I'm really interested in seeing this. Totally out of my price range... but still interested as I like the tech.
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's AR/VR Headset Display Specs: 5000+ Nits Brightness for HDR, 1.41-Inch Diagonal Display and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
those specs are absolutely insane
how did they manage to reach such a level of miniaturization, when micro led is the hardest tech when it comes to making small pixels ? 4k ppi is crazy as hell
that little boy must have cost em a heck lotta money
how did they manage to reach such a level of miniaturization, when micro led is the hardest tech when it comes to making small pixels ? 4k ppi is crazy as hell
that little boy must have cost em a heck lotta money
Lowkey, this might be one of those world changing Apple products. Ten years from now it might seem strange to think about times before this was released. Hope we can at least try these on without having to throw down thousands of dollars…
What is it for? Some of the things Jason Snell mentioned on Gruber’s podcast (mostly around sports) didn’t seem very compelling. I can’t imagine many people will want to wear bulky googles to consume sports.
Honestly I can see quite a number of uses for it such as medical/dental profession training, construction, and so on. Hell I could see this doing totally away with animal testing. The sports & entertainment aspects for it will probably come to fruition in a later product. Thus first run is probably more aimed at developers etc.
Probably just to play No Man’s Sky
No, because a 1.41 inch display on an iPhone would make it unusable.
Was about to say the same... I'm as big of fan of an iPhone mini as there is, but I think 1.41 inch is too small
Depends how the outside world is "brought in".
If the outside world is captured via camera and composited, then that contrast ratio is strange. But if the glasses are simultaneously pass-through AND AR drawn onto that pass-through image, then that contrast is pretty damned impressive.
I want to clarify that Ross Young deleted his original tweet. I asked him about it, and he has since told me that 4000:1 was a mistake. I've taken out that information.
Again it depends on how the outside world is brought in. If images have to be drawn on top of the outside world at close to its full possible brightness, then ...
At $3,000 this product is nearly irrelevant as a product category for Apple...
The AR/VR headset that Apple plans to introduce at the Worldwide Developers Conference next week has long been rumored to feature 4K micro OLED displays with an 8K total resolution, but notable display analyst Ross Young today shared some additional specifications that give some insight into how the headset will work.
Each of the two displays will measure in at 1.41 inches diagonally, with Apple aiming for over 5000 nits of brightness and 4,000 pixels per inch. Unfortunately, AR/VR display specs used in headsets from competitors like Sony and Meta aren't generally advertised beyond resolution and pixels per inch, so it's difficult to make a direct comparison, but the information from Young does provide some context.
With ~5000 nits brightness or more, the AR/VR headset from Apple would support HDR or high dynamic range content, which is not typical for current VR headsets on the market. The Meta Quest 2, for example, maxes out around 100 nits of brightness and it does not offer HDR, and the HoloLens 2 offers 500 nits brightness. Sony's PSVR 2 headset has around 265 nits of brightness, and it does have an advertised HDR feature when connected to an HDR display.
According to Young, the 5000 nits likely refers to peak brightness, which means that it won't blind users, but will instead provide superior contrast, brighter colors, and better highlights than other headsets that are available today. For SDR displays, peak brightness is often a reference to how well a display will perform in rooms with bright lighting as it is akin to maximum brightness, but for HDR displays, it's a metric of how well a display depicts color and contrast.
High-end TVs offer somewhere around 2,000 to 5,000 nits, for comparison. Samsung, for example, has a 98-inch TV that is able to reach 5,000 nits, along with Neo QLED TVs that offer 4,000 nits peak brightness. Samsung advertises these TVs as having "stunning, accurate color detail and an extraordinary range of contrast, creating a beyond-life-like experience."
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in 2022 showed off a "Starbursts" VR headset prototype able to hit 20,000 nits of brightness, but it was enormous, not wearable on the head, and not technology that Meta is able to implement as of yet.
If Apple hits that 5000+ nits brightness target, its headset will offer a display experience that competitors are unable to match, and it will also set the stage for future AR glasses. Augmented reality glasses need high brightness to mitigate the light from the sun and other light sources. At lower brightness levels, the AR content that overlays the real world view can be washed out.
Magic Leap 2, one of the more well-known augmented reality headsets, features brightness ranging from 20 nits to 2000 nits.
The 8K resolution offered by Apple's AR/VR headset will be superior to headsets from Meta and other companies, including Meta's highest-end Quest Pro 2. The Quest Pro 2 has a resolution of 1800 x 1920 pixels per eye and around 1200 pixels per inch as Meta is using LCD display technology.
The high-end displays that Apple has created for the AR/VR headset are rumored to be the most expensive component and a major contributor to the expected ~$3,000 price. At $3,000, Apple's AR/VR headset will be one of the more expensive virtual reality headsets on the market, though it will be competitive in price with AR-based products like the Magic Leap 2 and the HoloLens 2.
More information on what to expect from Apple's AR/VR headset can be found in our dedicated roundup.
Article Link: Apple's AR/VR Headset Display Specs: 5000+ Nits Brightness for HDR, 1.41-Inch Diagonal Display and More
My new Apple headset accidentally got stuck on full brightness, so I'm using speech-to-text to post here now.
All this tells me is this thing might be even more uglier than previously thought.
Uhh, based on what?
What's the acceptable price for a totally new product category unlike anything that currently exists?
If you think "a phone" means a Nokia candy bar, then saying that Apple can charge $1600 for a phone, and lots of people will happily pay that, sounds insane. But neither Apple nor those people are insane, what's insane is that you're assuming that what Apple is selling is basically the same thing as that Nokia candy bar.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I know this is a very popular perception but I can't recall when Apple has done that- established a price "for developers" and then rolled out a cheaper one for consumers. Looking back at that Mac Mini Silicon for developers is the only example I can recall... and 1) it was powered by A-series chip instead of M1 and 2) Apple wanted all of those back after M1s were released.
So what's the precedence for this thinking? Was there a cheaper iPad for developers before iPad? Cheaper iPhone before iPhone? Cheaper iPod before iPod?
The other flaw in this thinking is the idea that developers will want to buy it and develop for it without a market to buy whatever they are developing. What developers need to see is lots of consumer uptake. See the volume of apps for ultra-popular iPhone vs. (dedicated) iPad vs. Mac vs. (hobby) AppleTV.
I think this is aimed squarely at us consumers and developers will want in too to try to win the early gold/silver/bronze/copper/tin rush to create early non-Apple apps for it.
$3K is only someones guess that stuck and whether that's actually expensive or not is to be determined after we see what it is. For example, if this thing is actually Mac Pro, few would argue $3K is "expensive." On the other hand, if this is purely Oculus with an Apple logo on it, most- myself included- will argue "too expensive."
iPad was rumored to cost $1K and that was "far too expensive" for "nothing but a big iPod." Then it debuted at $500 and it was "shut up and take my money"... and now many readily pay more than $1K for iPads.
We need to see what it is before we can confirm who it is for and whether whatever the actual price is too high or too low. We have no idea right now.
The tech sounds interesting. I still need to see the killer application that goes with it.
It is a really poor way to measure for a VR headset anyway. The aspect ratio for your eyes doesn't match the aspect ratio for television. Normally pixels per degree of the field-of-view makes more sense in VR or at least the actual dimensions of the screens. If they are 1:1 aspect ratio they would be higher resolution then a 4K TV.
Nits of brightness is a bad measurement too since it will be lower once the light passes through the lenses and spreads out.
The title of the article lacks the word "rumored" or a synonym that you usually include before specs are official.
