Only because Apple marketing told you to think of a non-AR system as AR.
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
Only because Apple marketing told you to think of a non-AR system as AR.
Nope. It's actually MR, where VR and AR converge. in most practical cases a mice nuts distinction.
The world around me is still real, whether seen through my eyes or accurately processed in 3D by computer getting real-time video from a pair of cameras on both sides of my head. In both cases it's the real/physical world that I'm currently located in.
MR can show both virtual worlds (me sitting on the Moon), and the real world with me actually sitting in my living room (visualized accurately in 3 dimensions with cameras driving small left and right screens in my headset/glasses).
In both of the above examples I can have an augmented experience playing a game of 3D chess with a Klingon, in the world that I'm seeing (the virtual Moon, or my real living room) is augmented with information or objects that don't exist and are computer crafted/generated.
In both of the above scenarios playing 3D chess with a Klingon is an augmented experience - whether sitting on the moon or in my living room.
A surgeon doing a heart transplant via AR/MR is getting loads of augmented information (vitals numbers, patient history, reference material, etc) superimposed on what he/she is currently doing.
Last edited:
I don’t know, according to a number of posters here, the iPad is also not universally accessible.
A faster Intel box that just boots Windows and plays Windows games
0 mph sounds VERY unimpressive. I know an electric bike, the HPC Scout Pro, that can go 45 mph. I can understand, though, that they do need to allow for speed improvements in the future, but it’s just a really lackluster start. /s
I can see a lot of people using these, even if they're not gamers. I bought the first generation Oculus and i thought it had some really good ideas, like being able to attend a live music concert, and a live sports game - they even did a Broadway theatre show - but the resolution was so lousy it didn't feel like you were actually there. and it was too heavy and uncomfortable for an entire show as well.
It looks like apple might have nailed those, so they just need to bring the price down a bit
It looks like apple might have nailed those, so they just need to bring the price down a bit
In terms of your eye health there’s a vast difference.
Honestly, I think way too many people have been conditioned by movies to expect a completely seamless experience that is indistinguishable from reality.
Good luck with that.
Really... Apparently you have some experience with the AVP.
Tell us more.
VR and virtuality isn't determined by whether a user wearing a headset see's their surroundings via cameras and displays or unaided. It's about your location. Where you physically are or, for example, virtually on top of Mt Everest.
Last edited:
Can you show any evidence of this, even anecdotal? I've been around online VR communities for a while, and I don't recall any cases of someone being fine with 120Hz, but being sickened by 90Hz.
60 Hz VR will give me a headache, but that's because 60 Hz is below the flicker threshold. 90 Hz should be above the flicker threshold for just about everyone.
All other things being equal, higher refresh rates are better, but there will always be tradeoffs. However, in the 90 Hz+ range comfort won't be significantly affected by a 33% increase in the refresh rate.
You are so wrong. These products were not familiar back then. But it's easy to be smart in hindsight.
For the same reason PAL countries show movies sped up slightly at 25fps, instead of repeating 1 frame every second, which would look horrible. Using 2:3 pulldown for showing 24fps at the ~30fps of NTSC is also not very good. You get used to it but it's definitely not ideal. I think most TVs these days will show movies at 48 or 72Hz (or 120Hz).
Not...really. There was barely a computer market at all before the Apple I was made.
I don’t think that’s applicable. No one can focus on a screen that close, that’s why there are lenses inside these types of devices.
iPad was essentially a big iPhone. It literally ran iOS lol. So what do you mean that it wasn’t familiar? iOS and its gestures and apps were very familiar by time iPad came out. Also, a watch is a watch! It sits on your wrist and tells time! Watches have been around for centuries. Yeah Apple Watch was a different spin because of the touch interface but it was still a watch that sits on your wrist. Apple just made the category better.
Vision pro on the other hand is spatial computing which is a completely new and untested paradigm in terms of interacting with a computer. It sits on your face and has a spatial interface. It’s also expensive. I want Apple to win, but I just don’t see the mass market appeal of the (expensive) product.
When iPhone and Apple Watch first came out, I spoke to non-technical people about the new products, and they could immediately identify how and why iPhone was exciting and how it would change their life. Same with Apple Watch. But with vision pro, the same people react as if it’s a gimmick. They’ve used computers a certain way for decades and are skeptical as to why a vision pro or similar device would ever be necessary. You have to read the pulse of the people to get a sense for how popular (or not) a product category might be.
I feel that vision pro may turn out to be nothing more than a glorified solution in search of a problem. But I wish Apple well I hope to be proven wrong.
Last edited:
The Quest is now on it's 3rd generation ... and the Vision Pro pretty much weighs the same.
Well, I could speak with many people that would agree that iPhone was like any other smartphone, except it turned the whole screen into a keyboard and was lacking normal keyboard. The point is still, that we all feel so clever in hindsight!
My memory must have gotten some problem before. Thanks for correcting. It’s the 256MB RAM that made me think that it’s the A8.
Not really the point. The point is that There’s a big difference between watches and phones which have been around in one form or another for over 100 years and an iOS helmet which hasn’t.
Earlier (in another thread) I asked about those with IOLs, such as myself. In this case it is not so much the issue of focus, but that light coming in too obliquely to the iris causes glare and diffraction.
There are many vision problems human experience.
Oh, and for those who wear glasses: when you go to the optometrist/eye-glass supplier, and you put on frame you want to buy, the technician will (or at least should) mark on the frames where laterally your irises are.
Humans have a variation in the distance between the (left and right) irises. Pupillary distance is important in getting a proper fitting set of spectacles.
However, with a headset like the AVP, my question is whether the (expensive) Zeiss add-in lenses can be adjusted for this pupillary distance. If not, then I expect some people to have not-very-pleasant experience with the AVP.
So you're right, the AVP is going to be an Apple product that is only going to work for some of the population (regardless of money.)
Almost all VR headsets have physical IPD adjustments, where you can adjust the spacing of the built-in lenses, and thus also the lens inserts. In the Vision Pro, it's even motorized. One very compact headset, the Bigscreen Beyond, has fixed IPD, but they offer it in 1mm increments, with a custom facial interface made uniquely for each user (based on a scan from an iPhone).
Light is only coming from about a 100°-110° range to your eyes, so there would be less oblique light coming into your eyes than in real life. If anything, the lack of oblique light will cause issues, because the user's pupils may dilate more than usual because they are compensating for a lack of light from the periphery.
Even if it were true, realistically, if 20% of people were sickened by the Mac, Mac growth wouldn’t be limited by that as they’ve never gotten close to 80% marketshare. However, it’s still a profitable business for Apple. This could just mirror the sales of high end Macs and it’d be profitable.