It just means AAPL becomes more valuable as the cost of goods sold is lowered per unit when Apple can make their own silicon instead of paying Intel.
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
VARJO has 3 headsets in the thousands of dollars range. I think I saw a rumor that Apple was one of their biggest customers—Apple probably needs hundreds of headsets for developing software for their own headset before it goes into mass production.
STAR TREK TIM eXtended reality!
I think the Meta Quest 2 is by far the most common headset around today (~20 million sold). So it is good to compare any new headset to the Quest because it is the one that people will most likely have experience with.
Also in relation to the brightness spec, I think the human retina has a contrast ratio of about 100 to 1.
But then because our Iris can also dilate, this bring the contrast ratio all the way up to a million to 1.
This is why a display on the Quest 2 with only about 200 nits is completely usable, and not vastly inferior to one with a a 5000 nits screen. All that happens is your Iris on the Quest 2 is a lot bigger than on the super bright headset.
One consequence though, is that the bigger your Iris the more focusing required to resolve details. So in a nice bright headset your Iris will be small, and the pinhole effect means less focussing is required.
This might manifest itself as feeling tired in the eyes, or earlier onset of a headache when using a Quest 2 headset.
As a VR app developer I can confirm there is an immediate market for such a headset.
Although not large by any consumer market comparison, such as the App Store, the VR Apps we make are for industry training, and we already buy a few VR Headsets per month to ship to customers.
We currently pay around $4k for a Headset/Laptop, so if the Apple Headset does all the rendering, and the quality is high enough, then that $3k cost is an immediate saving.
So if Apple's plan here is to get the non-consumer based VR developers buying the Headsets to start with, and then as those developers get used to the technology can expect the first consumer oriented Apps to start amassing, then it looks like a solid plan to me.
Presumably the consumers who are the early adopters will be generally very wealthy, so they make a nice target for those developers who are the first to develop ( or port ) across the first wave of Apps.
It is so difficult to compare though.
For teaching a new surgeon how to do knee surgery, then one of those VR simulations is going to be a lot more affective than just getting the surgeon to chat to ChatGPT about it
And likewise, if you want help in writing a university thesis then putting on a VR headset might not be at all helpful compared to asking ChatGPT what it thinks.
As to which will be considered the most world changing, if say we are looking back from the year 2123, then I think it will be the ChatGTP though. Although I can also imagine a future where we have those SciFi style neural implants for our VR experiences, in which case maybe the VR headsets of today will be seen as real signs of what's to come.
It depends on the aspect ratio though. But stating the horizontal resolution is the standard now when talking about the numbers of Ks.
You are right, for a regular TV set, the aspect ratio means 8K would give you 7,680 x 4,320 pixels. ( or there abouts )
But VR headsets are different aspect ratio than a regular TV, so 8k for a headset would be roughly half the number of pixels.
I'm not defending that way of quoting the resolution though, it is just what seems to have become standard in recent years, and I can see the benefits to it. It just evolved to be useful.
We've already had these standards over the years:
* Because CRT TV's were originally round the standard was to state the Diameter of the screen, which then becomes the diagonal size as is still used today, rather than the width or height.
* In the 80s the resolutions were often just quoted in full, like 320x240. Maybe because the numbers were smaller, so didn't take up too much space
* Then it became all those VGA, XGAs for a bit, that I found a bit confusing to remember.
* Then for a while it was just the vertical resolution that was used, so 720, 1080 etc..
* Then Megapixels were the thing, not so much for displays, but in a sense is the truest specification, just that the numbers are so big. So 4k TV would be 8.3 mega pixels
* And now we just seem to quote the horizontal resolution instead, that taken together with the aspect ration is enough to determine how many pixels you are really getting for your money.
You might know this already but if you have a recent iPad you can use that as 2nd display for your Macbook, either over WiFi or with the USB-C cable.
I was really impressed with the high frame-rate over the USB-C cable.
If it was compared to another high end headset it would mean nothing to me. I, and many others own or have tried a Quest 2 so the comparison means something even if it blows it out of the water.
I own a Quest 2 but can afford a high end head set and the reason I haven't bought one is because they don't seem worth it yet. In other words, not every one who owns a Quest 2 can only afford a $400 headset. Any of us are looking for a worthy upgrade.
Getting blasted in the retinas by LED's while 5G is pumping through your brain. I am sure there will be a warning somewhere to take a break every once in a while. What could go wrong?
The problem is if they don't limit it to developers...consumers will probably gobble this up and Apple will see that they were willing to pay at that price point and I can't imagine them going cheaper after that. (Think about how many NON "pro" users are purchasing the Pro Max and now we just keep getting phones in "big" and "bigger". Sure, this is looking at size instead of price, but I'm sure the point could still stand there. Maybe).
Personally, despite being a tech geek...I have absolutely zero interest VR. I think it's niche. If they can't make a compelling case for it and then fully meet/exceed on that...then I'd even lean towards "waste of time" territory. That being said though...I'm totally prepared to be proven wrong. 😂 Part of me says "niche"...the other part says it'll sell like hotcakes 😂
I don’t get this AR thing at all since it began showing up as AR on iOS or in oculus.
Since I am not interested in it at all and it’s certainly a useless thing for me. Did I just hurt your feeling? You don’t have to tell me how I look at things…
You should save your words once Apple releases it.
Apple has been inventing useless stuff in recent years, from Apple Watch to HomePods. AR will be the next one.
Apple Watch and HomePod are not useless products; each has a distinct purpose (activity tracking and sonics). The VR headset is looking a tad like a loser product for losers, though, I have to concede.
I’m hoping for 120. 90 will give me motion sickness in some games.
It depends on the aspect ratio though. But stating the horizontal resolution is the standard now when talking about the numbers of Ks.
You are right, for a regular TV set, the aspect ratio means 8K would give you 7,680 x 4,320 pixels. ( or there abouts )
But VR headsets are different aspect ratio than a regular TV, so 8k for a headset would be roughly half the number of pixels.
I'm not defending that way of quoting the resolution though, it is just what seems to have become standard in recent years, and I can see the benefits to it. It just evolved to be useful.
We've already had these standards over the years:
* Because CRT TV's were originally round the standard was to state the Diameter of the screen, which then becomes the diagonal size as is still used today, rather than the width or height.
* In the 80s the resolutions were often just quoted in full, like 320x240. Maybe because the numbers were smaller, so didn't take up too much space
* Then it became all those VGA, XGAs for a bit, that I found a bit confusing to remember.
* Then for a while it was just the vertical resolution that was used, so 720, 1080 etc..
* Then Megapixels were the thing, not so much for displays, but in a sense is the truest specification, just that the numbers are so big. So 4k TV would be 8.3 mega pixels
* And now we just seem to quote the horizontal resolution instead, that taken together with the aspect ration is enough to determine how many pixels you are really getting for your money.
All of which is further complicated by the fact that
- the region where pixels exist is more circular than rectangular AND
- foveated rendering in used so that the central region is rendered at higher resolution than the edge regions
All this means that the image should (as you EXPERIENCE IT, which will be very different to what it looks like in a photo...) be rather better than 4K "class" BUT also that the rendering burden for the hardware is closer to a third of the pixels that might nominally be expected from the specs. This is obviously important in terms of energy usage.
Along these lines, I've been wondering...
when is the last time Apple had a failed product line? What comes to my mind is the Newton.
(Note I said product line, not product. HomePod might be lackluster, but it's premature to say it failed. The iPod might not be selling anymore, but it was certainly successful. Siri often sucks, but I exempt it because it's supplied for free, like it or not.)
If the Newton is Apple's last failed product line, that's a good long run. Maybe this headset will be next.
