Sidebar Sidebar
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

Max I would pay for one even in its current state is $99.99. I'd play with it for a week then get bored and it would sit there unused.
 
Gotta say, seeing what Meta showcased today must be discouraging for the Apple Vision team. Sure, Meta's prototypes cost in the $10K range, but they're a much stronger starting place to get to that not-extortionately-expensive AR Glasses finish line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
paradox00 said:
Why aren’t you interested in the opinions of people who considered the Vision Pro, but chose to buy something else?
Click to expand...

Because I'm looking for assessments from people who have actually owned and use an AVP, or have spent considerable time reviewing AVP for a respected journal.

I can much better form my own initial opinions from specs/stories/trying it out at the Apple Store, etc for the manner in which I would use AVP vs another device.

Actual in-depth use as reported from a trusted source is what would seal the deal for making a purchase. And of course using it during the 14 day Apple return period to see if it meets (or not meets) *my* expectations.

Why do you care so much about my selection process? Feel free to use a process that makes sense for you. As you should.
 
i don't think apple is particularly worried about a prototype that a competitor is not selling any time soon.
 
  • Love
Reactions: jo-1
There may be a lot of scope for reducing the resolution but I absolutely cannot be at the cost of the clarity or current “pixel-free” experience. I’m sure Apple will thoroughly test, test & test this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps
citysnaps said:
Because I'm looking for assessments from people who have actually owned and use an AVP, or have spent considerable time reviewing AVP for a respected journal.

I can much better form my own initial opinions from specs/stories/trying it out at the Apple Store, etc for the manner in which I would use AVP vs another device.

Actual in-depth use as reported from a trusted source is what would seal the deal for making a purchase. And of course using it during the 14 day Apple return period to see if it meets (or not meets) *my* expectations.

Why do you care so much about my selection process? Feel free to use a process that makes sense for you. As you should.
Click to expand...

I don't care about your selection process. I'm only poking holes in it because you came in here and called comments by everyone who doesn't own an AVP "not credible" and "speculation." This was carried across several posts, and is an untruth in addition to needlessly antagonizing anyone who posted. As an example, I'm not speculating if I say that the AVP can't do room scale VR and doesn't support VR motion controllers. Nor can the Vision Pro run MacOS apps, despite having a processor capable of doing so. Those would be facts that I've researched and confirmed through multiple sources. People can have perfectly valid and credible opinions about products they don't own. They may not be the information you're looking for, but that doesn't invalidate them.

If you're actually serious about evaluating the AVP vs other options, and have a real use case in mind, I apologize, but please take a different angle at getting information from AVP users next time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane and arkitect
paradox00 said:
I don't care about your selection process. I'm only poking holes in it because you came in here and called comments by everyone who doesn't own an AVP "not credible" and "speculation." This was carried across several posts, and is an untruth in addition to needlessly antagonizing anyone who posted. As an example, I'm not speculating if I say that the AVP can't do room scale VR and doesn't support VR motion controllers. Nor can the Vision Pro run MacOS apps, despite having a processor capable of doing so. Those would be facts that I've researched and confirmed through multiple sources. People can have perfectly valid and credible opinions about products they don't own. They may not be the information you're looking for, but that doesn't invalidate them.

If you're actually serious about evaluating the AVP vs other options, and have a real use case in mind, I apologize, but please take a different angle at getting information from AVP users next time.
Click to expand...

Nope... I'll continue to rely on AVP information from those who actually own and use it, and reviews from trusted sources.

"If you're actually serious about evaluating the AVP vs other options, and have a real use case in mind, I apologize, but please take a different angle at getting information from AVP users next time."

Of course I'm serious, and yes, I have AVP applications in mind for my personal enjoyment and use as well as some for potential commercial use.

Feel free to use any method that works for you. I'm not telling you how to assess AVP, so please stop mandating how I should be going about that. I'm an engineer with many years of design experience and can fend for myself.
 
Last edited:
Simplify the construction, remove the exterior display and glass. Switch to a lighter plastic construction, remove all metal and carbon fibre elements, bin the stupid connector and replace it with a usb c port and Basic battery. Ship it with the basic strap Etc. keep the lenses, cameras and cpu. $1500
 
A cheaper Vision headset will be good. But not expecting it to be released anytime soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mganu
stinksroundhere said:
You're confusing anti aliasing and sampling techniques with increasing physical screen resolution.
Click to expand...
Have you read what I wrote? It doesn't seem so.

The confusing part is we refer to pixels for both the data and the physical device used to display it.
 
SanderEvers said:
Here a preview of the cheaper Apple Vision Pro:

virtual-boy-nintendo-emulator.jpg
Click to expand...
RIP Gunpei
 
paradox00 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Look up what the iPhone and watch shipped with vs. what they have today. It will get there eventually, it's a dev toy at the moment.
 
throAU said:
Look up what the iPhone and watch shipped with vs. what they have today. It will get there eventually, it's a dev toy at the moment.
Click to expand...

Not a great comparison

The iPhone was not a "dev toy" when launched -- The only thing that held back even more excitement and mass adoption was carrier restrictions/exclusivity for the first couple years .. Cingular only, no VZW, initial lack of 3G, etc

There is absolutely no such fervor or interest in AVP or that space in general

Even Apple shill podcasters struggle to find anything -- something -- to keep doing with their AVPs
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dawn of Individual Merit
turbineseaplane said:
The iPhone was not a "dev toy" when launched -- The only thing that held back even more excitement and mass adoption was carrier restrictions/exclusivity for the first couple years .. Cingular only, no VZW, initial lack of 3G, etc
Click to expand...

It was 2G, had no app store or third party app development, no cut and paste and was very expensive.

My point was that it is was a very basic, functionality limited device with no apps by the standards of today. Ditto for the watch.
 
  • Love
Reactions: jo-1
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back