Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes, I deal in reality, exclusively. Not in fantasy land where iPad is a serious productivity device.

Millions of artists just imagine drawing and creating on iPad, I guess.

The iPad absolutely dominates in its category.
This is from 2021, but no doubt it hasn’t changed very much since.
And this has pretty much been true since the iPad launched.
Sure, there have been blips of success in the tablet market from other companies (Kindle fire, Nexus seven) but none have even come close to the iPad.
Apple still sells more iPads than Macs, and iPadOS is still way more robust for the tablet form factor than android for tablets.

The iPad took a little longer to get there, but it's slipped into the market position of the iPod, much like the Apple Watch has - there's the Apple product dominating the market and mindshare, and there's a few guys around the edges eating the scraps.

(this doesn't mean the more niche products are worthless - it just means they're niche)
 
The price will always be what the market can bear - the company would be run irresponsibly otherwise. You're essentially guesstimating a bill of materials for the AVP and may just be wildly off. The OLED panels are incredibly hard to source and only available to Apple in these quantities. They really pushed the envelope on making them available to consumers as early as they did.

Think of this as a non crappy Quest Pro ($1500) with Apple premium integration, materials, support, and markup and the price is really just about right.
Which leads me to believe that in a few years we will have a $1599 Vision or Vision SE that appeals to a much larger audience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4sallypat
You're both wrong. It's not 8k and it's not two 4k displays. Each display is about 11.5MP which is approximately ~40% more than a 4k display each. The total 23MP between the two displays is about 69% of a single 8k display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jensend
You're both wrong. It's not 8k and it's not two 4k displays. Each display is about 11.5MP which is approximately ~40% more than a 4k display each. The total 23MP between the two displays is about 69% of a single 8k display.

Like I said, it ain’t 8k, which has around 33MP.
 
OP, you're point is correct. The comments that followed have tried to explain why it costs what it does, and they all completely miss your point. It's expensive because it uses expensive hardware. But that doesn't translate to functionality. It translates to an iPad simulator in VR.

I made a similar argument about the Apple watch when it first came out. Since then Apple made it a lot better and you can get them a lot cheaper!

Hopefully that ends up being the case with the Apple Vision stuff as well. But it might not be. The price of the Pro Display XDR and Mac Pro never went down. Admittedly, Apple did launch a Mac Studio which has practically the same performance as a Mac Pro, so that's good enough I suppose. But they never came up with a solution for the display. Unless they think this is the solution.

I'm sometimes not sure whether Apple is trying to make cool tech, or trying to become Louis Vuitton Computer Company. I don't think they're trying to become an elite fashion tech brand because even after launching the apple watch and making the 'edition' version, they ditched it and introduced the SE and have generally kept them fairly cheap. If Apple cared about being a luxury brand they wouldn't be launching stuff like the apple watch se, iphone se, macbook air, ipad air, etc. They might make 'air' devices but they'd instead charge a huge premium.

I imagine they could go the "luxury" route and upholster a macbook with materials that would wear out quickly and look awful if you used it, ala Surface Laptop.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: AlastorKatriona
You said it has 2 4K displays. I was correcting that aspect of what you said. Not trying to be a jerk, just relaying the facts so people don’t get confused.
It’s displays are 4.3’ish-K. You are correct, they are not 4.0k
 
There are no headsets with higher specifications than the Vision Pro at a lower cost. There are headsets with lower specifications at a lower cost, and headsets with higher specifications at a higher cost.
It's hard to judge how "fair" the price is until we see competitors with devices with more similar specifications.
 
There are no headsets with higher specifications than the Vision Pro at a lower cost. There are headsets with lower specifications at a lower cost, and headsets with higher specifications at a higher cost.
It's hard to judge how "fair" the price is until we see competitors with devices with more similar specifications.
We can't tell what "fair" is until next week when we're able to stop looking at specs and see what it's capable of. AVP is trying to hack your sensory system and convince you that the hallucinations it's inducing are real and then make those hallucinations flexible enough that you can use them to do useful things.

Specs aren't really the question for an end user. As an engineering marvel, sure the technology they've packed in there is going to be of interest, but what's going to set its price, what will make it either worth it or not worth it, is how all that technology works together to create an experience. Arguing that more memory or pixels or CPU cycles make something like this more valuable, or less of those things make it less valuable, is completely besides the point-- what matters is how it functions as a whole.

That's why this entire thread is missing the point. There is nothing to compare AVP to in Apple's lineup. If it has the same number pixels, same amount of RAM and storage, same processor as a MBP but the experience overall sucks, then it's worth less than a MBP. If the experience delivers, then it's worth more than its constituent parts.

Also, that experience will be worth different amount to different people, just like is true for every other product.

They aren't 16*9 displays. They have fewer pixels horizontally than a 4K TV, but more vertically.
Very likely that they are 3648×3144 each.

Case in point: the number of pixels only matter as they determine the pixel density and field of view. If the density is too low, you'll notice the graininess. If the field of view is too narrow it won't feel immersive.

If you put your face very close to a 4k display so it fills your field of view, and then close one eye, and then the other, you'll notice neither eye sees the entire display at once. The display dimensions in AVP aren't two commercial televisions side by side on the wall, they're individual projectors, one for each eye. Their images will partially overlap and need to have enough field of view to fill your vision as you move your eyes around the scene.
 
That's why this entire thread is missing the point. There is nothing to compare AVP to in Apple's lineup. If it has the same number pixels, same amount of RAM and storage, same processor as a MBP but the experience overall sucks, then it's worth less than a MBP. If the experience delivers, then it's worth more than its constituent parts.

Also, that experience will be worth different amount to different people, just like is true for every other product.
Sure. My point about fairness was only about the hardware, not value to the user. If you compare specifications with other Apple devices, it seems overpriced. But comparing it with other headsets, it isn't out of line... But there isn't really anything with similar specifications, so the price comparisons are fairly indirect.
 
It’s displays are 4.3’ish-K. You are correct, they are not 4.0k
By calling it "4.3k" you're implying that the resolution is only less than 10% greater (or less than 20% greater if squared) than 4k, which is not accurate. The other poster just below you correctly pointed out how you need to take into account the aspect ratio of the display, which is more square than "4k" format displays. If you want to talk about clarity, maybe you should frame it in terms of display pixels per degree (ppd), which we don't know for sure but can estimate based on estimated FOV of about 100-105 degrees. AVP should be around 35-40 ppd.
 
By calling it "4.3k" you're implying that the resolution is only less than 10% greater (or less than 20% greater if squared) than 4k, which is not accurate. The other poster just below you correctly pointed out how you need to take into account the aspect ratio of the display, which is more square than "4k" format displays. If you want to talk about clarity, maybe you should frame it in terms of display pixels per degree (ppd), which we don't know for sure but can estimate based on estimated FOV of about 100-105 degrees. AVP should be around 35-40 ppd.
If that makes you feel better, ok. I’ll frame it in terms of megapixels as that is pretty concrete.

They are approx 11.5MP displays. About 23MP between the two of them. 8k is about 33MP. they are about 2/3rds of an 8k display if you count them as 2 separate display (which they are physically) but functionally they give you a singular view, which may be greater than 11.5MP but not really 23MP of functional “desk space” yet infinitely richer with regard to depth.

From a parts price view, they of course 2 11.5MP displays, and no doubt are pretty price as early products.
 
If that makes you feel better, ok. I’ll frame it in terms of megapixels as that is pretty concrete.

They are approx 11.5MP displays. About 23MP between the two of them. 8k is about 33MP. they are about 2/3rds of an 8k display if you count them as 2 separate display (which they are physically) but functionally they give you a singular view, which may be greater than 11.5MP but not really 23MP of functional “desk space” yet infinitely richer with regard to depth.

From a parts price view, they of course 2 11.5MP displays, and no doubt are pretty price as early products.
Agreed that one 11.5 MP display per eye will not come close to the real estate possible on a true 8k external display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZombiePhysicist
A Mac mini with the exact same CPU, GPU, RAM and storage [...]
What's the point of posting a thread about this worthless information that comes as news to exactly no one? We also already know that some people don't like this product, don't have a use case for it etc. etc. etc.

R&D, labor and programming seem to account for nothing in your astute Mac mini comparison. Also, why stop at the CPU etc.? Why not think of the materials? The raw materials that go into the components that types of computers are made up cost pennies! What a bargain! So why don't the components and the computers cost pennies? I wonder!

Anyway: I'm not interested in watching any sports whatsoever, but I don't post threads in sports forums to let people know about that and how I can think of better ways to spend my money. I don't need to publicly rationalize that, and neither do you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4sallypat
There's really no comparing the AVP to any other Apple products. It stands in a category all its own. And for the tech inside, this is priced competitively. And for the R&D that it took to build it, they need to be able to recoup that as well.

To my thinking, there's nothing like the AVP at any price point. And for the uses I've got planned for it, the value is aligned well.

But, if you can't afford, that's only a calculation you can make.
Finally someone who gets it. I’m not sure why people compare this to an iPad lol.
 
This is going to be an unpopular post, but what the heck.... The AVP is overpriced. Even Apple knows it. However, Apple has always (always) maintained a sizeable profit margin on what they sell, and this is no different. Apple will sell a few of these to Apple die-hards, a few to folks based of the idea of the AVP, and a few folks who (at least think they) understand Apple's Spatial Computing vision. This will equate to a large majority of the initial shipment being sold out, making this a hard product to find. However, the proof is always in the longevity. When the first Oculus Quest came out, it sold like wildfire due to price and the hype factor. It dropped off as VR is still not a mainstream seller, and the fact that Apple wants to distance themselves from AR/VR/MR/XR and focus on "spatial computing" is even more telling. I see this product as very much like the iPad. When the iPad first came out, it was a tool looking for a problem to solve. Most of us had no need for a tablet, as it was just a big phone that you couldn't make calls on. However, Apple sold them due to a combination of hype, and promise of tablet "experiences." You could argue that the iPad is still not doing as well as Apple would like, as quite a few more non-Apple tablets are sold, but it is (again) arguably the best tablet experience. I see the AVP as a device that few will buy, but many will watch. Once Apple can demonstrate a compelling use-case (app) that has mainstream appeal, and release a "lower" cost model, the AVP will hold its own. The fact of the matter right now is, VR is very much focused on games, which is something the AVP is handicapped against. It certainly has the processing power and is the most powerful stand-alone headset, but without a dedicated controller, it will limit what games work well on it. History has shown that in the gaming sphere, requiring an add-on, rarely increases sales. Frown away.... :)
This isn’t build-a-bear. There are dual 4k micro LED panels with HDR, tons of sensors and 4K sensors, lenses, two different processors and manufacturing costs for a first time production run. Your comparison is way off. Look at other high end VR headset with the same visuals like ones from Varijo. That even needs a PC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4sallypat
This isn’t build-a-bear. There are dual 4k micro LED panels with HDR, tons of sensors and 4K sensors, lenses, two different processors and manufacturing costs for a first time production run. Your comparison is way off.......
Love it !
Forgot about Build A Bear stores are still around ?

37231331228409_30248_26674x20015016.jpg
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.