I hope this hardware is objectively reviewed without looking through rose-colored glasses.
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 Vision Pro Headset Likely to Launch Around March 2024
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just the Intelligence part
. Argue the content if you have anything.
Eventually, these may be a good investment. The first generation is going to mostly be about what Apple has put into it. The fact that 3rd party developers haven't even had access to the device lowers any expectation that anyone other than Apple will have a 'wow' factor. Perhaps the 2nd gen version will a better purchase. I also did not buy my first iPhone until the 3GS.
Just the Intelligence part
what content? laundry list of random buzzwords lmao.
This is exactly how it will play out. Not everyone will buy a first gen anything, especially not something priced at $3K+. This is what is happening in the EV market right now, as automakers focus on the upper end of pricing. But Apple needs to start somewhere with so many new technologies. And I’m not sure that gen 4 or 5 is going to be at the point where it’s cheap or eliminates the “wearing a pair of ski goggles“ look.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'd like to see ONE thread where it is objectively pre-speculated without looking through darkest dark, hopelessness glasses.
Both seem to have about the same odds.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
All this "cheaper" speculation should call out what they want reduced/eliminated to make them cheaper... because that's the Apple way of getting to cheaper. Some key candidates:
Option 2: wait for first gen to be "OLD" and that usually offers a lower price when next gen or next-next gen is out. See old iDevices still for sale now. Of course, "we" can't seem to want anything less than "latest & greatest" but that is a known Apple path to cheaper.
Option 3: involve OPM (other people's money) to subsidize it. The cell phone subsidy is about $1000. Put a cellular modem in it, offer a virtual iPhone when using it and offer it at $1000 off with 2-3 year cellular contract? I can't think of many other comparable subsidy channels: some kind of educational offering (like a school providing a "free" laptop/iPad) and Apple gets their money from the "enhanced" tuition at that school? $3,500 direct is insane, but $3500 indirect among $40K/yr tuition is "what a deal!"?
I suspect too many are believing that all features & benefits will be preserved but Apple will just cut their margin. Best I know, that has NEVER happened... and is unlikely to start here.
Someone will refer back to the original iPhone, quickly getting a fairly steep price cut after fan "will pay anything" enthusiasm thinned out... but that's because Apple adopted the subsidy model- still getting paid in full but by AT&T... who recovered the subsidy and then some from the cell service fees sold to those iPhone buyers.
- Lower resolution. Cut this from 4K per eye to- say- a 1080p HD view and price could be towards comparable HD glasses/goggles already in market.
- Fewer cameras, likely reducing functionality
- Weaker SOC, likely resulting in slower responsiveness
- Cheaper build quality
- Less battery life/*battery sold separately
- No audio (bring your own)
Option 2: wait for first gen to be "OLD" and that usually offers a lower price when next gen or next-next gen is out. See old iDevices still for sale now. Of course, "we" can't seem to want anything less than "latest & greatest" but that is a known Apple path to cheaper.
Option 3: involve OPM (other people's money) to subsidize it. The cell phone subsidy is about $1000. Put a cellular modem in it, offer a virtual iPhone when using it and offer it at $1000 off with 2-3 year cellular contract? I can't think of many other comparable subsidy channels: some kind of educational offering (like a school providing a "free" laptop/iPad) and Apple gets their money from the "enhanced" tuition at that school? $3,500 direct is insane, but $3500 indirect among $40K/yr tuition is "what a deal!"?
I suspect too many are believing that all features & benefits will be preserved but Apple will just cut their margin. Best I know, that has NEVER happened... and is unlikely to start here.
Someone will refer back to the original iPhone, quickly getting a fairly steep price cut after fan "will pay anything" enthusiasm thinned out... but that's because Apple adopted the subsidy model- still getting paid in full but by AT&T... who recovered the subsidy and then some from the cell service fees sold to those iPhone buyers.
Last edited:
Can anyone explain to me how “feeling as if you are in the room” or seeing their bodies, arms and faces increases productivity in a meeting? When someone says something utterly stupid in the meeting, does that person being able to see me extend my middle finger at home really help? If you are in a virtual meeting and your focus is the tech you are using to conduct the meeting, productivity will tank. If you are the kind of person who can’t conduct take part and contribute to meetings (face to face or virtual) in a productive way, this tech won’t help you. And if you are savvy enough to take part in such meetings, the tech involved makes no difference. I‘ve participated in/conducted many truly productive meetings in person, via audio telecom, and via video telecom. I’ve also experienced an equal share of unproductive meetings across all mediums.
I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic. Replace multiple shared family experiences with the ability to provide one member of the family with a “good seat”? This is supposed to be better?
I continue to read through threads related to this device hoping someone can describe a truly killer use case or app, but it’s simply not there. Most still basically talk about “fancy” teleconferencing, floating monitors, or watching movies. Lots of reviewers talk about being “blown away” by the experience, and I don’t doubt that Apple‘s implementation of the 3d environment on very capable hardware is top-notch, but none have described anything that actually improves productivity even a little, or described anything that would compel the masses to want this device at any price, let alone $3500 + possible correction lenses.
Call me when the consumer model gets announced.
You're not the only one. Pretty much everyone, even in the VR community, do not like the Eye display and want it cut for the consumer model, and it's looking like that may very well be the case.
You're not the only one. Pretty much everyone, even in the VR community, do not like the Eye display and want it cut for the consumer model, and it's looking like that may very well be the case.
Why should I buy a device that controls my whole view? Imagine what that does with the "focus muscles" in your eye. Even if that image looks like 3D, your eyes will always focus at exactly the same distance while your are wearing it. That is very unhealthy.
That's about the notion of connection with other collaborators. Something that humans naturally like.
However, that's a tiny aspect when considering what AR is really about and the problems it can address/solve.
I think some people have suggested to cut the front eyes display, but I recall Apple execs saying it was core to the device to make it non-forcefully-isolating.
That’s because a camera is a live feed of your current look and environment. A Persona can be created when you look your “best” - clean shaven, makeup, etc. and that’s how you’ll look for every meeting / FaceTime. Your room / office / etc won’t be on camera either, so it’s just less distracting and more focused than FaceTime and typical video chats.
You should buy a device if it helps you solve problems. For example, at the extreme end, a surgeon using AR to assist with a cardio-thoracic surgery procedure, that will produce a much better outcome for the patient, with much lower risk.
Yes... humans like to connect with other humans, and often that's through eyes.
I wouldn't worry about what Apple is going to cut - if anything. That's just speculation because many people feel better when spouting negative stuff.
Rather, for me, it's what useful functionality, including apps in addition to tech, Apple will be adding over time creating an even better experience allowing people to go further with AR.
Last edited:
Why do you say it’s looking like that may be the case? I heard in some interview of Apple execs that the eye display is core to the device.
I don’t think that’s correct. I’ve used Oculus and my eyes seem to have varying focus like real space. Regular 2D screens do cause you to have fixed focus though, which is why frequent breaks are recommended.
It has the one killer feature that the Quest 3 doesn't have, usable passthrough and MR. I own a Quest 3 as well and it is fine for VR gaming, but it sucks for MR. The hand gestures are inaccurate and require repeated retries and result in a lot of misclicks, the UI is confusing (Windows can't be resized unless they are not in the "tablet" mode...and then they keep their size when brought back forward...) and the resolution of the displays just isn't high enough to use for productivity tasks on a regular basis. Combine that with wobbly/noisy passthrough cameras (Only 2 4MP cameras) and you get a really poor MR experience. Also connecting to computers is just a little too much setup work, and each platform has it's tradeoffs (Immersed, Remote Display, Virtual Desktop, Workrooms - I've used them all and there is no clear winner, each one has distinct negatives about it.)
The Vision Pro gives you connection to your Mac's out of the box. So put it on, and start using your mac with a larger display with no hassle. Plus, add in virtual VisionOS windows alongside for status apps/email/slack/music control/etc. Then there is entertainment. Just open the TV app and watch your content as you do on any iOS device, only on a massive screen with intuitive controls, at a nice resolution and with great sound. I imagine gaming will also be a nice use case - connect to a gaming desktop with Steam Link, or use Xbox Gamepass and an existing xbox controller. Those are the out of the box, day one experiences, which are going to blow away the out of the box experiences of the 3rd generation Quest. Then we will get actual VisionOS apps, which can take things much further than just 2d floating windows, but those remain to be seen just yet.
The problem with the Quest is that it was designed with controllers and VR in mind, and only in this current iteration after the Vision Pro was announced has the focus changed to MR and hand controls. So every experience has different control setups, different requirements, some things require controllers to do simple tasks (Moving windows...for example.) The quest will still do fine in it's own right, but it is in a completely different league from the Vision Pro.
Per the rest of my response that you conveniently cut out, this “connection” you speak of has nothing to do with how productive a meeting ultimately is. Care to elaborate about the problems AR can address/solve?
Apple execs say one thing but always do another. Case in point: the excuses they made to why the iPhone wouldn't be on USB-C, then once the EU mandated it suddenly they're saying how much of an improvement it is that the iPhone is now on USB-C
Do not trust a single thing an Apple exec says. They will always stretch the truth to control the message and try to silence criticism of any bad practice.
I'm not sure if its a life experience if you are advocating using a headset in place of actual real life experiences. If you are watching sport through a headset it will never replicate being there in person.
Getting over the major obstacles of weight & comfort of the headset, I can see the headset being great watch to watch movies as long as it really does replicate the IMAX experience for example & perhaps gaming, as Apple claimed in the product demos. But living life through a headset? I'm not having it. It might do a semi-decent job of replicating some experiences, but it's quite dangerous if your life experiences are all synthetic.