But in terms of future devices we are not talking about today’s iPhone and its limitations. We’re talking about the M9 or M10. Or A23 or A24 where for all we know it has dedicated silicon to run visionOS on device just like the phone can playback video now for 28hrs with hardware acceleration.
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.
Gurman: Apple Could Release $2,000 'Apple Vision' Headset Next Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Meta recently demonstrated Orion that the tech press seemed to be fawning over and everybody loved despite it being a $10,000 dev kit not for sale to the public consisted of glasses. Side note - It's amazing how future potential products from other people beat current products Apple are shipping over and over again /sarcasm.
It's a display you wear on your face, a phone style computing device you have in your pocket and a watch style strap you put on your wrist working together. Very few people seem to have realised Apple sells all these things right now. That combination could easily be a future Vision Pro Air for example in 6-7 years.
Last edited:
That's kind of obvious - and due to the limited functionality of those device. AR Glasses would be hugely more functional and could, eventually, replace the iPhone entirely.
So I don't see the point you're making - I was simply stating that there's evidence that companion devices can succeed. Where is the evidence that there should be a 'concern' that companion devices can't succeed?
You completely missed that I was talking about the $2k iGoggles that are unreleased. Or are you claiming to be an Apple employee?
I did completely miss that. You replied to my comment saying 'Has anybody tried it". I presumed you meant the Vision Pro. Why would anybody who had tried an unreleased product post on here? They would be under NDA.
My assertion is that Apple would like the AVP and that platform to be way more than a companion device and they have started it on that path by positioning it how they did and not as an iPhone accessory
Feels like we have both said plenty on this.
Cheers
A very good question. I do know that Apple engineers read this website as they have directly told me. Do they post is an entirely different one.
Well, the original poster was asking why Apple didn't just add the headset as an accessory to the iPhone, which was talking about last year's iPhone, technically. I was referring to near future potential. You are talking 6 years out, which could be literally more than a lifetime for this product, depending on the progress with displays.
But, yes, once they get out of the stone ages with this technology, modular devices are certainly a possibility. That said, if they actually do get buy-in and hit critical mass with this and shrink everything to be a true wearable, the phone could very well be the first piece to go away.
Thanks again. I've been using a work colleague's AVP for the last few weeks, and I'm absolutely loving the experience! One of the several standout features I'm loving is watching content on it. And I reckon I'm going to buy one very soon.
My curiosity about the storage is due space I'd want for films and TV shows. As I watch a lot of stuff I've ripped and compressed over the years (in addition to the 700+ films I've bought on iTunes), I was looking at getting the 512GB or even the 1TB. But I've discovered the AVP doesn't allow any video content to be synced across, the way one can put any video file onto an iPhone or iPad from a Mac. Even streaming from a Mac to AppleTV can't be done with the AVP (yet?). Or am I missing something?
Anyhow, now I'm thinking the 256GB might be enough storage.
And Apple Care+ is pretty much a must in my opinion, especially when traveling, as you've already mentioned. It's another big spend on top of an already massive spend, but the alternative simply isn't worth it - here in Australia, I was discussing the AVP with one of the managers at a local Apple Store who had recently purchased one, and he mentioned that the cost to repair/replace the AVP unit would be AUD$3000! And interestingly, he mentioned that would be less than the actual cost of the unit itself; another words, a loss to Apple. I'm not sure by how much.
Anyhow, it's been fascinating reading the many threads on Macrumors over the past few weeks, the many criticisms and unfortunately fewer users praising it, all weighed up together with my own productive and fun time using it on a daily basis...
Uh, just to clarify, I believe the Orion display is quite different than anything Apple sells, as it is not using cameras to re-image your world and overlay it in a VR display to simulate AR, but actually superimposing the AR images on the silicon carbide lens that you are looking through at the real world. I think that they said about $8000 of that $10,000 is that display system. Depending on one's preferred use case, the display may or may not appeal versus the AVP, but I would have to say it is distinctly different.
As I said earlier, the display technology is also a moving target, so it will be interesting to see where the multiple technologies eventually intersect.
If you have a NAS or DLNA server, you might want to try Skybox and just stream videos from the NAS. I do not have an AVP (yet), but Skybox for the Quest works very well for that and I see they have it available for the AVP.
SKYBOX Media Player
SKYBOX is an ultimate local media player which plays anything easily for Apple Vision Pro and loved by users since 2016. **Play Anything! SKYBOX supports a variety of video formats, including AV1, MP4, MKV, MOV, TS, WEBM, and many others. You can enjoy normal 2D contents, 3D contents in...
apps.apple.com
BTW, I love your avatar! I'm trying to remember where I know it from, but I keep going blank again.
If you actually have the Quest 3, buy the Zenni inserts. They are worth the cash and improve the experience greatly versus fitting the headset over glasses. (Zenni has sales often, so sign up for their emails and wait until they send you a deal.)
2000 dollars vs 3500 dollars is not a lot of difference to me, it’s still an expensive luxury, rather than something I need to do things on.
So, to transfer files I just use iCloud but they are mallet 3D files I’m testing. Obvs for any mainstream media I’m streaming (2000+ iTunes movies) so streaming from a local library isn’t something I’ve looked into. Are you sure plex isn’t available? It seems like just logging into plex with the browser would work for streaming your own content?
I was talking in loose terms not tech for tech. Apple sells a display you put near your eyes. A thing you strap to your wrist and a phone like device for your pocket. In 5-7 years they could very easily work together in an Orion style manner just like your phone works with CarPlay now.
Giving software for free is a much easier proposition than hardware, as giving hardware away involves an additional loss per unit due to the actual cost of the physical hardware, versus duplicating software for which the development costs have already been paid. There is certainly overhead and support costs, but subsidizing hardware has all sorts of extra issues.
Of course they could, as I also said.
If you haven't looked closely at the Orion tech, though, you might want to, as it is interesting. I actually lean more towards VR, personally, so I'm not sure it really appeals to me because it doesn't have that same ability to shut out the world, but it is certainly intriguing.
For the highest quality you would want to either:
1. Stream an MKV rip from a server on your Mac, such as Plex
2. Watch your purchased movies steaming in Apple TV. Downloaded films are 1080 p.
As an MKV rip (which gives the best quality) can run over 150 GB it isn't practical to download them.
If you are lucky you can stream them in 4K and 3D. Don't know if you can download a 3D movie.
Yes.
There is a lot of amazing immersive video content out there - hike in the Alps, fireworks in Hong Kong, etc. In most cases this content has to be downloaded and they take a lot of space. Explore POV is nearing 200 GB of space if you download everything. If you also download a lot of amazing apps it quickly adds up. Right now I have ~400 GB of space used.
Well, Apple was just able to start selling the AVP in my region 3 months ago, so your "never" seems like a surprisingly short time to me.
This is just another rumour of the day and even if Gurman is actually accurate this time
, theres no indication that Apple thinks the current Vision Pro is the end game, but simply the game they are able to play today. If Apple isn't taking the feedback from V1 and working on improving it, then they aren't even intending on making a V3.
30-40% margins are great if you've got a product that people
That "simply" is the issue. It isn't simple to do actual AR glasses. That is what Cook had wanted, but the current method of mixing VR with camera views to simulate full AR was actually easier than AR projection on see-through lens, so it is what they settled for when they had trouble producing true AR.
Development on Augmented Reality 'Apple Glasses' Postponed Indefinitely
Apple has paused development on the augmented reality Apple Glasses that it planned to introduce after its mixed reality headset, reports Bloomberg....
www.macrumors.com
I guess you could say that they could just use the Google Glass display tech, but that was a single screen in one of the eyes. Pretty cool at the time, but bare minimum as AR. This guy demonstrates it and refers to it as Picture-In-Picture:
And I don't think Apple really wanted to duplicate any of the Google Glass experience, especially Google's piece of that experience, though they are probably feeling a bit closer to that than they would have liked.
Agreed. If it was ‘simple’ the technology would already exist and be to market. But when it does become available Apple are often the one to make it usable.That "simply" is the issue. It isn't simple to do actual AR glasses. That is what Cook had wanted, but the current method of mixing VR with camera views to simulate full AR was actually easier than AR projection on see-through lens, so it is what they settled for when they had trouble producing true AR.
Development on Augmented Reality 'Apple Glasses' Postponed Indefinitely
Apple has paused development on the augmented reality Apple Glasses that it planned to introduce after its mixed reality headset, reports Bloomberg....
I guess you could say that they could just use the Google Glass display tech, but that was a single screen in one of the eyes. Pretty cool at the time, but bare minimum as AR. This guy demonstrates it and refers to it as Picture-In-Picture:
And I don't think Apple really wanted to duplicate any of the Google Glass experience, especially Google's piece of that experience, though they are probably feeling a bit closer to that than they would have liked.
It’s all about perspective. I keep reading the Apple Watch is a failure. But if you took the watch out of Apple as its own business it would be a highly profitable Fortune 500 company. But yet it’s still a ‘failure’ in the eyes of many.
True. I'm just finding it annoying that people seem to think Apple could have easily made a better headset, while the reality is they had a difficult time just making this one. The AVP is the best they could do at the time.
Did they introduce it too soon? Possibly, but that is again an issue with first generation and early adoption... timing. How long do you keep working on a product, especially one that is quite driven by the software produced by third party developers? If the timing is wrong, the product seems like a failure (at the very least initially), but if the product is a success, the iterations usually quickly make the first edition look like an antique. But if they get the first version out there and inspire some developers, there is a chance there will be software to inspire potential purchasers of the second generation. This has been normal for decades, though it apparently isn't common in the 21st century (and all this AVP fuss has only now made me realize this).
Either way, it is an interesting product and it just seems weird to me that so many would have such a fervent loathing of a product just because it doesn't appeal to them. I assume they don't go down to car dealerships every fall and tell the salespeople all the models they don't care for and the features that could be better, but the threads like this one do make me wonder.