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
As I keep saying, the value of a proprioceptively valid, stereoscopic headset, is that you can do inherently 3d tasks in a valid, 3d space, where the space is a contributing part of the work.
The point of that is by focussing on the task, you don't really notice the peripheral vision limits.
Apple's headset is almost entirely focussed on 2D tasks, in a frankly decorative 3D space. The killer app for stereoscopic headsets is depth, the Z-Axis, and all of Apple's use-cases are width & height, the x & y axis, so of course you're going to hit FOV issues.
This was expectable, because Apple has never shown any understanding of 3D - and their first abortive attempt at doing VR, where they thought it was spherical video, combined with underserved GPU hardware, set expectations correctly.
The point of that is by focussing on the task, you don't really notice the peripheral vision limits.
Apple's headset is almost entirely focussed on 2D tasks, in a frankly decorative 3D space. The killer app for stereoscopic headsets is depth, the Z-Axis, and all of Apple's use-cases are width & height, the x & y axis, so of course you're going to hit FOV issues.
This was expectable, because Apple has never shown any understanding of 3D - and their first abortive attempt at doing VR, where they thought it was spherical video, combined with underserved GPU hardware, set expectations correctly.
I dont mind the FOV, but I do mind the blurry text. Very disappointing for me. It is clearly a step down from the MacBook Pro, iPhone, and even iPad screens for me at least.
I had used some other VR headsets and was incredibly disappointed to see the Vision Pro is actually a little bit worse in that regard (from memory, compared to the latest Meta headset). Not what I expected....specially for the amount of money Apple charges.View attachment 2343366
This will disappoint a lot of people that have never experienced VR before. The marketing video's and YouTube reviews doesn't show what you really are seeing. When the PSVR 2 launched I was also extremely hyped by all the YouTube videos... this was my first VR experience and I was immediately very disappointed the moment I put the glasses on for the first time. The narrow FOV (look through goggles) was something I could never get used to.
And I think a lot of people that want to buy the Apple Vision Pro are getting the wrong impression of what you are actually seeing.
What do you all think?
That’s what I see at all. FOV is not a factor for me, but that is not what you see. It’s a fully immersive experience.View attachment 2343366
This will disappoint a lot of people that have never experienced VR before. The marketing video's and YouTube reviews doesn't show what you really are seeing. When the PSVR 2 launched I was also extremely hyped by all the YouTube videos... this was my first VR experience and I was immediately very disappointed the moment I put the glasses on for the first time. The narrow FOV (look through goggles) was something I could never get used to.
And I think a lot of people that want to buy the Apple Vision Pro are getting the wrong impression of what you are actually seeing.
What do you all think?
I'm pretty sure in the U.S. return period is 2 weeks, like other Apple.com products.
So.. based on all current first hand experiences. What do you think of my meaningless dribble now?
Losing your entire periphery makes this thing a non starter. It’s whatever on a $400 headset used for gaming.
It’s a $3500 toy that might make working on an airplane a little easier, but you’d have to be delusional to be wearing it while packing your bags or at a kids birthday party or something.
It’s a $3500 toy that might make working on an airplane a little easier, but you’d have to be delusional to be wearing it while packing your bags or at a kids birthday party or something.
You tried one? You weren't wrong, pretty obvious despite the heat you took. Also think it's the least noticeable I have seen, having used every generation Quest.
It's interesting in the context of peripheral vision obscuration that HTC's Vive XR Elite has a modular faceplate that removes the light shield entirely:
Aside from better screens in the AVP, I think the XR Elite is a better direction in terms of design, with the whole pluggable faceplates allowing the recently released eye & mouth tracking which adds auto IPD and foveated rendering to existing devices. It's a good modular setup they've gone with, and a better paradigm than sealing everything into a single unit.
Aside from better screens in the AVP, I think the XR Elite is a better direction in terms of design, with the whole pluggable faceplates allowing the recently released eye & mouth tracking which adds auto IPD and foveated rendering to existing devices. It's a good modular setup they've gone with, and a better paradigm than sealing everything into a single unit.
Same experience here - AVP gives me a little more of the tunnel-vision feel vs. my Q3.
Came here to post my thoughts. I've been using the Vision Pro all weekend.
1. FOV: It is about what I see on the Quest 3. It is not distracting to me at all after about the first 30 seconds, but there is a portal effect there.
2. Passthrough mode: it only even approaches what's in the marketing as far as image quality when you're in really good lighting, but it does the job, and from what I'm reading, it does it better than anything else. I can read my iPhone and Apple Watch through it perfectly fine. Passthrough mode is hard. The tech isn't quite there yet.
3. Guest Mode: It's so hard to get in and out of, it's almost useless.
4. Everything else: I'm speechless. I'm blown away. My mind has been melting all weekend. I'm going to parrot what the YouTubers have said--just go try one even if you're not jumping in on this very expensive first gen hardware. See for yourself how premium the actual device feels. Experience it in a well-lit, well guided tour. Watch the dinosaur thingie. You will scream.
This is by far the coolest thing I've ever bought other than maybe my house?
1. FOV: It is about what I see on the Quest 3. It is not distracting to me at all after about the first 30 seconds, but there is a portal effect there.
2. Passthrough mode: it only even approaches what's in the marketing as far as image quality when you're in really good lighting, but it does the job, and from what I'm reading, it does it better than anything else. I can read my iPhone and Apple Watch through it perfectly fine. Passthrough mode is hard. The tech isn't quite there yet.
3. Guest Mode: It's so hard to get in and out of, it's almost useless.
4. Everything else: I'm speechless. I'm blown away. My mind has been melting all weekend. I'm going to parrot what the YouTubers have said--just go try one even if you're not jumping in on this very expensive first gen hardware. See for yourself how premium the actual device feels. Experience it in a well-lit, well guided tour. Watch the dinosaur thingie. You will scream.
This is by far the coolest thing I've ever bought other than maybe my house?
No, it’s a bad design because The strip will pull the headset towards the left which will be noticeable.
Show me a toolset to make the dinosaur thingie entirely within the Vision Pro - modelling, texturing, animation, and then I will scream.
Maybe *you* didn't like VR, but plenty of people absolutely love it (most of my family included), and it is wildly popular with youth. I work in the EDU sector and at this point significant population of the kids have VR and use it routinely. They discuss the best titles, how they move when they play, if they get ill or not (a bit of a bragging point among kids who can VR a long time without issue) ETC. It definitely isn't for everyone, and that's fine, but pretending it is universally disliked is incorrect.
It's something we see over and over again with tech (or even societal change); a stalwart group of unchangers who insist that 'this new thing' isn't popular, won't ever be popular, nobody could want it, is stupid. Remember the iPad? That incredible failure? I mean, who could possibly want it? Just a fad?
Nope - Talk to Meta
For as many as they are selling, it's not making enough of a meaningful dent in overall penetration -- still!
(and boy have they been trying!!!)
You are in the minority.
I'm glad you love it, but please don't mistake your specific exuberance for anything that maps onto the broader population.
I recently bought a new TV, and researched LED and OLED tech. There was an LG video on the web of OLED-os, which is OLED-On-Silicon. The 2016 video said much higher OLED densities were available with that technology, which at the time was not fully on the production line.
The video had a large number of 3-D goggles, with many shapes and sizes.
I recall a few points from that video:
- The closer the screen to one's eye, the wider the field of view.
- The higher the resolution of the display, the closer it can go to the eye.
I also think that closer to the eye means lighter weight, and less power consumption. And two very weird looking eyes for other people, if a user were to use a pair of swim type goggles that sit very close to each eye! I recall one person wearing small goggles on each eye, who looked like he was straight out of the eye ball scene from the original Blade Runner movie.
But LG knew all about peripheral vision needing goggles close to the eye in that 2016 video. My conclusion is that Apple have less field of vision and larger and heavier goggles, due to the lack of resolution of their display technology.
I reckon its early days, and I admire Apple for actually going to market. I think for a lot of users they would be sensational.
I am surprised that Apple didn't have a rental scheme for them ... that way, people who liked them would keep them, and also get upgrades when better ones arrived. And more people would give them a try IMO if it was a rental model, based on a monthly deal rather than committing to 2 years which really is not a rental arrangement at all. But such a scheme would have to come from the marketing team rather than the finance gurus, who are not prepared to take much of a finance risk, although they did fund this 3D device.
The video had a large number of 3-D goggles, with many shapes and sizes.
I recall a few points from that video:
- The closer the screen to one's eye, the wider the field of view.
- The higher the resolution of the display, the closer it can go to the eye.
I also think that closer to the eye means lighter weight, and less power consumption. And two very weird looking eyes for other people, if a user were to use a pair of swim type goggles that sit very close to each eye! I recall one person wearing small goggles on each eye, who looked like he was straight out of the eye ball scene from the original Blade Runner movie.
But LG knew all about peripheral vision needing goggles close to the eye in that 2016 video. My conclusion is that Apple have less field of vision and larger and heavier goggles, due to the lack of resolution of their display technology.
I reckon its early days, and I admire Apple for actually going to market. I think for a lot of users they would be sensational.
I am surprised that Apple didn't have a rental scheme for them ... that way, people who liked them would keep them, and also get upgrades when better ones arrived. And more people would give them a try IMO if it was a rental model, based on a monthly deal rather than committing to 2 years which really is not a rental arrangement at all. But such a scheme would have to come from the marketing team rather than the finance gurus, who are not prepared to take much of a finance risk, although they did fund this 3D device.
Last edited:
This
This company has more confusing messaging at face value but look beneath and it’s just marketing for profit. I am an investor but let’s be honest just drop the whole we do this because it’s green marketing is laughable when even a non-techie would conclude why not make it removable.
One of the issues is that it’s heavy and without the dual strap to better distribute weight or act as a counterbalance the issue still remains it’s heavy and uncomfortable for prolonged use whatever prolonged means to an individual.
This smells like AW series 0 to me.
Last edited:
The field of view that anyone experiences is going to be primarily determined by the light shield that they have recieved (and to a lesser degree, specifics of their face). This can dramtically change the user experience. With a deeper light shield, the field of view is greatly reduced, with a shallow light shield, it's excellent. This is noted by the second character, printed on the back of your light shield. For example, the 3 in 23W indicates depth.