Apple Likely Planning to Use Bigger, Lower Resolution Displays for Cheaper Vision Headset

[knowsuchpeace]

yep, fwiw I love my vision pro. Despite any of the downsides, the thing still feels like magic whenever I use it. The eyetracking plus pinch gesture feels just as exciting as multitouch when it was first introduced.

I wouldn't recommend vision pro at it's current retail price for the vast majority of people, but at $2499 or $1999 it starts making a lot more sense.

 

[lovehateapple]

IMO apple should ditch the front facing displays until they're much more lifelike.
A wider fov would be nice too.

 

[lilkwarrior]

I will double down on saying there no work scenario where the VP is more efficient than the current standard devices such as a workstation and additional monitors. One example might be surgical but that is such a small niche use it hardly worth mentioning.

…That opinion is again naive when reference computing use cases (cooking, surgury, drawing, etc) and portable multitasking at a prosumer level on-the-go, at any viewing angle, and hands free with prosumer HDR support (Dolby Vision HDR), optimal outdoor precautions (5000 nits), and 3D movies support is a intrinsic important and obvious advantage the Vision Pro has over standard monitors.

“Hardly worth mentioning” is blasphemous and disingenuous for a product for a wide variety of computer users.


It’s explicitly for entrenched prosumers interested in having spatial computing be meaningful and compatible with their use of technology—particularly being able to consume and work on non-gaming content at a prosumer level with synergy alongside other prosumer hardware no other prosumer standalone headset as ever achieved.

Prosumer portable monitors cost more than the Vision Pro without its HDR performance—coincidentally not unlike what the Pro Display XDR did to the prosumer monitor industry.

 

[lilkwarrior]

This is why Apple should not have rushed this product to soothe Cook’s ego. The space is definitely the future, and has the ability to replace the iPhone someday.

I follow the space closely, along with the technology behind it and it’s simply not there , nor will it be, before 2027 at the absolute earliest.

•33% reduction in weight
•Real PASS-THROUGH AR, not this camera crap
•An FOV of at least 140 degrees vertical and horizontal
•144hz panels
•Sub $1300 price
•A SoC capable of running all this efficiently (years away from existing)

I’m being optimistic when I say 2027, this kind of tech, particularly the pass-through and larger FOV without warping, is more likely to not be commercially viable until possibly closer to 2029.

It doesn’t need a $1300 price which isn’t realistic or adds up to the cost of prosumer screens a Vision Pro needs to have to work alongside Apple’s other prosumer products.

That price doesn’t properly account for the laptop-class APU aligned with the iPad Pro (even the gen before it to save money) it needs to consistently upgrade to.

iPad Pros are $1000 minimum; a Vision Pro on parity with its chip (or even the gen before it) a more sophisticated screen of the same tech as the iPad it needs, and its additional dedicated hardware can’t be consolidated to be merely $300 more.

It’s fantasy land and tech illiteracy at its finest unless you’re explicitly saying Apple should sell the Vision Pro at a loss (why?)…

That’s like thinking a Pro Display XDR should be $2000 today which doesn’t add up:

Even after all these years a panel with the pixel density needed to be retina quality and have HDR performance and support of a typical Apple pro product (Dolby Vision + HLG, 1600+ peak nits) on top of a laptop-class-APU cannot allow the Vision Pro to be $1300

The Quest Pro with far less screen capabilities as $1500; the Big Screen Beyond with a screen as pixel dense but without the HDR performance is $1000.

iPads and Macbooks with the Vision Pro’s laptop APU only are $999 minimum.

Do you really think the R1, camera sensors, and other material needed can be consolidated being ~$300 tops?

And have a refresh rate even faster at 144hz at that?

You’re not being realistic. Maybe the Vision Pro today is that price as a vintage product.

The 5K, 6K, 8K, and 16K panels are gonna stabilize and if not increase the average cost of monitors for the prosumer level as well now that Thunderbolt 5 can begin rolling out between then and prosumer headset will be expected to keep up with as well.

Prosumer Dolby Vision HDR desktop monitors without even high PPI or as fast as a headset panel needs to be are $2500 minimum.

The portable ones are $4000 (higher MSRP than the Vision Pro itself).

Accordingly it makes more sense for a non-Pro Vision Pro with legacy parts to maybe reach that theoretical price instead of a Vision Pro consisting specced to work alongside Apple’s other prosumer hardware.

Keeping up with the The iPad Pro as it does today alone necessitates that, even if it gets the iPad previous gen chip consistently like right now.

 

[shenfrey]

oh really, I thought they were going to use smaller, higher res, more expensive displays for a cheaper device

Sorry stupid question, but for VR headsets then are smaller displays better than larger ones?

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Shouldn't a more affordable headset have been released first to test the market and gain the interest? Then Apple could have released a Pro version with all the bells and whistles to push consumers further.

It just seems like they've released a very expensive Vision Pro, showed people what it can do and now the after thought is to appeal to a wider market with a 'cheaper' and slimmed down version because interest hasn't been as high as predicted by market observers.

 

[citysnaps]

Shouldn't a more affordable headset have been released first to test the market and gain the interest? Then Apple could have released a Pro version with all the bells and whistles to push consumers further.

It just seems like they've released a very expensive Vision Pro, showed people what it can do and now the after thought is to appeal to a wider market with a 'cheaper' and slimmed down version because interest hasn't been as high as predicted by market observers.

I think Apple's strategy is working fine.

With 400,000 AVPs sold at $3,500= $1.4 Billion in sales. And $652 Million in gross profit margin.

All within 5 months of AVP availability.

 

[JohnRckr]

oh really, I thought they were going to use smaller, higher res, more expensive displays for a cheaper device

You just single handedly cancelled Apple

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I think Apple's strategy is working fine.

With 400,000 AVPs sold at $3,500= $1.4 Billion in sales. And $652 Million in gross profit margin.

All within 5 months of AVP availability.

If a couple of billion from the niche is all they aimed for, then fair play to them.

 

[turbineseaplane]

What they need to do - now - is get out some gaming controllers or APIs to enable third party controllers

Gaming is the one thing that has absolutely sold VR headsets, and there is a world of content out there that could be ported over quickly if the controller support were there.

Apple TV gaming struggled on this point, also, until Apple relented and embraced normal controllers for those who needed it.

 

[NT1440]

What they need to do - now - is get out some gaming controllers or APIs to enable third party controllers

Gaming is the one thing that has absolutely sold VR headsets, and there is a world of content out there that could be ported over quickly if the controller support were there.

Apple TV gaming struggled on this point, also, until Apple relented and embraced normal controllers for those who needed it.

…that’s been there since day one.

Connect keyboards, headphones, and other Bluetooth accessories to Apple Vision Pro

You can connect Bluetooth accessories like a game controller, keyboard, trackpad or mouse, headphones, and more to your Apple Vision Pro.

support.apple.com

 

[knowsuchpeace]

…that’s been there since day one.

Connect keyboards, headphones, and other Bluetooth accessories to Apple Vision Pro

You can connect Bluetooth accessories like a game controller, keyboard, trackpad or mouse, headphones, and more to your Apple Vision Pro.

support.apple.com

Yep.

Nothing is stopping companies from making games that require vr-style hand controllers, but there isn't a single controller for companies to rally around. Apple isn't actively preventing controllers from happening—they just aren't promoting a main one for now. Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons can be paired to the vision pro, and they work fine for a pretty large chunk of existing vr games. Gamers who are hungry for existing pcvr games on vision pro can play them right now through alvr with joycons or with more expensive lighthouse-based index controllers.

Gaming is a very tough problem for apple to solve, and it's a low priority problem since the games business is so financially rocky to begin with. Regular games struggle to be profitable, vr games are particularly unprofitable, and vr games on a platform with a very small userbase are likely to be totally unprofitable. Apple just went through a round of bad press about their AAA iPhone gaming push struggling to find an audience. The customers who are currently interested in VR games are already on an existing platform for VR games, and they have already paid money for the VR games that might eventually get a visionOS port.

 

[UltimaKilo]

It doesn’t need a $1300 price which isn’t realistic or adds up to the cost of prosumer screens a Vision Pro needs to have to work alongside Apple’s other prosumer products.

That price doesn’t properly account for the laptop-class APU aligned with the iPad Pro (even the gen before it to save money) it needs to consistently upgrade to.

iPad Pros are $1000 minimum; a Vision Pro on parity with its chip (or even the gen before it) a more sophisticated screen of the same tech as the iPad it needs, and its additional dedicated hardware can’t be consolidated to be merely $300 more.

It’s fantasy land and tech illiteracy at its finest unless you’re explicitly saying Apple should sell the Vision Pro at a loss (why?)…

That’s like thinking a Pro Display XDR should be $2000 today which doesn’t add up:

Even after all these years a panel with the pixel density needed to be retina quality and have HDR performance and support of a typical Apple pro product (Dolby Vision + HLG, 1600+ peak nits) on top of a laptop-class-APU cannot allow the Vision Pro to be $1300

The Quest Pro with far less screen capabilities as $1500; the Big Screen Beyond with a screen as pixel dense but without the HDR performance is $1000.

iPads and Macbooks with the Vision Pro’s laptop APU only are $999 minimum.

Do you really think the R1, camera sensors, and other material needed can be consolidated being ~$300 tops?

And have a refresh rate even faster at 144hz at that?

You’re not being realistic. Maybe the Vision Pro today is that price as a vintage product.

The 5K, 6K, 8K, and 16K panels are gonna stabilize and if not increase the average cost of monitors for the prosumer level as well now that Thunderbolt 5 can begin rolling out between then and prosumer headset will be expected to keep up with as well.

Prosumer Dolby Vision HDR desktop monitors without even high PPI or as fast as a headset panel needs to be are $2500 minimum.

The portable ones are $4000 (higher MSRP than the Vision Pro itself).

Accordingly it makes more sense for a non-Pro Vision Pro with legacy parts to maybe reach that theoretical price instead of a Vision Pro consisting specced to work alongside Apple’s other prosumer hardware.

Keeping up with the The iPad Pro as it does today alone necessitates that, even if it gets the iPad previous gen chip consistently like right now.

I believe you need to re-read my post. Until the hardware advancements I mentioned are reached, and component prices come down to the point of a significantly cheaper product, Apple should table the idea. Holy hell.

 

[joecomo]

the more dense a display is, the more complicated the lens system needs to be in order to magnify the tinier pixels and to correct for distortion. curving the displays makes it even more difficult to solve for distortions and makes a smaller sweet spot for where the eye ball needs to sit in order to see the whole display clearly

but then why was making Apple such an effort to have small & dense displays? - not clear what the tradeoffs/benefits are

 

[darngooddesign]

but then why was making Apple such an effort to have small & dense displays? - not clear what the tradeoffs/benefits are

You need a dense, high-quality display if the screens are not only close to your eye, but also something you want to be good enough to read small text on.

 

[fatTribble]

I haven’t lost interest at all in the last 5 months. In fact I’m watching even more movies and tv in it and get excited for what Apple TV drops as free every month. I even rent new movies which I never did before on digital . It’s even exciting to rewatch old favorites on it

I’ve actually been watching a lot of 4K videos I’ve taken on trips. When I took those videos I never thought I’d be watching them in such a large and clear format. It’s really impressive!

I can open up an Album in Photos and the basic app displays like a giant wall of photos. Oftentimes I don’t even open the photos because the “thumbnail” is so large.

 

[lilkwarrior]

I believe you need to re-read my post. Until the hardware advancements I mentioned are reached, and component prices come down to the point of a significantly cheaper product, Apple should table the idea. Holy hell.

Not necessarily: They just in perpetuity not make a prosumer headset for you prioritizing the baseline expectations and experience their very established prosumer target audience expects will be intact in a headset.

The Vision Pro isn’t expected to be upgraded as often as a more mainstream-oriented variants of the device category—just like their other prosumer hardware in niche categories for that kind of investment like the Pro Display XDR, Mac Studio, Mac Pro, and so on.

Like those other prosumer devices, the Vision Pro doesn’t need to appease everyone or be afforfable to everyone.

There’s a reason why budget headsets cannot compete with several of its component d, be as good as its eye tracking, and so on.

 

[citysnaps]

If a couple of billion from the niche is all they aimed for, then fair play to them.

Apple likely knew that AVP wasn't going to be iPhone like in sales. Manufacturing, selling, and delivering 600,000 iPhones per day (on the average) would be a tough bar to hit.

Apple isn't stupid.

 

[subjonas]

Let’s call a “lot” more than half

It’s not pointless to go there, in the sense that it’s interesting to speculate about just how much this product has failed

Unfortunately we’ll never actually know because Apple will never tell

And 400,000 sold is just barely half of the 750,000 manufactured

So thanks for anchoring my point

I don’t see the appeal in speculating about it, personally, but as you said we’ll never actually know, so debating about it is completely pointless. It’s like playing football/soccer with no goals.

 

[subjonas]

Shouldn't a more affordable headset have been released first to test the market and gain the interest? Then Apple could have released a Pro version with all the bells and whistles to push consumers further.

It just seems like they've released a very expensive Vision Pro, showed people what it can do and now the after thought is to appeal to a wider market with a 'cheaper' and slimmed down version because interest hasn't been as high as predicted by market observers.

Tesla did the same thing releasing their expensive cars first, but possibly for somewhat different reasons.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Apple likely knew that AVP wasn't going to be iPhone like in sales. Manufacturing, selling, and delivering 600,000 iPhones per day (on the average) would be a tough bar to hit.

Apple isn't stupid.

I didn’t suggest they were.

 

[nathansz]

I don’t see the appeal in speculating about it, personally, but as you said we’ll never actually know, so debating about it is completely pointless. It’s like playing football/soccer with no goals.

this might be the wrong site for you then

much of these forums are pure speculation

 

[citysnaps]

I didn’t suggest they were.

I'm sorry... Didn't mean to suggest that was your belief. Many here, however, have concluded AVP ia a flop.

Apparently because Apple hasn't come close to iPhone sales volume with AVP. And not realizing $1.4 Billion in AVP sales (with roughly $650 Million in profit) in just 5 months of availability, is pretty good.

 

[subjonas]

this might be the wrong site for you then

much of these forums are pure speculation

I said speculating about that, not speculating in general.
Also to be clear about my previous post, speculation and debate (ie. arguing) are not the same. One is kicking the ball around for fun, the other is thinking there’s a winner and loser.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I'm sorry... Didn't mean to suggest that was your belief. Many here, however, have concluded AVP ia a flop.

Apparently because Apple hasn't come close to iPhone sales volume with AVP. And not realizing $1.4 Billion in AVP sales (with roughly $650 Million in profit) in just 5 months of availability, is pretty good.

I’ve never expected AVP to match iPhones and iPads in terms of sales because it’s not priced competitively to do so and I’m sure Apple knew this. As a consumer I measure impact via sales rather than revenue though and if this product is being measured in revenue/profit entirely, it’s clearly done very well. If we measure it via the number of people using it on a global scale, it’s likely going to continue to be a niche product by default.

I don’t expect it to revolutionise the way ‘we’ approach computing as it’s a wearable device. That for me is the one thing that will prevent it becoming a mainstream computing device. The Apple Watch for example is an extremely successful wearable device in its own right, but I think still the vast majority of iPhone users don’t use one. A lot of that is down to preferences for not wanting to wear something and that for me will ultimately apply to something we need to wear on our face. I expect AVP to do well though and it clearly is.