The AVP is too heavy
It's too heavy
More "friction on your face"?
Or less weight.
The AVP is too heavy.
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 Surveys Vision Pro Users About Competing Headsets and Smart Glasses
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The AVP is too heavy
It's too heavy
More "friction on your face"?
Or less weight.
The AVP is too heavy.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that the user experience is top notch (other then the uncomfortable nature of the physical headware), but can you do with it, that is worth 3,500 dollars? Maybe its a chicken and the egg situation, maybe its that this augmented reality/VR stuff is moving to quickly and apple's attempt missed the mark - i don't know.
I was at LensCrafters and they had a demo station for the RayBans. I tried it and couldn't get anything to work. I asked an employee and she said they knew nothing about it. I have no idea if it is a good product or not - but the Apple Store LensCrafters is not.
For me, I would need the smart glasses to be available in my prescription and the added cost for the smart features can't be too high since I get new prescription glasses every year or so (unless the features are SO KILLER I can't live without it).
For me, I would need the smart glasses to be available in my prescription and the added cost for the smart features can't be too high since I get new prescription glasses every year or so (unless the features are SO KILLER I can't live without it).
On the VR front, whoever finally makes a headset that can adjust for RX onboard/built-in is going to have a significant advantage.
As someone who needs a prescription, it's an ENORMOUS barrier to even bothering to try headsets at this point.
Agree 100%. The iPod is the classic example of apple coming to an existing market and absolutely killing it. But if apple doesn't get AI sorted, it is hard to see how the glasses could be killer. They would still sell some due to the integration with apple ecosystem and then I guess AI could come later. I do wonder with prescription glasses what the cost model looks like given that people need to refresh these every 1-2 years as eyeglasses prescriptions change. Or are they are only for people with 20/20 vision.
As someone who benefits from hearing aids, the idea of building hearing aids into by glasses could be a killer feature for me. In this use case, the glasses wouldn't need to do much more - but if they had health sensors, basic SIRI support, can act like AirPods for music and phone calls - and comes in at the right price - I am there.
this very much depends on the application. for example, fighter pilots seem to be totally OK with having helmets for their kind of augmented reality.
i personally hate wearing glasses because i have to wear them to read and while working at the screen, and i am quite confident that many others side with me, that is the reason the market for contact lenses and corrective eye surgery is doing pretty well.
Why not a cheap pair of glasses tethered to your phone, it gets all the data from it. And your phone can relay info from your Mac running a server app for even more abilities, all your devices can display things on it like your watch and so on. It gains users by being inexpensive while they work out the bugs and the patents before they introduce a more pro version that works on its own. It doesnt have to beat every other headset at every other thing to win, it just needs to be great at what it does, be useful and inexpensive enough to give it a shot. If it could overlay buttons on my function keys on the keyboard it could turn any Mac keyboard into a Touch Bar. IT could to the same with area of the track bar to turn those into special app buttons. A device you would want to wear while using your computer. And when you get up, some of the relevant info goes with you.
The headset still needs its own power, so it puts one in a conundrum on how to design the overall package here.
I agree with you about sourcing the processing horsepower and content from an iPhone/iPad or a Mac though.
…You do know that both existing and prospective buyers usually are surveyed in sensible UX R&D study strategies? They don’t necessarily take the same surveys to maximize the prospectives and experience (or lack of) circumstances/contexts they have.
Also don’t project your limit use or no need for a prosumer-level device onto others—especially prosumer devices in which the average person cannot afford nor maximize the use of the specs
also for other reasons. but their visor - which also doubles as sunglasses - is the perfect place to superimpose stuff, as they need to have it everywhere in their sight. you can't do that with glasses. hence my point about the application.
the same goes for Vision Pro. it is a VR/AR combo device, and you cannot do VR in "smart glasses" as it has to block all outside view/light.
whether the wearable AR thing makes sense at all, it is up for debate - especially if one is after mainstream applicability. saying that if it is wearable something, it has to be glasses is a bit unfounded statement given the data anyone has about this field - which is rather a "California-only" gimmick than something widely used. cellular phones were a well established portable device 18 years ago when iPhone hit the market and it took quite some time for them to reach the majority of the population. so far there's been a handful of attempts WRT smart glasses (or weird wearable devices, if you will) with pretty questionable results.
It was supposed to be a consumer level product the problem here is that the AVP isn't selling prosumer jargon or not. Now since it's not selling Apple itself has shifted the tone calling it a prosumer device that it's used by medical professionals, designers and so on but the early ad campaigns were targeting everyday people including professionals.
…There has yet to be a prosumer headset that actually worked alongside, on par with, and in some aspects exceeded existing prosumer computing hardware (i.e. OLED ultrawide monitors) before the Vision Pro.
The Quest Pro wasn’t that; the existing Quest headsets annd other standalone headsets obviously aren’t that focusing on mobile-phone-level standalone VR gaming.
No headset prior could even watch premium content on par with traditional prosumer and high-end displays prior to —an overwhelming majority of headsets don’t even have HDR, let alone premium HDR formats such as Dolby Vision.
The Vision Pro explicitly solves such things and moved things forward for creatives, content owners, productive users on-the-go, and other prosumers who want spatial computing to be more seriously on par, complimentary, and in ways better than traditional computing.
That includes non-headset spatial computing devices that absolutely benefited from its impact and influence on spatial computing supply chains and software
That’s speculative and make belief on your part.
The Vision Pro specs literally explicitly lines up with Apple’s core prosumer devices by no accident.
For example the screen specs lines up with the Pro Display XDR, iPad Pro, and Macbook Pros that aren’t for most people.
Thank you for saying this.
We must never forget how dramatically the Apple narratives around this changed once it had flopped.
The processing power needed for that would typically today tax the phone itself undesirably hard (reducing battery life quite a bit) in addition to needing dedicated hardware like the Vision Pro’s R1 chip embedded which raises costs on phones in a matter that may receive pushback by incumbent buyers of phones with no need for spatial computing tethered by phones.
No good wireless display standard exists yet to maybe simplify the information needed to be passed or make that step more efficient.
Regardless the bandwidth would have to be high anyway likely draining phones even faster with how much more resolution needs to be provided to spatial computing devices compared to traditional devices (strong factor why the Vision Pro is expensive with its 3,386 PPI with 3660 x 3200 per eye; glasses need as high and higher PPI).
…They didn’t flop on this and the device was announced at WDDC that typically is where Apple announced their prosumer devices or new device categories for devs to potentially accommodate.
The Vision Pro’s press release and specs aligning with their existing prosumer hardware squarely makes it a prosumer product.
A lot of consumers were hoping it was a high-end out for them settling with existing consumer-level headsets, including some believing for whatever reason Apple would suddenly accommodate mainstream AAA gaming deviating from their whole entire device portfolio not focusing on AAA gaming beyond maybe the iPhone.
The "Pro" is a gimmick just like iPhone Pro, iPad Pro and Macbook Pro. It's all a sham and all these "Pro" devices are directed specifically at consumers where all the money is and not at prosumers which is a tiny market. I'd imagine a Hospital buying 10 to 20 of these or maybe less.
Apple has always marketed Pro devices as premium devices and not professional grade devices. Editing a word document like a "Pro" and watching Youtube videos like a "Pro" this is the reality of Apple Pro devices except the Mac Pro and Mac Studio. The AVP was supposed to introduce consumers to an AR/VR product then following its success make other sub products like they did with Apple Watch. Unlike the iWatch AVP failed and has become a niche product and not consumer product like it was portrayed in the AVP reveal trailer.
For Apple ... "Pro" is shorthand for "Profit"
As in ... more of it..
As in ... more of it..
This interview was just before they shifted the narrative 25s in the video the journalist asks Tim a key question "
how do you envision this being used by people in their daily lives?" key answer is Spatial Computer 🤣
When SJ was at the helm, his philosophy was crystal-clear: profits FOLLOW innovation, and not the opposite. In other words, his main goal was not, a priori, to maximize profits; but actually reinvent markets with unique vision and innovation, so that profits would follow from that (as they did from basically every product line once he returned to Apple).
Too bad Tim Spindler is unable to follow through on that fundamental principle.
While I don’t disagree that if it weighed less, in its current form, it could solve those comfort issues… that’s not the only method of solving the issue. If you had to hold an object that has the dimension and weight of an iPhone with two fingers in the lower corner, it would become “too heavy” for your two fingers… you could make that “thing” lighter, or you could distribute the weight. Conversely, if that same ”thing” weighed 15 lbs, it would be both too heavy for your arm and fingers. Likewise, if you wore the AVP like a hat, it would be comfortable (and we’d look awesome).
It’s more difficult than I expected to convey that idea.
The egg came first.
the Vision Pro is the greatest movie watching device I've ever seen.ya couldn't do that with glasses ever.