Apple Exploring Lower Resolution Displays for Cheaper Vision Headset

[knowsuchpeace]

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?

the displays in avp are a multi-generational leap in quality from existing consumer headsets. the displays are by far the most expensive part in the product, and "encheapening them" would still lead to dramatically better screens than what currently exists in comparable vr headsets. getting cheaper displays isn't negotiable if they want to release a lower-end version of the vision pro. it'd be like using their highest-end display tech in their lowest-end macbook air or iPad.

the macbook air and basic iPad screens aren't awful, but they also aren't tandem OLEDs. we're talking about a comparable switch for the lower-end vision line that would reduce the display manufacturing price ten-fold.

 

[macmanmass]

If they lower the display res. I predict the end of Apple vision.

I think the end was when massive amounts of early adopters returned them in droves.

 

[throAU]

VR has a form factor problem and will for the foreseeable future

Yup, some people don't understand that the current devices are a preview of the future. They are not mass market yet, and especially the Vision Pro.

They are prototype devices to develop new software paradigms in advance of the more mainstream lighter, cheaper, easier to use devices.

Think original IBM PC XT or Apple II vs. what we have today. VR/AR is in its infancy.

 

[richard371]

I think the end was when massive amounts of early adopters returned them in droves.

Yup I was one of those. Lower res would ruin the exp.

 

[StanleyOmar]

I wonder how much Apple's willing to strip away before the Vision headset isn't really worth producing anymore. I'm sure the goal was never to put out some mediocre "Vision by Beats" type device, which is what some people appear to imagine Apple might drift toward in order to bring the price back down to Earth. But if they remove too much, they might end up with just another headset, though bearing the Apple brand, and that wouldn't make much sense as far as Apple's concerned.

 

[supergt]

Apple Vision Pro is a bust. Tim Cook wanted a signature product and wasted millions upon millions to get his signature item.

Does anyone care about AVP anymore??

 

[dandyryan]

give it up sis no one wants to wear a headset
real life is better than 8k

 

[paradox00]

the displays in avp are a multi-generational leap in quality from existing consumer headsets. the displays are by far the most expensive part in the product, and "encheapening them" would still lead to dramatically better screens than what currently exists in comparable vr headsets. getting cheaper displays isn't negotiable if they want to release a lower-end version of the vision pro. it'd be like using their highest-end display tech in their lowest-end macbook air or iPad.

the macbook air and basic iPad screens aren't awful, but they also aren't tandem OLEDs. we're talking about a comparable switch for the lower-end vision line that would reduce the display manufacturing price ten-fold.

This is true, except for the "comparable" part, because most niche high-end VR gaming headsets aren't pushing the $3499 price. You'd have to go to industrial solutions for that. At issue is the price point and timeline for this cheaper headset. A quest 4 will probably hit the rumoured pixel densities at (if I'm being generous to Apple) half the price point (Apple Vision will probably be closer to 3-4x the price).

Honestly, I would pay double for the Apple integration, if price was the only drawback, but there's still so much that the AVP can't do that these cheaper headsets can (and these cover most of my primary use cases).

 

[citysnaps]

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.

Sounds good... You don't own one, personally believe it's a worthless product, and have no conceivable use case.

Yet I should value your opinion with respect to the many uses I might have? Seriously?

 

[dba415]

Apple has been a disaster for a while. AVP was a gigantic waste of time and money. Apple Intelligence is delayed and isn't even impressive, they are playing catchup. New Apple Watch = made in thinner, that's it. New iPhone, wow a camera button. No improvements to AirPods Max, etc.

Apple would be toast if they didn't have ecosystem lock-in.

 

[citysnaps]

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.

And using your logic people buying an iPhone 16PM with 512GB of storage have 1,399 reasons to justify their purchasing decision. Such logic!

"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? "

In the past I've come up with (and posted on MR) a few dozen so-called "uses case" (I prefer the word applications) where AVP would be very useful and satisfying.

"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. "

But I have, a lot of them. From people here on MR who've actually purchased and used an AVP, and offered their views/opinions - and have a posting history of thoughtful well-considered views about products. Why in the world would I listen to someone who hasn't just to get their personal conjecture? Which is always negative, like so many assessments here on MR - a forum cred-building tradition going back 20 years.

 

[eas]

"By reducing the pixel density, Apple could substantially cut down on manufacturing costs while still offering a high-quality visual experience."

The only way this makes any sense is if Apple uses larger displays with the same # of pixels and uses different optics to match. I'm not sure how well that would work though. It seems like it would require more space and lead to more bulk.

 

[citysnaps]

I wouldn't demean the people with more sense than money.

That was a legitimate question and not demeaning. Relax.

 

[d5aqoëp]

So everyone is still fine with screen merely inches from your eyes? No studies done regarding side effects of prolonged usage?

 

[eas]

So everyone is still fine with screen merely inches from your eyes? No studies done regarding side effects of prolonged usage?

What's your concern? It's not like the focal distance is 1cm.

 

[DrWojtek]

It’s funny how the richest company in the world couldn’t afford a marketing department who understood Apple products are sought after because they enhance people’s lives. Their *real* lives.

Who the **** wants to spend their hours in a rediculous VR head set? That’s not enhancing life, that’s being an incel.

Save the high res screens, throw out everything else, sell it as a way to enjoy movies in iMax at home. DisplayPort in @ 4k, 120hz. That’s it. $1000.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Save the high res screens, throw out everything else, sell it as a way to enjoy movies in iMax at home. DisplayPort in @ 4k, 120hz. That’s it. $1000.

^ This

I don't understand why the AVP isn't a more affordable (than $3400) iOS accessory to consume content

That's the thing it's greatest for

 

[paradox00]

That was a legitimate question and not demeaning. Relax.

Your previous reply to me disagrees with this. Sorry.

 

[Dawn of Individual Merit]

No real use case ? How do you explain the Oculus/Quest selling so well , even though its tech is inferior to the VisionPro ?

You're saying the headsets that let you play the Steam VR games sell well?

That sounds like gaming is a use case that Apple just flat-out ignores. Good luck playing any worthwhile VR game without controllers anyway.

That's a us case. Even if you personally don't care for it, it seem to be enough for those other devices to sell well.


I'm sure you can think of other use cases that these platforms allow that are not compatible with Apple's business interests.

 

[trip1ex]

No real use case ? How do you explain the Oculus/Quest selling so well , even though its tech is inferior to the VisionPro ?

$200. Apple has a ways to go.

And Apple's definition of sell well is a little higher than the reported nearly 20mn quests sold over ~5 years. If a console sells 20mn over 5 years it isn't considered good.

Worse, a huge chunk of Quests largely gather dust soon after purchase according to internal Meta documents as reported by the WSJ.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Wake me up once it can be used with X-Plane 12 on Mac.

 

[retroneo]

Vision Pro already has a narrower field of view than a Quest 3 that's one seventh the price. Is Apple seriously going to make it even narrower and give it a lower resolution than the Quest too? Seems ridiculous when the Quest 4 will be out by then and the Quest 3 will be $250.

 

[knowsuchpeace]

Vision Pro already has a narrower field of view than a Quest 3 that's one seventh the price. Is Apple seriously going to make it even narrower and give it a lower resolution than the Quest too? Seems ridiculous when the Quest 4 will be out by then and the Quest 3 will be $250.

quest 3 is 1218ppi.
quest 3s is 773ppi.
apple vision pro is 3391ppi.

i think apple can kind find a middle ground in there somewhere without compromising the product entirely.

 

[Havoc035]

Apple has no clue what to do with Vision Pro. The problem isn't that it's an expensive cabbage waxer, it's that it's a cabbage waxer.

Thuis exactly. I feel Apple went into this the wrong way. They should’ve started with AR glasses rather than VR and video pass through. The potential audience is way bigger and so is the number of use cases.

 

[paradox00]

And using your logic people buying an iPhone 16PM with 512GB of storage have 1,399 reasons to justify their purchasing decision. Such logic!

Plenty of original iPhone owners argued that web apps were fine and native third party apps were unnecessary. History has proven those owners wrong. Owning the phone didn’t help them form an informed and objective position on the topic, and they just parroted Apple’s talking points. Meanwhile many people who didn’t own an iPhone were right.

This played out again with screen size. The bigger screen people (usually Android owners) were right. As an iPhone mini owner, this trend disappoints me, but even I wouldn’t want to go back to a 3.5” size just so my thumb could comfortably reach the corner. As an iPhone owner, I definitely argued in favor of this point endlessly though. My ownership of a iPhone didn’t make me right on balance, and Android users had simply experienced something else on a similar device. IMO this is something to keep in mind when quest owners talk about motion controller support…

First gen adopters have a lot of people that fall into this category of overlooking and denying legitimate issues or necessary areas of improvement. Obviously not all do, but the ones that do often come to forums like this.

My point is simply that ownership doesn’t determine the legitimacy of a position held. I think this is an obvious conclusion given that humans are capable of rational thought and can take their combined experience and imagine how they’d use something they haven’t used. Obviously they can be wrong, but they can also be very very right. Not everything from non-owners can or should be written of as simply “conjecture.”