Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"We" seem to take no collective issue with a 27" physical screen that costs $2K that is likely to forever be anchored to a single location. But a chunk of "us" struggle with this idea of having an on-demand, up-to-100" screen anywhere we want to do things that require a screen.
Minor quibble - there are absolutely plenty of people who take issue with the fact that Apple's sole 27" display option costs $1600 - $2000 USD.

I do agree with your overall point. People thought the iPhone would be a flop when rumors of its development were first announced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HobeSoundDarryl
Need an accessory for rainy days, too.

still-snowing-snow.gif
 
Someone underestimates the power of the koolaid. I bet Apple sells all that they can make in the first limited-supply batch... and then the "waiting list" for more is longer than the number who were able to purchase one. I actually believe Apple could box air and sell it in great volume... even having a segment of the population opt to smother to death if they ran out of Apple air by refusing to breathe the non-Apple, "inferior" stuff. ;)

I also foresee a PS5-type scenario where scalpers buy up many Vpros, then sell them for 50%-150% markups on Ebay, etc. This seems to be more of a "perfect storm" for scalpers than PS5 supply constraints were. Unless Apple works some kind of very special "management" of this, I don't see how this does NOT happen.

Personally, I recall the great pessimism ahead of many Apple product launches that were not core offerings... in which much of the same phrases were slung against products like even the glorious iPod. Click that link and read a few of "our" thoughts about that crazy, "far too expensive", "already cheaper competition", "too far from Apple's core", "I will NEVER buy..." etc. Where you see "us" reference iPod, slug in Vpro and see if it fits well among the same pessimistic points trying to be made 21 years later. And we know how iPod turned out.

I believe an any-size screen usable on demand might be a novel Apple approach to many other companies trying to convince the mass market to buy foldable and rollable screens. This virtual screen(s) will be gigantic compared to any of those, yet still drop into a carry bag so it can be with us when we want to use it. No creases, no seams, no fold-unfold wear & tear, etc.

I am highly motivated for ONE feature already demoed to WWDC: a MB super-sized screen to use when I want to use a MB... a way to have up to a 100" MB screen with me on the plane, at the hotel, etc. where I would otherwise be trying to do the things I do on laptop screens smaller than 17".

full


"We" seem to take no collective issue with a 27" physical screen that costs $2K that is likely to forever be anchored to a single location. But a chunk of "us" struggle with this idea of having an on-demand, up-to-100" screen anywhere we want to do things that require a screen.

Bonus: apparently it is capable of a bunch of other things beyond that one "simple" thing... but I'll be happy with it if it does that ONE thing very well. Since the cheaper alternatives already have that capability on low resolution views (a major part in making them cheaper), I'm hoping 4K-per-eye will deliver an exceptionally sharp workspace for places where I'd otherwise be working on crammed "retina" in 16" or smaller. All the other functionality will be gravy to me if it can deliver that very well.

Think different.
It is a great feature. It isn't "a" super sized screen, however. That needs to be made plural. We don't know yet what tasks/apps will even require the Macbook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
can't have scratches on your $3500 goggles. can't wait to see people put screen protectors on it too lol. no doubt someone will make a clear case for it too.
And then apple will sue them for patent infringement. Maybe that's how they think they're going to make money off of the VP.

We REALLY need patent reform. It's not about protecting the inventors and the little guy, it's a profit center for the big guys.
 
So realistically you're spending $4,300 for this headset, not the headline $3,500.

After tax you're paying on average $~3,725 just for the headset here in the US. But you're probably getting the $399 AppleCare (current M3 Max MBP 16" retailing for $3,500 has AppleCare listed for $399). This protective cover will be at least $99 knowing Apple's history with the wipe cloth. So all that plus average sales tax puts you right at $4,300.

I know VR is new and expensive, and Apple is a luxury company, but that's an irresponsible sum. Apple has really priced themselves out of competition here.
You forgot extra batteries and prescription lenses.
 
So realistically you're spending $4,300 for this headset, not the headline $3,500.

After tax you're paying on average $~3,725 just for the headset here in the US. But you're probably getting the $399 AppleCare (current M3 Max MBP 16" retailing for $3,500 has AppleCare listed for $399). This protective cover will be at least $99 knowing Apple's history with the wipe cloth. So all that plus average sales tax puts you right at $4,300.

I know VR is new and expensive, and Apple is a luxury company, but that's an irresponsible sum. Apple has really priced themselves out of competition here.
Good thing they’re not competing against VR headsets then, despite the insistence of those who wish that were the aim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: valleian
It is a great feature. It isn't "a" super sized screen, however. That needs to be made plural. We don't know yet what tasks/apps will even require the Macbook.
None may require a MB. However, I’m assuming an AirPlay-type option much like throwing a MB screen to any 4K TV of any size. If Vpro can be an Airplay "screen" receiver, then a MB could do the heavy lifting computing and throw the visuals to Vpro virtual screen... which is exactly what I presume we are seeing in the WWDC demo and the picture I included in the earlier post (#16).

Related considerations: I wonder if there will be an option for that kind of use to tap into the MBs battery for Vpro (extended) power. Instead of the presumably smaller Vpro battery pack said to have only 2 hours of life, maybe Vpro can share a MB battery- like charging iDevices or similar- to yield a longer amount of useful time??? Or maybe start with the battery pack (or two) and then switch to sharing MB battery when that/those are exhausted.

That seems plausible to me... as would third party Vpro battery packs of larger sizes and greater densities... much like how we used to be able to buy third party batteries from entities like OWC for early Powerbook G4s. If so, would sharing "up to 18 hours" of battery life in a MB yield an overall experience of MB + Vpro of maybe 5-6 hours (or perhaps upwards of 8 if one first uses the Vpro battery pack). If so, that would cover workday usage for fairly long flights and similar.

Can MBs share enough power for such a scenario? I don't know. But it's an interesting "what if" for those with ideas of using Vpro in this way and perhaps wanting to use it for longer than the advertised 2 hours or so of battery pack life. If not, multiple battery packs become THE option. I recall owning a Powerbook G4 from about 2004 and a couple of battery packs to get longer time usage out of it than one pack could cover. I think I replaced one of those with third party battery from OWC that delivered some added battery life too (and thus expect the same here, since the battery is OUTSIDE of this Vpro case).
 
Last edited:
Eh... doesn't affect or bother me in the slightest.

What Apple chooses to patent (and why) is their business.
Nobody should be able to patent a cloth cover. (IMO of course)

It bugs me only because it shows how bad our patent system is. (not because it's apple)
 
Nobody should be able to patent a cloth cover. (IMO of course)

It bugs me only because it shows how bad our patent system is. (not because it's apple)

Why not?

If Apple developed a unique/novel way it's attached/used/etc and how it provides protection, and believes it has value going forward, then Apple should be allowed to pay the fees, write it up, and if it meets requirements, have a patent granted.

There should not be a rule that denies a patent because someone doesn't like it and/or causes distress.
 
The original iPhone came with a charging dock, the original Apple Watch (stainless steel) came with a plastic/microfiber-lined case, and The Airpods Pro now come with a "charging" case... I would hope the Apple Vision Pro (at a base cost of $3500) comes with some kind of cover like this or something to cover the internal lenses... I know there will be a huge market for accessories but it seems like there should at least be some kind of accessories that come with it besides the battery pack.
 
Nobody should be able to patent a cloth cover. (IMO of course)

It bugs me only because it shows how bad our patent system is. (not because it's apple)
Apple is obviously not patenting a cloth cover. The patent will be for the tech inside that interacts with the Vision Pro. Magnets, sensors i.e.

Breaking it down to something that simple and getting upset that Apple is just patenting a cloth cover would be like if Ford invented levitating wheels and people got mad they were getting a patent issued for wheels.
They look like wheels, roll like wheels. But when a switch is engaged the gyro scope inside cause the car to levitate.
“OMG, Ford just got a patent granted for wheels!” lol
 
These days we are are so numb to the Apple tax.
Going to object to that.

The constant refrain of "Apple Tax" on the internet has stripped it of any real meaning.

When Apple takes a cut of the embedded advertising revenue in an App - that is a "tax".

The belief that Apple products are inherently, significantly more expensive than the competitors is just a false belief.

I've priced out many HP and Dell products, and in several of those cases the equivalent or better functionality from Apple costs less.

The AVP being priced at $3500 is not a "tax". Nor are accessory costs "taxes".
 
Going to object to that.

The constant refrain of "Apple Tax" on the internet has stripped it of any real meaning.

When Apple takes a cut of the embedded advertising revenue in an App - that is a "tax".

The belief that Apple products are inherently, significantly more expensive than the competitors is just a false belief.

I've priced out many HP and Dell products, and in several of those cases the equivalent or better functionality from Apple costs less.

The AVP being priced at $3500 is not a "tax". Nor are accessory costs "taxes".
it's a euphemism my friend. Agreed there isn't a line item on my receipt that says Apple Tax.. :p:p
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.