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: Low-Cost Vision Pro Model to Drop EyeSight and M-Series Chip
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iPhone when it was released, was so much more than a regular smartphone.
Multi touch? New. Form factor? New. Software keyboard? Best implementation. Keynote? Actually addressing these innovations and made the product looked revolutionary. Same for other devices. Other companies slowly caught up. That’s real innovation.
Avp on the other hand. The use cases presented are not new, the hardware is not unique for the price point (a better integration, yes). The flat UI is not new. Passthrough is not new. Hand eye tracking is not new. Eyesight is new, but they are removing it for the lower price model. Then isn’t this just an Oculus?
Last edited:
If that is my most important need, I would try a viture or xreal ar glass. A usb c cable to connect your mac to the glass is no different from the power cable for avp.
But I think my point is Apple pitched this product the wrong way. If the main or most useful use case is what you’ve wanted, a lightweight normal glass looking ar glass would be a lot more successful in the sales
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Virture resolution is HD not 4K per eye. In all threads about all Apple screens, it's retina or bust. Nobody endorses 1080p screens for Mac that I've ever seen... and scaled up 1080p is only making pixels look blocky. Again, the attraction is QUALITY and in this particular use case, sharp resolution, so it can actually stand in for a long flight's computer screen. If it delivers low resolution blurry, I'd rather just try use the 16" MB screen itself.
Xreal resolution is also HD. See above.
Couldn't find one called just Glass. Maybe that's Google Glass? If so, that was discontinued. There are rumors of Google Glass 2 coming in 2024. If so, I could find no resolution specs... but based on price speculation, they are probably going to be HD resolution too.
My primary objective is for this to stand in for a MB screen: a super-sized MB screen. There are abundant low res "toy" VR googles/glasses for cheap prices. If I wanted to play games or just watch movies, low resolution could be "good enough." But I'm looking for a high resolution mobile screen on which to get work done... much bigger than 16" attached to a MB.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OK, so since Vpro is not yet released, we don't know if it can be "so much more" than regular VR/AR products yet. Based on those you offered in answer to the other post, Vpro is significantly better on key specs like resolution... which seems fundamentally important to be "so much more" for a product with the word Vision in the name. If the key to great VR/AR is making our eyes believe we are seeing whatever we are seeing, it can't be done as well at poor resolutions.
What resolution is in that tiny little iPhone screen? Retina. Why if 1080p is good enough or equivalent as implied by suggesting Virture or Xreal as just as good? iPhone could be much cheaper and/or much more profitable if Apple would use a commodity HD screen instead of a custom Retina one. So why don't they if it is just as good?
And the classic faults slung at all VR/AR products like motion sickness/headaches/etc may be addressed by stepping up the quality of what is shown to our eyes. That's to be determined too but we can't determine it until people can try it in person and see if it is "more" or "so much more" or NOT more or so much less.
Your post is pre-deciding that Vpro is nothing "more" or "much more" and convicting it of that before it even gets a trial. Perhaps it would be best to let it be released so we can see if it is "much more" than competitors or not. I don't know if it is "more" or "much more" myself yet... but like jumping to such conclusion about other Apple creations BEFORE they were launched, the proper gauge is to wait and see what it can and can't actually do before deeming it somewhere in the complete dud to greatest thing ever spectrum.
If it is no better than Occulus or Virture or xReal at up to many multiples of their price, I'll be first in line to proclaim it a pile of...
But I choose to not pass judgement until I can see what it actually is... what it actually can do. Based on what is known, I obviously lean positive. You appear to lean pretty negative. Both are the proper ways to lean on a product that is not yet public. It could be fantastic or it could be junk. TBD.
Last edited:
I still don't get this thing. Seems like a hot mess of a product line going forward. I also doubt an M-series chip is any less expensive than an iPhone chip. If anything, the iPhone Pro is already on 3nm chip that is more constrained and it has faster single core performance but less RAM. This thing needs RAM for multitasking badly. There are so many windows flying around. I don't see a version of this running on iPhone hardware being sufficient. They would be better off using an M2 chip with 24GB RAM in the lower priced model and put an M3 Pro with 48GB RAM in the higher-end next-gen model.
The last thing I want is to spend $1500-2500 on a new AR/VR device to have it be hampered with a mobile chip that will age much faster and a low resolution that can't even show me the text clearly when reading all these floating windows. Sounds like a major pain in the ass product and not very Apple-like. I think they brought all of this to market a couple years too early. Seems very half-baked and in search of a problem.
The last thing I want is to spend $1500-2500 on a new AR/VR device to have it be hampered with a mobile chip that will age much faster and a low resolution that can't even show me the text clearly when reading all these floating windows. Sounds like a major pain in the ass product and not very Apple-like. I think they brought all of this to market a couple years too early. Seems very half-baked and in search of a problem.
It should support screencasting. Still one user, but it’s not technically limited to just one screen. https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/05/apple-vision-pro-screen-mirroring-tidbits/
Maybe we’ll end up seeing users “outside” the headset being able to use the headset as if it was just another Mac, which opens it up to other uses, even if it’s still asynchronous in terms of one person in the VR space.
As far as portability goes… it’s still non-tethered, and that matters a lot if VR makers expect it to start becoming less niche. VR is never going to get anywhere if you are still stuck in a room with a cable tied to a PC, so if you’re expecting that to improve, then a goofy-looking snorkel mask is still at least better than the alternative if you can use it on its own.
Last edited:
You could use the same arguments for the original iPhone. “Touchscreen? Not new!”. But capacitive screens where just not comparable to resistive ones. Just like eye tracking on the AVP is real eye tracking, and not an experiment. Or passthrough feels like real passthrough and not more or less distorted images in front of your eyes. I don’t know in which way the AVP is remotely close to an Oculus.
I think this could be a really good thing for productivity tools. Now, I think for this to "matter" to the general public, there has be solid gaming opportunities. If they are set on this being niche, I could see it working for the high end professionals that (if the tool is good) could work more at home. I don't know... I'm just thinking out loud.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Maybe but these Googlies will look at people approaching you while you use them (it's not just a static picture staring straight ahead)... as your own eyes would if you were not using Vpro or if you were in Ski goggles or regular glasses. I think the point of building that feature vs. NOT (and perhaps people just sticking some googly eyes on them) is to show you are not zoned out when approached by others... that you can both still be viewing screens/information/etc and paying attention to someone who has stopped in... much like looking over the top of an iPhone or iPad to look at someone without putting the screen down/away.
Myself? I believe I would flip them up like sunglasses when I want to interact with others or am approached by anyone. But then again, I'm one who opts to leave my iDevice in the car when engaging in social activities with others so as to have no iDevice interruptions/intrusions at all in social settings. No many do that.
Removing eyesight- for which I'm indifferent myself- would always imply one is fully zoned out when approached by anyone... like the person who never looks up from their phone or iPad when you are trying to interact with them. Showing your eyes shows them you are engaged by them. Hiding your eyes is as rude as not breaking the focus on an iDevice screen when someone is trying to talk with you. I never like that, so I choose to never subject anyone else to it.
Last edited:
That you see them on "business types" tells me all I need to know about their prospects. BlackBerry used to be the go-to phone of "business types," too, and look where they are now.
Debatable. I have yet to hear a compelling use-case for a foldable phone that justifies their high cost, weird dimensions, terrible durability, and that massive crease in the middle of the screen.
Does it? I haven't seen numbers on this, but I'll bet that Apple sells more iPhones in a week than all companies sold foldables last year. Which isn't to say that foldables will never be commercially successful, just that they aren't now and probably won't be unless/until Apple releases a better one.
Like what? The only thing I can think of is an OLED screen. 5G was definitely not "standard" at the time, and Apple probably jumped the gun a bit on introducing it on the 12 Pro at all. ProMotion was introduced on the 13 Pro, but high refresh rate was also not standard on phones at the time and had been a selling point of the iPad Pro for years.
I fail to see how the success of the iPhone can in any way be attributed to things that had been standard on Android. Titanium? Not remotely close to a "standard," even on Android flagships. A 5x telephoto? Arguably common on the absolute highest end of Android phones but far from a standard. USB-C? Absurd.
Same here. It’s like transparency mode on my Sony headphones. If someone is speaking with me I respectfully take the headphones off rather than use transparency mode.
Perhaps I've seen too many Marvel movies, but I can't help but to look at folks wearing those, and expect them to shout out "Optic blast!", and have lasers come out of that thing. :\
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Don't reveal the "one more thing" secret feature yet. It can be used on the Vpro extreme pessimists that put in so much time in every Vpro thread trying to convince everyone else that this is a product for no one.
I could name names but if one looks through any 2 or 3 Vpro threads, you quickly figure out who. One has not yet popped up in this one but he almost certainly will in the next few hours.
Last edited:
True, and purely from the presentations, it’s not as tempting as some of their past products. iPhone gets a lot better after App Store which unleashes its true potential, but even without it, Apple presented iPhone as something new and exciting. I personally don’t think the same feeling was conveyed from avp.
We know it can be exceptional, but apple didn’t explicitly tell us how and why, or what they envisioned (apart from the disney non-live demo)
What I am afraid is, although avp has insane potential, Apple don’t have a concrete vision to fully utilize it, or at least didn’t pitched it during the demo. Sure the resolution is high, sure the passthrough is good, but that is not why I need avp compared to an apple lightweight ar glass, which can have high resolution and no need for passthrough, and I am willing to wear it all day long.
Apple didn’t present a lot more outside of people’s imagination. They did what we know they can do, with the form factor of a vr headset, developed and branded by Apple. Hardly any wow moments, or “why didn’t we think of that” ideas. This is a completely new generation leap, not a yearly hardware refresh. There is so much they can talk about.
Touchbar, as an example. It’s a fantastic product, with limitless potential. There are actually some really good use cases Apple built on it. But devs didn’t follow up, and Apple themselves didn’t follow up either. What if Apple didn’t provide a correct vision to avp? Will the product just slowly die? Are we going to resort to Meta as the movement maker? I would hope not!
Avp’s demo, if continuing using touch bar as an example. It feels like they are saying: hey, you used to have function keys. Now they are digital and can be colored, and of any size you want. I would feel disappointed with the concept. Same for avp. It’s a spatial computer, but seemingly all of the focus is on a larger screen, and ONLY running ipad apps. Like WHAT?
I had high hopes for Apple’s AR. I think I am just disappointed with what they are doing with it.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That’s the trick though… OTHERS can see the same demo and feel differently than you. For example, I’ve long been frustrated going from 40” ultrawide to 16” laptop when I have to hit the road. Productivity dramatically drops when I give up so much screen R.E. So I saw that little segment of huge, high resolution, virtual screen as quite exciting. Maybe that does nothing for you but I hope reality is as good as demoed.
Just because you see little to nothing in it does not mean everyone feels the same… just as me seeing lots of exciting things in it doesn’t mean everyone should be excited. Like all products- including mighty iPhone- this is NOT for everyone… or no one… but some quantity between those extremes.
A few years before iPhone, Jobs took the stage and rolled out iPod... not launching 6 months later but launching now. How did big chunks of this crowd react? With much of the same contempt, price shock, "solution in search of a problem", "competitors are cheaper and already own this market", etc (much of the very same stuff being slung about Vpro). Look that thread up on here and see how many posts sound like they could be copy & pasted into Vpro threads. And yet, that crazy, too expensive, nobody will want, "competitors are cheaper", "Apple has lost their way" iPod seemed to work out fairly well for Apple.
See nothing in Vpro? Don’t buy. Someone else who sees something for them will appreciate owning the one you don’t buy.
Just because you see little to nothing in it does not mean everyone feels the same… just as me seeing lots of exciting things in it doesn’t mean everyone should be excited. Like all products- including mighty iPhone- this is NOT for everyone… or no one… but some quantity between those extremes.
A few years before iPhone, Jobs took the stage and rolled out iPod... not launching 6 months later but launching now. How did big chunks of this crowd react? With much of the same contempt, price shock, "solution in search of a problem", "competitors are cheaper and already own this market", etc (much of the very same stuff being slung about Vpro). Look that thread up on here and see how many posts sound like they could be copy & pasted into Vpro threads. And yet, that crazy, too expensive, nobody will want, "competitors are cheaper", "Apple has lost their way" iPod seemed to work out fairly well for Apple.
See nothing in Vpro? Don’t buy. Someone else who sees something for them will appreciate owning the one you don’t buy.
Last edited:
What I read is that the actual res is the right amount so that the "outer world" seems real, without pixelation. Going any number below that res would mean seeing a pixelated environment.
I can "almost" see a use case, but it may take several years for this to move beyond the Gold Apple Watch flop stage.
So my desktop consists of a Mac Pro with 3 x 32" 4K monitors and 3 x 12.9" iPad Pros.
I have the Quest 3. The pass-through is acceptable for moving around the house, but it is hard to read a 4k screen. Virtual monitors are better, almost good, but slightly blurrier and jerkier than the real thing. I struggled to arrange everything to feel as productive as possible with physical monitors. It is cool to have virtual screens floating in your living room. I found myself being careful not to run into them!
In general, though...I mostly just want to take the damn thing off and not have this heavy hot thing strapped to my face (and the Quest 3 is relatively light and ergonomic as far as VR headsets go). It is easier to keep it on when playing games as all your attention is absorbed in the game. With productivity, I wonder if even an AVP would keep me wanting to wear it.
Apple missed the boat by ignoring gaming. They have actively warned developers against action-type games as there is significant latency with hand gestures (there is also much higher latency on Quest 3 with hands vs controllers). I am sure there will be some gaming. Still, with such limited control options and a limited user base ... I expect lackluster. Devs surprise us!
To work, the AVP has to deliver something *significantly* better than reality. I don't see anything that Apple demoed that you can't already do with existing Apple products, just as well. (Okay, 3D video, but we know how well that worked out.)
Apple may have gone after the right product at the wrong time. The "now" product is likely a highly advanced AI (i.e., not Siri) that can be used with a lightweight pair of fashionable glasses. Essentially, the experience from the movie "Her". OpenAI is rumored to be working with Johnny Ives on something like this. Meta is taking small steps here as well with their smart glasses line.
When it gets to the stage where an AVP can be worn like glasses while walking around a city, I can think of some great use cases (see Rainbow's End Vernor Vinge). Still, it may take 5-10 years for that level of technology/fashion to arrive. Fashion-wise, people generally will not wear items that make them look less attractive to the opposite sex. AVP will need a few revisions, lol.
Compute per watt is close to stalling out, so AVP will not benefit from the same computing curve that helped the iPhone. Progress is going to be slow.
So my desktop consists of a Mac Pro with 3 x 32" 4K monitors and 3 x 12.9" iPad Pros.
I have the Quest 3. The pass-through is acceptable for moving around the house, but it is hard to read a 4k screen. Virtual monitors are better, almost good, but slightly blurrier and jerkier than the real thing. I struggled to arrange everything to feel as productive as possible with physical monitors. It is cool to have virtual screens floating in your living room. I found myself being careful not to run into them!
In general, though...I mostly just want to take the damn thing off and not have this heavy hot thing strapped to my face (and the Quest 3 is relatively light and ergonomic as far as VR headsets go). It is easier to keep it on when playing games as all your attention is absorbed in the game. With productivity, I wonder if even an AVP would keep me wanting to wear it.
Apple missed the boat by ignoring gaming. They have actively warned developers against action-type games as there is significant latency with hand gestures (there is also much higher latency on Quest 3 with hands vs controllers). I am sure there will be some gaming. Still, with such limited control options and a limited user base ... I expect lackluster. Devs surprise us!
To work, the AVP has to deliver something *significantly* better than reality. I don't see anything that Apple demoed that you can't already do with existing Apple products, just as well. (Okay, 3D video, but we know how well that worked out.)
Apple may have gone after the right product at the wrong time. The "now" product is likely a highly advanced AI (i.e., not Siri) that can be used with a lightweight pair of fashionable glasses. Essentially, the experience from the movie "Her". OpenAI is rumored to be working with Johnny Ives on something like this. Meta is taking small steps here as well with their smart glasses line.
When it gets to the stage where an AVP can be worn like glasses while walking around a city, I can think of some great use cases (see Rainbow's End Vernor Vinge). Still, it may take 5-10 years for that level of technology/fashion to arrive. Fashion-wise, people generally will not wear items that make them look less attractive to the opposite sex. AVP will need a few revisions, lol.
Compute per watt is close to stalling out, so AVP will not benefit from the same computing curve that helped the iPhone. Progress is going to be slow.
Last edited:
A few thousand of the richest people with the desire to buy the best, coolest things and show them off to all their ritzy friends who also have money to spend, and who are influencers on the masses.
I mean, you do understand why car companies make limited edition vehicles, right? It’s not materially affecting their quarterly profits