Considering that profit margins on that gadget are gonna be nuts, it will. Of course, they’re not gonna sell a ton of them. But then again, you’d be surprised how crazy some people are about anything Apple LOL
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 Supports Up to 100Hz Refresh Rate
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’d argue most of Apple’s first 2-3 generations of a new product are always underwhelming:
• iPhone 3GS
• iPad 4
• Apple TV (2012)
• Apple Watch Series 4 (I’ve seen arguments for AW5)
• AirPods 3
I love the HomePod for its incredible sound, but unfortunately it’s still lacking due to Siri.
Last edited:
Especially true when looking back 15 years in the past with respect and comparing to the present.
Hopefully that's not shocking to anyone with respect to any tech product.
I am. That’s even more niche.
Look I want to be wrong so bad but a pass thru device in public?
Where can I watch ?
I don't understand why the "in public" aspect is so worrying to you. Yes, someone or some business can certainly engage in some AR-related activities in public (possibly entertainment related). But those would be relatively rare. AR is mainly a tool, to solve problems.
Also AVP googles are Apple's first entry into AR, that will be evolved to something more glasses-like.
Think how Apple's first iPhone and first Mac evolved over time.
I’m a huge Apple fan but this does nothing for me
When the iPhone came out it combined devices we already loved.
A phone
Internet
Music player
What does Apple VR solve for?
Yes.. Like the 1st iPhone, 1st Mac, etc evolved over time, so will Apple's AR product...
See that’s not true.
There was an lucrative phone and computer market before Apple entered the market.
The closest competitor is Facebook and it’s a failure. You can not tell me in my face that Apple will perform leaps and bounds above this at $3500?!?!?!?
Apple's focus is AR, which is very different than VR. Think of VR as a subset, and will come along for the ride.
Facebook's product is VR. Apple's focus is AR. They're a little similar in technology (they both have a display device over your eyes). But very different in what they're used for.
"You can not tell me in my face that Apple will perform leaps and bounds above this at $3500?!?!?!?"
Sure I can. But for you to understand what I'm saying, you first need to understand what the difference between VR and AR is, and the very different markets they serve.
It’s a niche product. As a gamer, I have my PSVR2, which I actually don’t even use that often. I would never spend close to 4K on a VR helmet. Honestly, it’s not there yet even at this price point. It should be completely wireless with no battery hanging in my pocket. It still screams compromise even with this insane price tag.
Your understanding is supported by other MacRumors posters but nothing else. Apple has never done this. They don’t market it this way. There is literally no reason to think this except some people cannot see a use case for the device so they made up some crazy theory about it is actually a developer kit despite the fact apple has actual developer kit they give to people.
No, not MacRumore posters. A MacRumors story.
It's not a big deal. Just a comment I made. I could be true, it could be not true. Which is why this site is called MacRumors. Nothing to get worked up about.
90Hz will also make 10%-20% of users sick but not 120Hz. If you are willing to sacrifice those customers and all those negative experiences and reviews, you'll be fine.
Both of those product categories are affordable, vision pro is not. Both of those product categories were also familiar, vision pro is not. Also iPad sales are on the decline over the past few quarters.
Vision pro is interesting for sure in that it brings a completely new paradigm of spatial computing. But my thinking is that now that society is out of the doldrums of the pandemic and back to in person meetings, I’m just not seeing how a very expensive spatial computing virtual world will acquire significant mass market appeal. If it were cheaper it might have a chance but the costs are exorbitant for the questionable utility of utilizing a spatial computing world.
I think Apple will have to build significant momentum, ensure the device is comfortable to wear, and there will need to be a few “killer” apps. Otherwise I fear, it will languish in the market place.
Low refresh rate. No surprise. Yet another reason this will flop.
Except that VP is not AR. It’s a VR system that shows you a live feed of the world around you. True AR lets you see the actual world.
Nope. That isn’t really AR either since you’re holding up a screen between you and reality.
Meta lost $13.7 billion on Reality Labs in 2022 as Zuckerberg's metaverse bet gets pricier
In its first full year as a separate business, Meta's Reality Labs unit racked up huge costs, bringing its total operating loss to $13.72 billion.
The battery life for VP at 100hz remains to be seen. It might be shorter than that for Quest.
You believe Apple will lose billions over it?Meta lost $13.7 billion on Reality Labs in 2022 as Zuckerberg's metaverse bet gets pricier
In its first full year as a separate business, Meta's Reality Labs unit racked up huge costs, bringing its total operating loss to $13.72 billion.www.cnbc.com
That’s a distinct possibility. How much do you suppose they’ve lost on the car so far?
you should tell the world then because we are all under the wrong impression it seems.
I think they won't make a profitYou believe Apple will lose billions over it?Meta lost $13.7 billion on Reality Labs in 2022 as Zuckerberg's metaverse bet gets pricier
In its first full year as a separate business, Meta's Reality Labs unit racked up huge costs, bringing its total operating loss to $13.72 billion.
