Being blown away by new tech doesn't create demand for it.
For games its possible, but that doesn't seem to be what Apple is going for. And besides, VR games have been blowing people away for decades and they still are not popular.
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.
I think this will disappoint a lot of new VR users
- Thread starter Rivanov
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For games its possible, but that doesn't seem to be what Apple is going for. And besides, VR games have been blowing people away for decades and they still are not popular.
This was the biggest surprise for me - people comparing it to glasses have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about because you can still see outside of your glasses frames in your peripheral vision, which is VERY IMPORTANT since this is a Mixed Reality headset. For VR you can make the sacrifice, for MR it’s outrageously limiting. I’ve owned and used VR headsets for over a decade and FoV is arguably the most important thing, probably nearly as important as resolution. Any time I’ve upgraded it isn’t the resolution improvement that shocks me it’s the better FoV. I am incredulous that Apple didn’t figure this out for $4,000 and that FoV is lower than Oculus and PSVR2.
It’s less like putting on glasses than it is like putting on horse blinders, and that is going to shock the hell out of anyone who has never used VR before, and it’s only going to be more obvious because of the mixed reality seamless videos that have been pitched.
Everyone comparing it to normal VR where you forget about it – you are probably gaming in those headsets which is engaging and immersive, and this is ostensibly being positioned as a productivity device with some entertainment / movie watching etc. on the side. No (even optional) controllers… no gaming.
I think film/tv consumption is going to be the only major use case for this first gen product and I hope we get real honest 6-month “how much am I actually using this $4,000 device” reviews because I doubt almost anyone is going to be using it for more than a few hours here and there, certainly not 8 hours a day for work.
I hope Apple significantly improves this for the 2nd gen or this platform is going to get reworked into an entertainment platform like AppleTV, just as the watch was reworked into primarily fitness, at least until actual AR glasses arrive which is probably a decade away, if it ever happens.
I think it’s the most compromised, odd product launch of the last 25 years for Apple. $4,000 for giant screens that can’t even reproduce the 100% of p3, too heavy, limited battery life with a cable you can’t remove, fragile and useless front screen… almost nothing about this makes sense. You can’t even re-order home screen apps right now. I don’t know why they launched this as a product and not a developer kit, given how much cash on hand Apple has. Mabye they need the feedback from the few hundred thousand suckers who will buy this thing and complain about specifics to help them work on the next one, I have no idea.
I support VR/MR/AR too… but wearing this for a full workday would be torture for me personally, and I have a *lot* of experience in VR, including virtual desktops.
It’s less like putting on glasses than it is like putting on horse blinders, and that is going to shock the hell out of anyone who has never used VR before, and it’s only going to be more obvious because of the mixed reality seamless videos that have been pitched.
Everyone comparing it to normal VR where you forget about it – you are probably gaming in those headsets which is engaging and immersive, and this is ostensibly being positioned as a productivity device with some entertainment / movie watching etc. on the side. No (even optional) controllers… no gaming.
I think film/tv consumption is going to be the only major use case for this first gen product and I hope we get real honest 6-month “how much am I actually using this $4,000 device” reviews because I doubt almost anyone is going to be using it for more than a few hours here and there, certainly not 8 hours a day for work.
I hope Apple significantly improves this for the 2nd gen or this platform is going to get reworked into an entertainment platform like AppleTV, just as the watch was reworked into primarily fitness, at least until actual AR glasses arrive which is probably a decade away, if it ever happens.
I think it’s the most compromised, odd product launch of the last 25 years for Apple. $4,000 for giant screens that can’t even reproduce the 100% of p3, too heavy, limited battery life with a cable you can’t remove, fragile and useless front screen… almost nothing about this makes sense. You can’t even re-order home screen apps right now. I don’t know why they launched this as a product and not a developer kit, given how much cash on hand Apple has. Mabye they need the feedback from the few hundred thousand suckers who will buy this thing and complain about specifics to help them work on the next one, I have no idea.
I support VR/MR/AR too… but wearing this for a full workday would be torture for me personally, and I have a *lot* of experience in VR, including virtual desktops.
Cup your hands around your glasses so you block out all outside and peripheral view. Then ask yourself if you’d like to work like that for hours at a time, with an extra 650 grams on your head that is front-weighted.
Even the picture in that review is sort-of favorable to Apple because it’s showing a rendered scene. They should have shown the MR room view … that outside edge won’t expand when you turn the knob. VR is great when it’s engaging and interactive but MR can’t have a low FoV for the effect to work long term.
People are going to use this for a month and be very impressed at first, start to lose enthusiasm, and then arrive at the point most anyone who has ever tried virtual desktops in VR has …the moment where you take off the headset and see how much better and “open” the real world works, and how much more comfortable not having 600 grams of front-weighted display on your head is.
I think this is Apple’s biggest marketing lie possibly ever, and I generally support them and especially so when they push new technology. This is a cobbled together mess if MR is the focus that shouldn’t even ship to the general public, and certainly not at the cost it is.
Foveated rendering doesn’t fix the field of view, nothing apple can do with the hardware it is shipping will. Hopefully version 2 addresses this, I think it will be the chief complaint (along with weight) among owners once they get past the honeymoon period.
Why in the fresh hell Apple put a screen on the front of this thing instead of having a wider FoV is beyond me. It almost makes me wonder if it’s not technically possible for whatever their eye tracking /lens system is doing, especially since Gruber mentioned headaches and nausea without the calibration for his prescription lenses. Maybe they can’t do it, in which case I think the “MR” productivity vision is DOA.
Last edited:
It was a pretty glaring issue on PSVR, so I hope it's not so pronounced here. But nobody has said anything about it being an issue yet.
Me too. I had full intention of purchasing this device and keeping it, so I pre-ordered it. Seeing this has changed things. Im going to try it out but it’s likely going back.
As a non-VR user, which the vast majority of people are, this is comes as a shock and is on the verge of false advertising. This is an immersive device, I would be wearing this for hours on end. Given that this is the case, I’d very much have liked to know that there is no peripheral view as though you’re looking through goggles. While I understand this is a limitation of VR, most consumers including myself had no idea about that.
This is one area that could possibly lead me to returning it, depending on whether the FOV feels too distancing or tunnel-like. I tried a Quest 3 at BB and while it wasn't terrible, I did notice the lack of peripheral vision and assumed that Apple had solved that.
I'm not placing TOO much stock in the Verge's review saying it has LESS FOV than the Quest because I've also read a review or two saying it has MORE FOV than the Quest. Since Apple isn't giving out numbers, it seems to me that it's maybe subjective at this point. Could be the Verge guy was bearish on the AVP anyway due to his "philosophical issues" with it. Could be the others had rose-colored VR goggles.
I'm also noticing that FOV has barely been mentioned in most reviews I've seen, so it might not be much of an issue.
It's on its way so I'm committed to at least trying it out now. I want to love it and I hope I enthusiastically keep it. But FOV is a concern..
Someone above wondered why Apple didn't create a wider FOV instead of the front screen. I'm not sure how that's an either/or situation. The front screen serves a purpose that they've explained pretty clearly. Many seem to think it's silly or worse, but it's not a mystery that they're trying to make this tech socially feasible to use and not have the user look blindfolded. My guess is the technology just isn't there yet for a fully peripheral-including VR/AR thing. I would bet they have it in mind for the future.
I'm not placing TOO much stock in the Verge's review saying it has LESS FOV than the Quest because I've also read a review or two saying it has MORE FOV than the Quest. Since Apple isn't giving out numbers, it seems to me that it's maybe subjective at this point. Could be the Verge guy was bearish on the AVP anyway due to his "philosophical issues" with it. Could be the others had rose-colored VR goggles.
I'm also noticing that FOV has barely been mentioned in most reviews I've seen, so it might not be much of an issue.
It's on its way so I'm committed to at least trying it out now. I want to love it and I hope I enthusiastically keep it. But FOV is a concern..
Someone above wondered why Apple didn't create a wider FOV instead of the front screen. I'm not sure how that's an either/or situation. The front screen serves a purpose that they've explained pretty clearly. Many seem to think it's silly or worse, but it's not a mystery that they're trying to make this tech socially feasible to use and not have the user look blindfolded. My guess is the technology just isn't there yet for a fully peripheral-including VR/AR thing. I would bet they have it in mind for the future.
Nobody said anything about it in the PSVR 2 reviews or any other VR headsets. Because reviewers “know” this is part of the VR “experience”.
But that doesn’t make it less distracting and annoying.
Strongly suggest you force yourself to use it often for the trial period, the ‘wow’ factor is going to make it seem amazing for the first 5-20 hours. If you intend to use it on a Mac or for actual Spatial computing, make it a priority to see if it works for you within the return period.
Movies and media will probably be great on it but whether that’s worth $4,000 is up to the buyer.
It'd definitely disappoint me, but I'm going to reserve any judgment until I try one in a store. There's so much FUD on this board right now that nothing anyone says (positive or negative) will matter until I see it for myself.
As long as you’re looking mostly straight ahead. The downside is that you need to move your head more to look at things you might otherwise be able to glance down at.
Doesn't bother me - I don't focus on what is in my peripheral views. I can cup my hands to the side of my face and it doesn't distract me one bit. I am sure it will bother some, but I bet that will be the minority. All other VR headsets out right now have the same problem, and they still have a large user base. Comparing Apple Vision Pro to anything out there you can buy right now, the Apple Vision Pro wins hands down for the screens they use.
Depends on which Quest model. The Quest 3 made some significant gains in FOV on the Quest 2, which sounds like its FOV is more comparable to the Vision Pro. It also depends on how a headset fits each person, which is why different headsets are so vague on FOV specs and not straightforward to compare. On my Quest 2 I can use a spacer for glasses to fit better, which reduces the FOV by moving the lenses further. The Vision Pro’s cushions vary in thickness and the light seals might too, so all the fit options could affect different users’ perceived FOV.
Let’s says people are “blow away” by AVP the issue still stands that it’s expensive, heavy for prolonged use, fragile to carry and travel with, limited battery life/ content / killer apps etc. Will these issues be resolved in 1-3 years, hmm let’s see but I don’t see it happening. In 5 years or more maybe of this thing is still making enough for Apple and its investors to keep it alive. I recall iPad sales being so low at one point that people were concerned Apple forgot about updating it or might even cancel the product ( iPad mini 4th Gen).
Most devs take over a year to take advantage of any new iPhone tech and AVP with its high entry price is not motivation to develop on it yet.
Peripheral vision is another key factor to stay away from the tunnel or goggle effect.
It’s strange why Apple didn’t house most of the computing power into an external box similar to the battery pack this way the headset stays light and when hardware improvements come along the whole thing does not need to be replaced just a small box similar in size to iPhone.
Almost none of them have a large user base for the majority of a day or for productivity. I’d bet that out of a couple million VR devices out there no more than a few thousand people are wearing them for 6+ hours a day for productive work, and none of those devices have the Spatial Computing use case Apple is pitching here, which is interesting but the hardware will limit this.
I agree for gaming it’s not a big deal to have a 110 degree FoV, especially for room-scale gaming, which is short bursts and active. For productivity I would have a huge problem with it, and the FoV is less than 110 according to multiple sources now.
You’re right that the screens are going to be much more crisp, but the Mixed Reality nature of this device vs. the others is going to make the FoV significantly more distracting. The more I think about it the more I’m convinced this was something Apple couldn’t solve with revision 1, and they either know future versions will get a lot better here or are taking a huge gamble.
I hope you like yours if you get one, and that you’ll come back around August to tell us how often you’re using it. I’m genuinely curious if it will stick with people, because my extensive experience using VR with similar FoV …the best screens in the world wouldn’t get me to use it for desktop work, unless it weighed maybe half of what it does.
I do think as I said earlier that for media consumption it will be very nice, since you can put it on for a couple hours to watch a movie and then, critically, take it off for the rest of the day. For me that isn’t worth $4,000… but if I had more money than I knew what to do with I’d certainly buy one for media and to experience the novelty.
Last edited:
They’d need at least Thunderbolt bandwidth between the headset and the no longer pocketable because cooling brick, which would be an added expense, more total hardware, and add latency which they’re trying to minimize.
I had no idea this would be a thing--which when I consider it, why would it not be? I wasn't planning on getting one of these for a while anyway, so it will be interesting to see what the general public thinks of issues like this.
I too find the 'limited' (i.e. completely unacceptable if you have eyes) FOV of ALL mainstream HMDs to make them undesirable. However, your point is only mostly accurate as there are companies that have addressed exactly this issue for years. I have a Pimax 5k series and an 8K-X and the FOV (and clarity on the 8k) are both phenomenal. I have a truly jaw-dropping VR setup, where the "small" FOV is about the same as the best mainstream HMDs. However, getting actually GOOD VR drives the cost-of-entry way, way up. The first GPU that could *really* make use of my HMD in the majority of titles is the 4090. So, yeah, not for the faint of heart. On Wide FOV it's wide enough that you really won't notice the reduction in your field of view, and even on normal FOV it's plenty good enough not the be a bother (except in Racing Sims where you really want that wide FOV - wow does that make a difference.)
I believe this chart represents real-world measured FOV, which is frequnetly different than advertised FOV. I'm seeing reports that the AppleVision is clear down around an FOV of only 100 in real world tests. That's seriously bad news and a huge oversight on the part of Apple. (Everyone else working anywhere near that price range is addressing the FOV issue, but Apple is not...)
Are you saying Apple is shy to adopt new technology that is expensive and Thunderbolt the new versions are capable of the bandwidth requirements while keeping latency to a minimum hence Thunderbolt was created. Apple of the past adopted USB, FW, ADP, etc Apple present is all about proprietary connectors and dongles.
I have barely used my PSVR 1-st gen. It is great for driving sims. I tested the PSVR with the VR Aim controller in one game, at a friends place. But I got motion sickness rather quickly, as I was standing in the room.
For a headset to become comfortable to use, outside of driving sims. I would very much like to see a transparent headset. That could be awesome. But I suppose it must have more similarity to glasses, in the design?
See LG's new Transparent TV.
For a headset to become comfortable to use, outside of driving sims. I would very much like to see a transparent headset. That could be awesome. But I suppose it must have more similarity to glasses, in the design?
See LG's new Transparent TV.
You are correct that I am not going to be using this for productivity, and I would be shocked if that is what most people buy/use it for. If so, I think many of the issues you mentioned will be valid. I guess in my mind I have been ignorant to the fact that people will indeed buy it for productivity.
I just know in my everyday life, I rarely use my peripheral vision for much, so even if it was indeed limited I don't think I would be super bothered, I don't pay much attention to anything that isn't directly in the same field of view I'd get from the Vision Pro. I have used other VR headsets too, so I am probably use to that, whereas new people probably won't be.Thanks, I hope I like it! I agree that it probably is a waste of money for $4000, but I have no self control. Most of my use cases are going to be media consumption and gaming, if Apple ever gets that together. That and I want to experience the novelty.
It will be different for everyone. Like, on the Quest 2, the FOV is wider if your eyes are closer together (and vice versa). It can be like looking through toilet paper rolls. You can have big windows floating around the room but you'll have to constantly turn your head, you can't just move your eyes around.
That is actually a really good point and something I had not considered. I guess the hardware isn't really going to be a limitation anytime soon, so they are banking on people buying this first generation and buying an upgraded variant is 2-4 years.
Why say this? The poster has a point, and you clearly haven’t done your research.
The AVO has a FOV similar to the Meta Quest 3. I own both the 3 and 2.
I have used the AVP under NDA before its release as part of my work, and I’ve experienced it on a beta OS (currently the device is with an engineer).
The poster has a point because the marketing videos suggest something otherwise, and the expectations are different from a $3500 device VS a $500 device. People who never used VR before may be disappointed.
Although there’s more to the overall experience such as optics quality, comfort level, etc, FOV plays a role.