Better yet, just put a row of red LEDs that bounce back and forth on the front. Slow for solo, and fast for recognition. Then we can all be part of the start of the Cylon Centurion revolution.
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 Likely to Make Vision Pro Lineup More Affordable in Two Ways
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nah, I think subjecting my eyes up close with technology that has not been adequately studied and deemed safe is the real reason.
I don't even like having a cell phone in my pocket, but it is still 3 feet away from my brain.
Having WiFi and Bluetooth transmitters inches away from my brain and running all the time for hours at a time, is just, at this time, dangerous.
No. It’s better for your eyes (less eye strain) and has been studied—especially human-computer-interaction (HCI) computer science about pixel dense screens.
You can be more prone to dry eyes using spatial computing hardware if you elect to skip best practices of working with all digital screens.
But please don’t take a stranger’s word for it when it comes to your eyes. Seek consultation with eye specialists familiar with your eyes
Yes you are right. I have been airplaying to the LG OLED. But then again as I have appletv connected to the LG, it is a good to have for me.
The point I was trying to make is that the AVP micro OLED works damn well. There were many complaining that Silo season 2 looks too dark. When watched on the AVP, the details are as good as the LG OLED, just way bigger. Must say I saw some reflections though, which can be irritating.
“Nothing special” is disingenuous when it’s a laptop class APU compared to a mobile class APU like its competitors in the standalone headset market.
Prosumer tablets using the same APU cost $1000 minimum for years with far less advanced screen and lacking its dedicated hardware it needs for spatial computing
did no one else grow up having their parents telling them not to sit so close to the tv‽‽
I did. But somehow when using the AVP, the screen feels far enough. In fact you can pull or push the screens based on your preferences. I believe it works as my eyesight has not deteriorated
Many times, 2-3 years ago, I speculated on this forum that's what AVP would be. People here thought I was stupid.
I still believe that's the best way to go. iPhone would handle the AR/VR computational load and have access to the internet via WiFi.
Apple ultra wide-band UWB type chips (U1/U2) could handle high speed video/camera and audio streams to and from AVP to iPhone. AVP could then have a much smaller battery with the computational load offloaded to iPhone. Also... No wired tether necessary
yes indeed + the device would be automatically "upgraded" as each new iPhone generation adds computational power.
In addition it could be tethered with Thunderbolt using an additional battery-pack magnetically attached to the iPhone - same amount of cables than today with a much lighter device.
They could further save weight by using plastic and scrap the outside display with the creepy eyes.
Weight is my key issue with the VisionPro.
Last edited:
It’s fine and even good to be cautious about something you don’t know about, but there’s an important difference between presuming it’s dangerous and presuming it could be dangerous.
That may make sense for a non-standalone headset which is fine; a prosumer headset and one more versatile being standalone has merit to coexist at the same time even as the much more expensive option.
Meta—despite the trade-offs of their loss leader headsets not that appealing to prosumers and gamers who want spatial computing on par and better than traditional gaming—have prioritized standalone headsets for a reason you know…
Apple merely elected to create a prosumer-level headset designed to be on par and supplementary to the existing baseline experiences of their traditional prosumer hardware.
That necessitates a higher price point at minimum than Apple’s prosumer hardware sharing the same chip (iPad Pro prior to M4 upgrade) considering the complexity of the form factor.
The Vision Pro uses a laptop-level APU vs a mobile one deliberately that’s appropriate of a prosumer product to Apple.
That’s within Apple’s right and that necessitates a higher price point than standalone and non-standalone headsets with more modest goals.
Meta’s prosumer headset, the Quest Pro, doesn’t meet much of the established prosumer benchmarks of display and computing specs towards a cheaper price.
However such modest execution led to an unsurprising lukewarm response by prosumers and, accordingly it did not impact the prosumer market in the matter the Vision Pro already has.
I’m of the opinion Apple should continue to provide a standalone prosumer headset with a laptop-level APU necessary to run iPad Pro apps like the existing one.
Even when using the Virtual Display with my Macs (Mac Pro and multiple Macbooks), I find it incredibly valuable and a game changer in multi-tasking that my iPad Pro apps can be used alongside the 32:9/21:9 5K2K virtual display projections of my Mac at the same time thanks to the standalone horsepower of the Vision Pro.
That cannot be done well being powered by an iPhone CPU. iPhone battery life would take quite a hit as well beyond merely using the iPhone as a virtual display alongside apps powered at an iPad Pro level by a standalone Vision Pro.
The Vision Pro being standalone at an iPad Pro level also makes multi-Mac switching seamless and again allows invaluable standalone use for prosumer workflows with minimal device management with your hands that can be completely hands free.
Last edited:
As a Pro product it needs CREATION apps… make Vision Pro the device used to create amazing Augmented Reality creative sculptures, artworks, etc. Build in a way to scan an object and re-create it in virtual reality. They really need to make this a creator-pro level device (writhing having to be an app developer to create "art") and then a device that is a consumer-based to view AR and VR experiences made from this AND other sources. Apple has a HUGE possibility to lead the way, but Meta is priced more affordably and will set the standards unless Apple gets in gear ASAP. Take al of those brilliant people who worked on the car that was shelved and throw them at this.
Waiting until "beyond 2027" (2028 or later) to release the non-Pro version might concede the market for lower-cost but still pretty good VR headsets to companies like Meta and their Quest headsets, at least possibly with Meta's next generation when theoretically their display technology will improve--as it is now, it's functional (I bought a Quest 3), but I find it too low-resolution, dim, and low contrast for displaying high-resolution video, and so it's less engaging than it could be, and not quite good enough for use as virtual monitors for getting work done, at least not for longer work sessions. It does very well at displaying relatively simple virtual environments (though there are some more detailed environments) and objects inserted into real space, where they're bright and in focus (as long as they've been programmed to be--many aren't), but sacrificing detail. The Quest 3's passthrough cameras aren't very good, unless you're in pretty bright light not typical of indoor settings, or outdoors, where you're not likely to be using it nearly as often, though with a big enough space, you can walk around in the virtual environments in a pretty convincing fashion.
Many people see no point in the AVP, and I haven't had a chance to try one, but judging by some of the somewhat promising 3D titles for the Quest that I've tried out, the AVP could be a major entertainment and educational device for displaying 3D content, but not at $3500 or even $2500, or whatever Apple prices the next version.
Many people see no point in the AVP, and I haven't had a chance to try one, but judging by some of the somewhat promising 3D titles for the Quest that I've tried out, the AVP could be a major entertainment and educational device for displaying 3D content, but not at $3500 or even $2500, or whatever Apple prices the next version.
Last edited:
There are two reasons they probably said this—light intensity and focal length.
With light, intensity does fade over distance, but distance is only one factor—the other is the initial intensity of the source. TVs are meant to be watched from a distance so they are big and bright. Headset displays are small and less bright. They are designed such that ultimately the light hitting your retinas from both devices have roughly the same intensity.
With focal length, I read that a good average focal length is something like 6 feet (though you don’t want to stay focused at any one length for too long so you need to take breaks no matter what you’re looking at). A TV screen has no means of controlling focal length except by physically moving closer and farther away. Headsets achieve this through lenses. But again ultimately the result is the same for both devices, your eyes are adjusted to roughly the same focal length.
The only possible eye health-related disadvantages to a headset I see are that in order to take breaks from the set focal length, you have to either take off the headset or “manually” refocus your eyes yourself (maybe by closing your eyes) which isn’t as easy as just looking away from a TV, but also not that much harder. The other is some people tend to not blink as much using headsets which can lead to eye dryness. In that case you just have to consciously remember to blink, at least until it becomes habit.
The Vision Pro is priced competitively with other prosumer hardware and even standalone prosumer hardware that cost as much or marginally less:
A portable Dolby Vision HDR monitor from Asus Pro Art line-up costs $3000 for example.
iPad Pro with the same laptop-class APU cost $1000 minimum. 5K2K Ultrawide monitors the Vision Pro can replace with far superior HDR performance cost $2000+ and would cost much more being on par with its prosumer-level HDR.
Prosumer hardware is not for many/most people in principle. It’s a distinct segment from other consumer segments that coexists just fine with them.
The Quest 3 is NOT a prosumer headset but it not being so offers and enables different trade-offs inappropriate for the segment Apple is catering to with the Vision Pro.
Meta has stopped competing in the prosumer headset market; their prosumer headset was the Quest Pro.
The Vision Pro actually succeeds for the segment where that headset spectacularly failed.
The Vision Pro, similarly to the 4090, has no competition unfortunately.
Accordingly it is not conceding the market to Meta who loses billions of dollars per year with unrealistic priced gaming headsets not even appealing to the biggest segment of AAA gamers who cannot play non-VR games as good or better than they can without the device because Meta doesn’t even give them the choice (nor any standalone gaming headset manufacturer).
Apple has avoided that for prosumers with their prosumer standalone headset that also
doesn’t lose billions of dollars to accommodate for Apple
I love how you just added ‘superior’ as a modifier to different activities while completely ignoring all the disadvantages that make it less superior.
PS. This will literally never replace phones at concerts and saying that cameras in venues will be a thing of the past tells me you’ve never actually experienced a concert before or you wouldn’t have said something so incredibly dumb.
…I’m not using “superior” in an absolutist way unlike your rhetoric in this forum suddenly thus far strongly suggesting confirmation bias tendencies on your part…
Anyhow, there are many use cases in each grouping of tasks I mentioned in which many have found spatial computing better contextually, theoretically or indefinitely to use than a phone; many may feel the opposite.
Let’s take concerts for example being a person who have been even backstage during some acts having friends and colleagues in the industry and perform…
For example, if you actively like to dance (especially house/EDM, crunk music) and have found it tedious or distracting to be present (especially with a significant other) to pull out your phone to record a live moment for the memory, do so via spatial computing hardware such as XR glasses may be superior than using a phone.
It is very viable/possible a meaningful amount of people who feel that way are closely around each other that benefits them all to have clearer recordings alongside each other compared to if most of them using a phone.
Let the market play itself out, and such moments may vary well happen.
The sales of Meta’s Rayman glasses are positively noteworthy even in mainstream news channels after all…
Another similar example is biking capturing live scenery overhead: Many may find glasses a superiorly convenient means of doing so.
Similar for baking including the ubiquitously acknowledged superior sanitary benefits spatial computing hardware has over using a phone.