Cheaper Vision, powered by iPhone 15 Pro

[Macalicious2011]

iPhone 15 Pro USB Spec

Video output: 4K/60Hz
Data Transfer: 10 Gbps


At $3,500, Vision Pro is clearly an early adopter product. Because of the Pro in the name, there will likely be a cheaper variant. If SpatialOS is the future of computing, then the product needs to be financially attainable. Reading between the lines of USB-C specs for the 15 Pro, it’s possible that Apple could release a cheaper Vision that uses the iPhone 15 Pro as the brain.

This could be priced at $1,500 but be powered by two 2k instead of 4k displays. Furthermore, some households will have several iPhones and it would be financially easier to justify a monitor/VR headset that can be complimentary to several iPhones.

After all, what’s the point of shooting Spatial videos on an iPhone 15 Pro, if you don’t have a screen to play them on. You wouldn’t want to wait for gigabytes of data to be uploaded to iCloud and then wait for it to be downloaded to a separate Vision Pro for viewing.

 

[chabig]

That's an interesting idea. But as of now, the Apple Vision Pro uses a processor with features unique to spatial computing that aren't necessary for a phone.

 

[subjonas]

Yeah interesting thought. I was wondering how Apple could significantly lower the cost for the cheaper version without degrading the experience too much (below their standards). I don’t know if it’s feasible but this could be a way, by removing the M chip. The headset has a wired connection to the battery anyway, so it could have a wired connection to an iPhone as well. As a side effect it would also probably up sales of the iPhone Pro.

But of course some of the questions are-
Is the A17 powerful enough?
Can half of the brain be integrated over a cable (the other brain half being the R chip which I assume would still be needed in the headset)?
How would both the external battery and the iPhone be connected to the headset?

 

[Macalicious2011]

Yeah interesting thought. I was wondering how Apple could significantly lower the cost for the cheaper version without degrading the experience too much (below their standards). I don’t know if it’s feasible but this could be a way, by removing the M chip. The headset has a wired connection to the battery anyway, so it could have a wired connection to an iPhone as well. As a side effect it would also probably up sales of the iPhone Pro.

But of course some of the questions are-
Is the A17 powerful enough?
Can half of the brain be integrated over a cable (the other brain half being the R chip which I assume would still be needed in the headset)?
How would both the external battery and the iPhone be connected to the headset?

-The A17 Pro had hardware accelerated raytracing which we know is highly resource intensive, and it will be able to run the console version of Assassins Creed. Apple has also announced multi-display CarPlay which highlight that capabilities of newer iPhones in beaming information to multiple displays whilst also communicating with an Apple Watch.

-Good call about the R1 chip. Because it processes inputs from sensors it can remain in the headset as there’s no space for it in an iPhone @chabig


Apple rarely introduce big tech feature like unless it:
-Tighten the eco-system.(U1 and U2 chip)
-Enable you to use one of their accessories.(Lightening connector, Smart connector on iPads, MagSafe)
-Give their native apps an unfair advantage.(Neural engine, Face-ID sensors for ApplePay)

Apple has invested billions into Spatial computing, been super generous with USB-C features and the A17 bionic is overpowered(6GB RAM) for the average user. It’s plausible that it could power a Vision headset to fuel adoption.

However, battery would be an issue but not entirely unsolvable. A cheaper Vision could include a MagSafe battery that clings on to the iPhone. Therefore, only a single cable would be required.

 

[Piggie]

If you think about it, the way we do "Computing in the home" could be seen as a bit silly.
And, in an Alternate Universe could be done in a totally different way and seen as normal and obvious.

I actually pondered this many years ago as a concept as it kinda makes sense in many ways.

You have your home, and in the middle of your home you have a computer. Just the one computer.
It has good power in processing and graphics and also good communications around your home.

Then, all the devices you own,TV's, Consoles, Smart speakers/Displays are all basically dumb terminals (screen/input devices) that run from your main computer "server"

There is no good reason to need expensive processing power, Memory, Storage in every single tiny device scattered all over your home.

Even the rare item you may take away from your home (Phone/Watch) could flip into "Dumb Terminal Mode" when you get home to save it's battery and become more powerful.

I'm sure you could make a good argument about why having every single device (hundreds of them) around your home being a stand alone computer system is a pretty silly way of doing things.

 

[Macalicious2011]

If you think about it, the way we do "Computing in the home" could be seen as a bit silly.
And, in an Alternate Universe could be done in a totally different way and seen as normal and obvious.

I actually pondered this many years ago as a concept as it kinda makes sense in many ways.

You have your home, and in the middle of your home you have a computer. Just the one computer.
It has good power in processing and graphics and also good communications around your home.

Then, all the devices you own,TV's, Consoles, Smart speakers/Displays are all basically dumb terminals (screen/input devices) that run from your main computer "server"

There is no good reason to need expensive processing power, Memory, Storage in every single tiny device scattered all over your home.

Even the rare item you may take away from your home (Phone/Watch) could flip into "Dumb Terminal Mode" when you get home to save it's battery and become more powerful.

I'm sure you could make a good argument about why having every single device (hundreds of them) around your home being a stand alone computer system is a pretty silly way of doing things.

CarPlay was the first step towards using the iPhone to power a dumb display. Wired connection works very well. However, wireless CarPlay is not 100% reliable and suffer a bit of lag.

However, WiFi7 will unlock the ability to reliably beam video wirelessly in ways that are not possible with WiFi6. We know that Apple wants to kill ports and cables. I can envision their displays in 2025-2026 receiving video from Macs over WiFi7 instead of HDMI.

 

[curnalpanic]

Just attach your phone to your face. Done.

 

[JPack]

Apple won't make such a tethered device. They already decided on a less powerful, non-tethered headset that doesn't require a base station.

The whole point of Vision is eventually replacing the iPhone. You'll notice none of the Apple marketing materials show an iPhone in the room. That is a clear message.

A cheaper Vision will likely use an A-series processor, but definitely not tethered to iPhone.

 

[tomtad]

If you think about it, the way we do "Computing in the home" could be seen as a bit silly.
And, in an Alternate Universe could be done in a totally different way and seen as normal and obvious.

I actually pondered this many years ago as a concept as it kinda makes sense in many ways.

You have your home, and in the middle of your home you have a computer. Just the one computer.
It has good power in processing and graphics and also good communications around your home.

Then, all the devices you own,TV's, Consoles, Smart speakers/Displays are all basically dumb terminals (screen/input devices) that run from your main computer "server"

There is no good reason to need expensive processing power, Memory, Storage in every single tiny device scattered all over your home.

Even the rare item you may take away from your home (Phone/Watch) could flip into "Dumb Terminal Mode" when you get home to save it's battery and become more powerful.

I'm sure you could make a good argument about why having every single device (hundreds of them) around your home being a stand alone computer system is a pretty silly way of doing things.

Basically describing cloud computing and I think you’re spot on with where things will eventually go. All your devices will effectively be monitors.

It seems obvious that to make these headsets lighter/thinner the processing will move out of the headset at some point.

 

[floral]

... and the A17 bionic is overpowered(6GB RAM) for the average user.

To further prove your point, it actually has 8GB RAM.

 

[sevoneone]

Basically describing cloud computing and I think you’re spot on with where things will eventually go. All your devices will effectively be monitors.

It seems obvious that to make these headsets lighter/thinner the processing will move out of the headset at some point.

Actually, what he is describing is classic Mainframe + Terminal computing. Bunch of 'dumb' boxes interfacing with a master server in a hub + spoke setup. Only problem with that model for a consumer technology company is how do you convince people to buy new terminal devices on a yearly cycle when they really only need to upgrade the server to get the benefit of the new features?

Phone's, Tablets, Desktops and Laptops are all very mature tech. Innovation and breakthroughs are few and far between. I think most consumers have settled into a 2-3 year cycle with their phones, their computer 4-5 years, and probably don't replace their tablet until it can't play their favorite solitaire app anymore. Apple need as many specs as possible to throw into the marketing machine and convince people there is something worth upgrading for and make sales.

What I would really like to see come to light is personalized/home distributed computing. Where any Apple device on your network can add it's resources to a pool accessible to all the others. Where if I am working in Logic on my Mac and my iPhone and iPad are nearby and charging, tap into the CPU/GPUs just sitting idle for a performance boost. Or if I am editing a video on an iPad in the living room and my Mac Mini upstairs is just sitting there, offload some of the processing to it.

 

[miiwtoo]

no way, i think apple gonna sell it just like the macbook series (with m1 or even the Axx Pro, why not), starting (maybe, i dont have f... idea) at $1399 (nice number dont you) 😄

 

[Macalicious2011]

This morning I watched a review of the Xreal Air 2 Pro which is a product that I knew nothing about.

What's cool about these AR/VR glasses is that they only weigh 72grams and can be plugged straight into an iPhone 15 Pro. At £449 it's way more palatable for achieving a 130 inch display compared with the Apple vision.

Granted the displays are Sony 1080oleds but it's probably a coat decision versus opting for 4k which is inevitable.

It's not a like for like comparison with the Apple Vision Pro but a reminder that there is a different approach. Give it 12 months and we shall see 4k variants of this at a similar or lower price.

 

[subjonas]

View attachment 2302859View attachment 2302858This morning I watched a review of the Xreal Air 2 Pro which is a product that I knew nothing about.

What's cool about these AR/VR glasses is that they only weigh 72grams and can be plugged straight into an iPhone 15 Pro. At £449 it's way more palatable for achieving a 130 inch display compared with the Apple vision.

Granted the displays are Sony 1080oleds but it's probably a coat decision versus opting for 4k which is inevitable.

It's not a like for like comparison with the Apple Vision Pro but a reminder that there is a different approach. Give it 12 months and we shall see 4k variants of this at a similar or lower price.

Very cool.
My impressions watching the video:
The tech and implementation look good. Very good that the glasses look somewhat normal and relatively comfortable. The electronic dimming feature with different levels is clutch.
I was waiting to see if it had any other display options besides one big screen always in front of the face, which it eventually showed there were options, albeit with the additional Beam device. I’m glad the options exist, and I wasn't surprised it required an additional device, as the glasses look too normal to house any kind of significant computing ability, but it is a bummer to need another device to deal with. But it is what it is. Except the small screen off to the side display option doesn’t seem like it should require the Beam.
The glasses aren’t VR obviously, and I wasn’t expecting them to be since they don’t block out all light from your eyes. But I was sort of expecting AR with the Beam. I was somewhat disappointed that it’s only a sort of quasi-AR. Full AR to me means it can map/anchor elements onto the world no matter where you turn your head or body, ideally but not necessarily with occlusion. If I understood correctly, the Beam only enables the glasses to anchor the cast screen to your body (as opposed to your head), and it also steadies the screen somewhat in a moving vehicle. The limitations make sense though seeing as I didn’t see the cameras/sensors on it that it would probably require for full AR. I suppose that’s because full AR is difficult to implement and would significantly drive up the cost.
I wonder what the battery life hit is on your phone, especially with the Beam. I half suspect it’s bad if they didn’t mention it. I wonder if the Beam has its own battery.
Hopefully they will make improvements in resolution (although the reviewer did say there was no screen door effect), opacity levels (somehow), and more display options including full AR.
I don’t expect it can achieve all of this wirelessly any time in the near future, so I accept that a wire is needed for now.

Like you said, it’s obviously not a like for like comparison with AVP. MKBHD said that headsets (like the AVP) and glasses (like the Xreal) are two opposite approaches toward the same goal. Both devices seem like good efforts for what they are each trying to accomplish.

 

[Macalicious2011]

Very cool.
My impressions watching the video:
The tech and implementation look good. Very good that the glasses look somewhat normal and relatively comfortable. The electronic dimming feature with different levels is clutch.
I was waiting to see if it had any other display options besides one big screen always in front of the face, which it eventually showed there were options, albeit with the additional Beam device. I’m glad the options exist, and I wasn't surprised it required an additional device, as the glasses look too normal to house any kind of significant computing ability, but it is a bummer to need another device to deal with. But it is what it is. Except the small screen off to the side display option doesn’t seem like it should require the Beam.
The glasses aren’t VR obviously, and I wasn’t expecting them to be since they don’t block out all light from your eyes. But I was sort of expecting AR with the Beam. I was somewhat disappointed that it’s only a sort of quasi-AR. Full AR to me means it can map/anchor elements onto the world no matter where you turn your head or body, ideally but not necessarily with occlusion. If I understood correctly, the Beam only enables the glasses to anchor the cast screen to your body (as opposed to your head), and it also steadies the screen somewhat in a moving vehicle. The limitations make sense though seeing as I didn’t see the cameras/sensors on it that it would probably require for full AR. I suppose that’s because full AR is difficult to implement and would significantly drive up the cost.
I wonder what the battery life hit is on your phone, especially with the Beam. I half suspect it’s bad if they didn’t mention it. I wonder if the Beam has its own battery.
Hopefully they will make improvements in resolution (although the reviewer did say there was no screen door effect), opacity levels (somehow), and more display options including full AR.
I don’t expect it can achieve all of this wirelessly any time in the near future, so I accept that a wire is needed for now.

Like you said, it’s obviously not a like for like comparison with AVP. MKBHD said that headsets (like the AVP) and glasses (like the Xreal) are two opposite approaches toward the same goal. Both devices seem like good efforts for what they are each trying to accomplish.

Excellent points raised. I agree that the Beam accessory could be more feature complete. I guess XReal are having a go at modularity to test what people are willing to pay for.

VR and AR are still new. Both need to find product market fit and go through price discovery. iPad‘s and tablets went through this process. Use cases from them are now varied ranging from iPad Pro for creative professionals, iPad Mini for pilots and points of sale, regular iPads for casual computing and even tablets just for children like Amazon Fire Kids. The latter isn’t the most cutting edge but it nails a use case for a specific audience.

For AR/VR glasses there will be a trade off in features versus bulky, convenience, practicality and price. The biggest take away from XReal Air 2 Pro is that if we want to use iOS in AR/VR, we won’t be forced to buy a super expensive Vision from Apple but will have the option of 3rd party products that plug straight into an iPhone 15. Sure, there won’t be the same integration but it might not be a deal breaker if your main use case is content consumption rather than spatial computing or gaming.

A big bonus would be if Oculus VR, PSVR2 or Steam VR could be used as external displays with other devices e.g laptop, tablet or phone.

 

[XboxEvolved]

As interesting as VR/AR is to me as someone that is into tech, there’s one simple thing that a lot of people forget, and it’s that people really hate putting stuff on their head. As much more mainstream as AR and VR is, and you have companies like Meta/Facebook betting lots on it, compared to literally any other tech category, it’s still a niche product. Before the Vision Pro was shown my thoughts were, if Apple can’t crack the code then its going to stay a niche category, and so far from what I’ve seen, it’s going to stay a niche category.

I could be wrong, the cost and the hype of the Vision Pro may boost Quest and PSVR sales, kind of how iPad and watch boosted those categories sales, but I still really doubt it. Unless they made the thing under $1k I wouldn’t bet on it getting to much traction.

 

[subjonas]

As interesting as VR/AR is to me as someone that is into tech, there’s one simple thing that a lot of people forget, and it’s that people really hate putting stuff on their head. As much more mainstream as AR and VR is, and you have companies like Meta/Facebook betting lots on it, compared to literally any other tech category, it’s still a niche product. Before the Vision Pro was shown my thoughts were, if Apple can’t crack the code then its going to stay a niche category, and so far from what I’ve seen, it’s going to stay a niche category.

I could be wrong, the cost and the hype of the Vision Pro may boost Quest and PSVR sales, kind of how iPad and watch boosted those categories sales, but I still really doubt it. Unless they made the thing under $1k I wouldn’t bet on it getting to much traction.

It’s true people hate/don't like putting stuff on their head, but people do (glasses, goggles, masks), so it’s just a matter of how much the benefit outweighs the discomfort. This means if Apple can offer enough benefit in the VP and decrease the discomfort enough, many people could want it. But this remains to be seen. And of course price is always the other factor, but maybe that can be categorized under “discomfort”.

 

[ChrisA]

I'm sure you could make a good argument about why having every single device (hundreds of them) around your home being a stand alone computer system is a pretty silly way of doing things.

The Rapberry Pi "Pico" is a dual core 32-bit ARM processor chip. It retails in quanity one for $1. It is powerful enought that I can do real-time motion control for a quadruped robot in python on the chip.

What I'm saying here is that computers powerfull enough to run small devices cost so close to zero that you save close to zero by removing them. And the price is not going up, it has been trending lower for decades.

So, yes. I agree that the home server idea is good. The small devices nly needs $1 computer inside. But Apple is doing this now. Look at Homepod and Apple TV. Both of these are used a Homekit controllers and as Thread border routers. These are actually kinds of servers

You home server does not need to do much computing, what's needed is sentralize storage that is available 24x7. The cloud can work for this too.

 

[Piggie]

The Rapberry Pi "Pico" is a dual core 32-bit ARM processor chip. It retails in quanity one for $1. It is powerful enought that I can do real-time motion control for a quadruped robot in python on the chip.

What I'm saying here is that computers powerfull enough to run small devices cost so close to zero that you save close to zero by removing them. And the price is not going up, it has been trending lower for decades.

So, yes. I agree that the home server idea is good. The small devices nly needs $1 computer inside. But Apple is doing this now. Look at Homepod and Apple TV. Both of these are used a Homekit controllers and as Thread border routers. These are actually kinds of servers

You home server does not need to do much computing, what's needed is sentralize storage that is available 24x7. The cloud can work for this too.

Yes, lightweight computing, can of course be done for very little, but really it's the heavy stuff on a light machine that couple perhaps be done a different way.

Perhaps you could come home with your lightly powered phone/tablet, and when you get in range they could connect to your beefy home machine and you could then run vastly more powerful software on them, as your home device/server was doing all the main CPU/GPU work?

 

[Jensend]

What's cool about these AR/VR glasses is that they only weigh 72grams and can be plugged straight into an iPhone 15 Pro. At £449 it's way more palatable for achieving a 130 inch display compared with the Apple vision.

I wouldn't call them AR or VR. I call them video glasses, because the virtual screen is anchored to your head instead of your environment. With the additional adapter it is a kind of pseudo-AR, since it gives you 3 degrees of tracking, so its rotation is anchored to the environment, but not its lateral position. Rotation tracking is a lot easier than lateral position tracking, which usually requires cameras and much more processing.

Granted the displays are Sony 1080oleds but it's probably a coat decision versus opting for 4k which is inevitable

The resolution isn't really the main shortcoming. The XReal glasses likely already have more Pixels Per Degree than the Vision Pro, but over a much smaller Field of View. From my understanding, it's difficult to increase FOV much further with see-through AR. All of the major see-through video/AR glasses have a horizontal FOV of about 45°, while VR headsets are in the 100° range.

 

[Macalicious2011]

All of the major see-through video/AR glasses have a horizontal FOV of about 45°, while VR headsets are in the 100° range.

Thanks. I wasn't aware of this!

 

[Nate455]

I hope they come out with a cheaper product, this version is very expensive for the average user.

 

[Macalicious2011]

I hope they come out with a cheaper product, this version is very expensive for the average user.

They likely will but it’s too early for it. The process to a cheaper product is to:
Find market fit: What is the product used for and by who.
Optimisation: Create another version of the product that is optimised in features and price for that use case. Remove features the features that have a high usage/cost price.

Once Vision Pro has launched, Apple will have some direction for the cheaper product.

 

[Surf Monkey]

What I would really like to see come to light is personalized/home distributed computing. Where any Apple device on your network can add its resources to a pool accessible to all the others. Where if I am working in Logic on my Mac and my iPhone and iPad are nearby and charging, tap into the CPU/GPUs just sitting idle for a performance boost. Or if I am editing a video on an iPad in the living room and my Mac Mini upstairs is just sitting there, offload some of the processing to it.

This is where the industry generally appears to be heading. Decentralized computing instead of a mainframe/terminal model. The embedding of so much compute power in so many discreet devices presents an opportunity much like what you describe. The desktop gets de-emphasized and user focus turns to whatever device is best suited in that moment be it a phone, a “television” a “monitor,” a smart speaker etc.

 

[Surf Monkey]

They likely will but it’s too early for it. The process to a cheaper product is to:
Find market fit: What is the product used for and by who.
Optimisation: Create another version of the product that is optimised in features and price for that use case. Remove features the features that have a high usage/cost price.

Once Vision Pro has launched, Apple will have some direction for the cheaper product.

This is a potential problem should the market turn out to be significantly smaller and more specialized than Apple hopes. They’re driving to make this an iPhone replacement. I don’t think this will be a replacement for iPhone for the VAST majority of people… ever.