Apple Vision Pro is NOT expensive and Not VR device.

[bkkcanuck8]

But a normal OLED TV can be watched my multiple people at once. And it’s going to be sharper and not give you eye strain.

Like any VR headset, watching tiny screens a couple of inches away from your eye (that’s where you keep your focus, all the time) is not good for your eyes nor something you should do for too long.

We will see about the eye strain, but I suspect it has more to do with quality of image and frames/second - if your mind cannot let go of knowing it is two pictures close to your eyes - definitely eye strain will be a problem. If you are using it in AR mode and what you are looking at looks the same as looking through glass lenses... then it might not be as big an issue.

I am looking forward to see if it will be better for me by being able to have large screens in the focal range of where I don't wear glasses (I use reading glasses, but distance is not a problem).

 

[matrix07]

But a normal OLED TV can be watched my multiple people at once. And it’s going to be sharper and not give you eye strain.

It won’t be sharper.

About multiple people watching he’s also talking about it. It’s in the video.

 

[solq]

We will see about the eye strain, but I suspect it has more to do with quality of image and frames/second - if your mind cannot let go of knowing it is two pictures close to your eyes - definitely eye strain will be a problem. If you are using it in AR mode and what you are looking at looks the same as looking through glass lenses... then it might not be as big an issue.

I am looking forward to see if it will be better for me by being able to have large screens in the focal range of where I don't wear glasses (I use reading glasses, but distance is not a problem).

I don't believe that's true. You never look "through" the device. As I understand it, the image you see is completely generated (captured by cameras and replayed to you). Therefore your eyes need to lock focus on these tiny screens which are really close to your head, and this will strain your eye muscles.

It won’t be sharper.

An actual OLED screen will surely be sharper, it's got 4k pixels by itself, not 4k pixels to render it plus whatever is around it.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I don't believe that's true. You never look "through" the device. As I understand it, the image you see is completely generated (captured by cameras and replayed to you). Therefore your eyes need to lock focus on these tiny screens which are really close to your head, and this will strain your eye muscles.

If you were focusing on the panel in front of you - both eyes... then those with myopia would not need to wear corrective lenses/glasses/contacts... The headset includes optics which bends the light from the screens making the screen appear to be much further away than it is. At least that is my understanding of what is going on.

I think most headsets currently have a focal point about 2 meters.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

But a normal OLED TV can be watched my multiple people at once. And it’s going to be sharper and not give you eye strain.

Like any VR headset, watching tiny screens a couple of inches away from your eye (that’s where you keep your focus, all the time) is not good for your eyes nor something you should do for too long.

The experience is different.

For example: Playing Gran Turismo 7 in VR (PSVR2) is a far better experience, even though the display quality takes a noticeable hit from playing on a 4K TV or monitor. I can't even play that game outside of VR anymore.

I played VR games for hours and hours on multiple headsets, and never have any eye strain. But I've had blood shot eyes playing games for hours and hours while sitting about 20 feet away from my TV.

Even though what you see in VR/AR is perceived in a spacial matter, everything is really right in front of you, which you'll have much less eye movement and refocusing.

Also, the average brightness (nits) of the typical VR lens is much lower than what you would place the brightness on your TV or monitor, which makes a huge difference with eye fatigue.

 

[solq]

If you were focusing on the panel in front of you - both eyes... then those with myopia would not need to wear corrective lenses/glasses/contacts... The headset includes optics which bends the light from the screens making the screen appear to be much further away than it is. At least that is my understanding of what is going on.

I think most headsets currently have a focal point about 2 meters.

Honestly I have no idea how it works with glasses, I‘m fortunate in this regard.

If your focus plane is 2m it’s better, for sure. But I know from watching 3D TV, quite a bit (I loved it and had a really good 3D plasma), there is some eye strain that’s unavoidable, and it’s caused by a mismatch between what the brain tells you about the location of objects in 3D space, which is an illusion made with the difference between left and right image, and the actual focal point. At least that’s always been my experience.

Since I don’t really know what the Apple Vision Pro is for - none of the use cases they show seems particularly appealing or even applicable to me - I think that $500 is closer to what I’d pay for the curiosity factor and tech coolness.

I’m not sure how many people will pay $3500. I’m not in any way hoping for the product to fail, or succeed, I’m personally disappointed it’s not got VR gaming as a focus.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Honestly I have no idea how it works with glasses, I‘m fortunate in this regard.

If your focus plane is 2m it’s better, for sure. But I know from watching 3D TV, quite a bit (I loved it and had a really good 3D plasma), there is some eye strain that’s unavoidable, and it’s caused by a mismatch between what the brain tells you about the location of objects in 3D space, which is an illusion made with the difference between left and right image, and the actual focal point. At least that’s always been my experience.

Since I don’t really know what the Apple Vision Pro is for - none of the use cases they show seems particularly appealing or even applicable to me - I think that $500 is closer to what I’d pay for the curiosity factor and tech coolness.

I’m not sure how many people will pay $3500. I’m not in any way hoping for the product to fail, or succeed, I’m personally disappointed it’s not got VR gaming as a focus.

Most of the 3D movies were filmed in 2D then processed into rather badly done 3D movies... I remember my nephew convincing me to come see a movie with him when he was here and boy.... I had a hard time adjusting because I could see the storybook effect - I could see basically multiple 2D layers that were made to look 3D by layering but all I could see was a bunch of 2D layers...

 

[motulist]

it IS expensive. The cost of the non-reusable components has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether it's expensive or not. There are a couple of meanings of the word "expensive" that apply in this type of context. And in neither definition is this product inexpensive.

First meaning is: in comparison to other competing products, whether or not this product provides you with a lot of additional utility for the amount of money you're paying for it. Like if it cost you half of your monthly salary, but it helped you double your monthly income going forward, then it would be a very cheap price in the long run.

Second meaning is in terms of how much it costs compared to how much extra disposable money you have. Like for someone making minimum wage, $3500 of disposable income is an unimaginably expensive price. For a single person making the median wage in the US, which is $31,000 a year, the price of $3500 is a wildly expensive. If you're a single person making over $100,000 a year, only then does a $3500 non-essential purchase become a price that seems extremely expensive but within reach if you're really lusting after it. You probably need to get into the several hundred thousand a year before the $3500 price starts to get into the range of "it's definitely not cheap, but it's not too bad if I feel like getting a new toy".

 

[Zest28]

Ofcourse this thing is crazy expensive. Can you use it with Flight Simulator or Racing Simulators on PC or gaming consoles? Nope.

You can only use it with mobile apps and mobile games.

If you could use it with PC games, then it could be interesting for $3500.

 

[jimbobb24]

But a normal OLED TV can be watched my multiple people at once. And it’s going to be sharper and not give you eye strain.

Like any VR headset, watching tiny screens a couple of inches away from your eye (that’s where you keep your focus, all the time) is not good for your eyes nor something you should do for too long.

The focal distance is what gives eyestrain. This might not give any at all if the focal distance is far.

Sharper depends on many factors. This will be sharper than lots of TVs.

 

[Contact_Feanor]

Yep.
It also heavily depends on the useful lifespan of the device.

If this is something you can buy once and use for life then $3.5k isn't so bad.

If it's a device that you have to replace every 3-5 years, and you need multiple in a household. Then that's going to be hefty.

Unfortunately, with a battery (which we don't know yet whether it'll be user servicable), plus an internal processor + OS; which will surely go out of date eventually. The latter is looking more likely.


With the first series of apple watches, apple tried to tackle the veblen goods market with the $10,000 18k gold apple watch edition.

Apparently Switzerland was ****ed.

Those $10k watches succumbed to the same obsolescence that affected the $400 sports model. Meanwhile the rolexes, cartiers and omegas from the same era are still valuable today and will continue to function and hold value in 50 years.

Funny thing is, the gold Apple Watch editions from that first generation have increased more in value than most Rolexes, cartiers and omegas. They rarely appear for sale on places like eBay but when they do: boy are they expensive!

 

[kkee]

If they will be able to buy it, Sony - the maker of the OLED panels (2 needed per headset) is only producing about 200,000 per quarter and either cannot or won't (my guess is cannot) per quarter... or a maximum of 100K headsets per quarter.../

It is Micro OLED not micro LED or OLED.

Micro-OLED's main difference from "traditional" OLED is right in the name. Featuring far smaller pixels, micro-OLED has the potential for much, much higher resolutions than traditional OLED: think 4K TV resolutions on chips the size of postage stamps. Until recently, the technology has been used in things like electronic viewfinders in cameras, but the latest versions are larger and even higher resolution, making them perfect for Vision Pro (with much higher cost too).

If we take a look at Apple's claims, we can estimate how small these pixels really are. Firstly, Apple says the twin displays in the Vision Pro include "More pixels than a 4K TV. For each eye" or "23 million pixels." A 4K TV is 3,840x2,160, or 8,294,400 pixels, so that should equate to around 11,500,000 pixels per eye for the Apple screens.

Next, Apple partnered with Sony (or maybe TSMC) to create these micro-OLED displays and they are approximately 1 inch in size. To calculate the size of each pixel I'm going to use 32-inch 4K TVs as a comparison, and these boast about 138 pixels per inch. We don't know the aspect ratio of the chips in the Vision Pro, but if they're a square 3,400x3,400-pixel resolution that would be a total of 11,560,000 pixels, so that's a safe bet. So, if that's the case, these displays have a ppi of around 4,808 and that's more than almost anything else on the market, and that's by a lot. Even the high-resolution OLED screen on the Galaxy S23 Ultra has a ppi of "only" 500.

Vision Pro displays are so close to your eyes that they need to be extremely high performance in order to be realistic. They need extreme resolution so you don't see the pixels, they need high contrast ratios so they look realistic, and they need high frame rates to minimize the chance of motion blur and motion sickness. In addition, being in portable devices means they need to be able to do all that with low power consumption. The answer is Micro-OLED, but at a cost which makes $3,499 a great deal for consumer.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

It is Micro OLED not micro LED or OLED.

Micro-OLED's main difference from "traditional" OLED is right in the name. Featuring far smaller pixels, micro-OLED has the potential for much, much higher resolutions than traditional OLED: think 4K TV resolutions on chips the size of postage stamps. Until recently, the technology has been used in things like electronic viewfinders in cameras, but the latest versions are larger and even higher resolution, making them perfect for Vision Pro (with much higher cost too).

If we take a look at Apple's claims, we can estimate how small these pixels really are. Firstly, Apple says the twin displays in the Vision Pro include "More pixels than a 4K TV. For each eye" or "23 million pixels." A 4K TV is 3,840x2,160, or 8,294,400 pixels, so that should equate to around 11,500,000 pixels per eye for the Apple screens.

Next, Apple partnered with Sony (or maybe TSMC) to create these micro-OLED displays and they are approximately 1 inch in size. To calculate the size of each pixel I'm going to use 32-inch 4K TVs as a comparison, and these boast about 138 pixels per inch. We don't know the aspect ratio of the chips in the Vision Pro, but if they're a square 3,400x3,400-pixel resolution that would be a total of 11,560,000 pixels, so that's a safe bet. So, if that's the case, these displays have a ppi of around 4,808 and that's more than almost anything else on the market, and that's by a lot. Even the high-resolution OLED screen on the Galaxy S23 Ultra has a ppi of "only" 500.

Vision Pro displays are so close to your eyes that they need to be extremely high performance in order to be realistic. They need extreme resolution so you don't see the pixels, they need high contrast ratios so they look realistic, and they need high frame rates to minimize the chance of motion blur and motion sickness. In addition, being in portable devices means they need to be able to do all that with low power consumption. The answer is Micro-OLED, but at a cost which makes $3,499 a great deal for consumer.

I actually knew that it was Micro OLED (still OLED based), did not bother being specific in the name -- since the issue is not what it is or what it's name is... is that the supplies are extremely constrained and Sony will not be producing more at this time other than the current low volume.

 

[matrix07]

An actual OLED screen will surely be sharper, it's got 4k pixels by itself, not 4k pixels to render it plus whatever is around it.

There is no “actual” or “not actual” screen. The sharpness will be determined by the focal point. If the focal point of your eyes is correct then it will be as sharp as it can be. It doesn’t matter if the screen is 100 feet away or 2 inches.
The glasses has this advantage that the distance from screens to your eyes is somewhat fixed unlike TV that you have to find a “sweet spot”. You may say "Meh it's a living room. Where will you sit?" but in my friend's (4K) home theater room the seats are not in a sweet spot. It's more common than you'd think. The sweet spot from 50" 4K TV and 80" 4K TV are different.

 

[matrix07]

I also find the argument in this video convincing when he said "I don't be worry about being old one day and stuck in nursery because I won't be stuck"

I watched a video where a VR guy showing Vision Pro to his family (his parents and grandparents). To his surprise the ones who're most excited was his grandfather. He immediately wanted one.
I remember when I show iPhone 3G to my parents who even not that old. They're appalled. They don't understand a mobile phone that has no button. But senior people seem to understand Vision Pro very well and seem to like what it brings.
Another big market for Apple if they can bring the price and weight down a bit.

 

[Night Spring]

I watched a video where a VR guy showing Vision Pro to his family (his parents and grandparents). To his surprise the ones who're most excited was his grandfather. He immediately wanted one.
I remember when I show iPhone 3G to my parents who even not that old. They're appalled. They don't understand a mobile phone that has no button. But senior people seem to understand Vision Pro very well and seem to like what it brings.
Another big market for Apple if they can bring the price and weight down a bit.

I think for people with limited mobility, a device like the Vision Pro opens up a lot of possibilities they otherwise may not have. The birthday scene from the keynote presentation would have been sweet if it were a grandparent living apart who got to enjoy their grandkid's birthday party as if they were there, filmed courtesy of the dad.

 

[solq]

The focal distance is what gives eyestrain. This might not give any at all if the focal distance is far.

I disagree, I think part of the eye strain is the mismatch between the focal point not matching the depth perception. This is not a comment on the Apple device but to the way VR is currently done.

Sharper depends on many factors. This will be sharper than lots of TVs.

Sharpness depends on focus and resolution. Even if the Vision Pro absolutely, 100% nails the focus - generally reviews say "almost as sharp as reality" - the resolution won't nearly be good enough. Our eyes have a resolution of 576 megapixels and a dynamic range of 20 stops, which is astonishing and far beyond the best display tech out there, nevermind the Apple Vision Pro.

So no, while no doubt it will be fairly sharp, it cannot be as sharp as reality and not even an actual 4k display, it's simple math. The 4k display has 4k pixels. The Apple Vision Pro has 4k pixels to render the virtual screen + whatever is around it, so you get fewer than 4k pixels for the virtual screen. On top of that, the optics lose resolution everywhere except for the center, because of optical aberrations. On top of that, you lose motion resolution. My understanding is that the Vision Pro has a 12ms response time, which is ok but not fantastic, it will definitely lose more resolution when stuff moves.

But go ahead and buy one, and tell us how great it is and what you use it for. I promise I'll congratulate you

 

[vladi]

Microsoft HoloLens

Landing page for Microsoft HoloLens.

www.microsoft.com

First thing, Vision Pro is NOT just a VR device and you probably need to compare with AR device. There are quite a lot of people misunderstanding between AR and VR.

Beside, MS already made HoloLens several years ago and they cost $3500 so for Apple Vision Pro with a premium price, it's not really bad.

But yeah, I hope they can make Vision Air lower than $1000 in some point.

It's just a VR device. It can playback your surroundings in inferior quality compared to your own visual sense to simulate AR.

 

[matrix07]

It's just a VR device.

Physically it’s a VR device. Spiritually it’s an AR one. Why? This guy explained it well by comparing AR to Transparency mode in AirPods Pro. (1:08 min in the video)

And this is a core difference between Apple and Meta. Meta prefer you to be in Metaverse so they don’t care much about AR but Apple want you to be in reality.

 

[WebHead]

Physically it’s a VR device. Spiritually it’s an AR one. Why? This guy explained it well by comparing AR to Transparency mode in AirPods Pro.

Good point. Apple have gone out of their way not to use the AR/VR terminology, they want to define and control their own platform.

 

[TLewis]

Good point. Apple have gone out of their way not to use the AR/VR terminology, they want to define and control their own platform.

Yup. Apple's marketing tries very hard to not use geeky tech-speak, and so it's very unlikely Apple would have used terms like "AR/VR". The closest you'll see Apple using tech-speak are in tech specs and, well, technical descriptions. The mention of the R1 chip was a way of differentiating the Vision Pro from the competition and making the Vision Pro appear better and more powerful (which it is).

Apple needs to use cool and different terms where possible, and I guess "spatial computing" was it, although it's a 20-year-ish-old term.

 

[wrcousert]

I don't believe that's true. You never look "through" the device. As I understand it, the image you see is completely generated (captured by cameras and replayed to you). Therefore your eyes need to lock focus on these tiny screens which are really close to your head, and this will strain your eye muscles.


An actual OLED screen will surely be sharper, it's got 4k pixels by itself, not 4k pixels to render it plus whatever is around it.

That 4K screen is probably several feet away, not less than an inch. That will reduce the effective pixel count. it will also be 2D, not 3D.

 

[WebHead]

Apple needs to use cool and different terms where possible, and I guess "spatial computing" was it, although it's a 20-year-ish-old term.

Sadly "AirPort" didn't take off, but it was always gonna be a recipe for confusion.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I don't believe that's true. You never look "through" the device. As I understand it, the image you see is completely generated (captured by cameras and replayed to you). Therefore your eyes need to lock focus on these tiny screens which are really close to your head, and this will strain your eye muscles.


An actual OLED screen will surely be sharper, it's got 4k pixels by itself, not 4k pixels to render it plus whatever is around it.

When I talk about looking through, it does not mean the light is going through it, I mean your eye's focused on a 'focal point' that is likely around 2 meters apart -- dependent on device (usually between 1.3 to 2 meters). If you froze your head/eyes and removed the device and put something where your eyes are focused - it would be at that focal point. I believe the VR headaches (not the same as VR motion sickness) is caused by a disagreement on the parallax and reality... but then that is when my eyes glaze over and I am off in lala land.

 

[czureckipatriots67]

Microsoft HoloLens

Landing page for Microsoft HoloLens.

www.microsoft.com

First thing, Vision Pro is NOT just a VR device and you probably need to compare with AR device. There are quite a lot of people misunderstanding between AR and VR.

Beside, MS already made HoloLens several years ago and they cost $3500 so for Apple Vision Pro with a premium price, it's not really bad.

But yeah, I hope they can make Vision Air lower than $1000 in some point.

Anybody that starts off with a title saying the AVP is "NOT" expensive is just being foolish. It is extremely expensive regardless of what convoluted, nonsensical argument people in this thread will try to make. Apple has truly lost it's way. Sure, there was always a tinge of elitism in Apple's brand reputation but this has now reached ridiculous heights. Why would you release a product that a majority of consumers AND prosumers won't be able to justify purchasing? Pure stupidity on Apple's part. They designed it to fail.