecting the total picture. Plenty of people, myself included, have used other headsets and have experience that is above the level of simply conjecture. I don't have to waste my money on a product to be qualified to say that product is a waste of money.
As for your curiosity about the Vision Pro, if $3499 is nothing to you, sure be curious. Otherwise, imo you should be coming up with what you want to do with it, then ask if it's good at that. What would make it worth $3499 to you? Is it good at that? Then the experiences from AVP users can be more useful, but not owning it doesn't invalidate someone's views on the product.
Edit: yes negative aspects from actual owners are valuable, especially since the buyers of a $3499 devices are heavily skewed to the fanboist of fanboys (or developers hoping to get in on the ground floor). If they say something is bad, it's probably really bad, but it's also not going to be the complete picture.
Last edited:
I think AVP is dead in the water. It all boils down to three things: price, comfort, and ecosystem. Remember how no one realized they needed an iPhone until they tried one? The original iPhone was a game changer back in the day and did things tremendously better than other things on the market. For Vision Pro to hit that level of success, it needs to be tremendously better than what is currently available. Right now, I just don't see it happening.
I use my Vision Pro 4 to 6 hours a day quite comfortably. It serves as an expanded external monitor for my MacBook Pro, and with Bluetooth keyboard allows me to do a great deal of work, simply using the Vision Pro. In the beginning, I primarily used it for media consumption, but as I got to understand how spatial computing worked, I found it became an essential productivity tool. Zoom meetings are far more productive using the Vision Pro. I also now shoot almost all my movies in spatial video and take spatial photos with my iPhone 16 Pro Max.
If a cheaper version got this technology into more hands and people could begin to understand what’s involved rather than just media consumption or games, then that would be a good thing.
If a cheaper version got this technology into more hands and people could begin to understand what’s involved rather than just media consumption or games, then that would be a good thing.
That's a very low resolution by today's standard. And still for what will probably be £1500 or more here in the UK. That will sell terribly. I'm also still waiting for a purpose for the AV lineup. It's a worse computer, i don't want to wear a headset to watch a movie, I don't want to stare at 3D models all day. What is it for?
I feel like this is the wrong way to encheapen the product. What's wrong with plastic for the body? Or skipping unnecessary features like the external display?
Glad you've made it work for you, but requiring the purchase of a Mac to be productive is one of the primary problems of this $3499 device. It has an M2, it should run MacOS apps natively, as part of the the spacial OS and not limited to a virtual monitor.
I have a Macbook Air, which would give the same processing ability of the AVP, but without it, you're looking at a starting price in the ballpark of $1299 + $4999 = $6268 CAD. That's a non-starter for the vast majority of people ($4999 CAD is still a non-starter for me).