Batteries using liquid chemistry are indeed limited, but solid state batteries are being developed that are much smaller with the same/similar energy output. Of course, as chip tech gets smaller and more efficient, the batteries needed to run them can be smaller, just as AAAs replaced D cells in electronic devices over time.
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.
Project Alaska: Apple's Second-Generation Vision Pro Headset
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I've believed, and as stated elsewhere here, if the content available or the use benefit is compelling, the price is not going to be a barrier. I've paid $3000 decades ago for SE30s--when three grand was a LOT of money, same for iMacs of more recent vintage. No reality distortion will be necessary.
sorry MR not buying this "rumor" or maybe better the validity of it.
that 2nd gen VPro is in engineering, not pre-produdction and of course plans will change based on findings in engineering - so there's your bail out, just like Gurman ... the current VPro is in pre-production ...
secondly, that level of detail and codenames can only come from an Apple employee, engineer most likely. Those in the know of that detail (assuming this is actually true) are limited and I guarantee that Apple will close that leak, or, maybe Apple planted that leak ... so, someone is likely to get fired over this ...
We’ve been told that this advance in battery tech is just about here… for over a decade. I’ll believe it when I see it brought to market.
And no, chips won’t be getting much smaller. We’re already at 3nm. The only hope is quantum computing, but to date it’s just as much vaporware as solid state batteries.
A $3500 VR headset is a TOP
TIER, PREMIUM, PRO, ELITE product. I’d even dare say it’s….DELUXE.
You just named every iteration of windows 11. Thanks for proving my point that this will bomb like the air pod max.
Not sure about that, but I don’t think it’s less energy efficient, and it has ray-tracing, in case Apple actually wants to compete in the gaming realm, which is one of the most appealing things you can do in VR.
Maybe in the past. All the Apple Silicon Macs have been trouble free. I think Apple learnt from the Butterfly generation of Macs debacle. They lost a lot of customers in those years, and pulled their head in.
Almost all the Macs and iPhones in the last few years have had price increases. None have had price drops.
It will take a long time until this « pro » product will hit the consumer market … They will slowly analyse what is the benefit of this technology for the mass. In the meantime, some companies are showing their tech with the opposite strategy … let’s see who wins
I’m still going with the thought that this is nothing more than a “hobby” project for Apple. And one simple thing is true now and will forever be true, people hate putting crap on their head.
Not sure about this. Great VR experience require top of the line displays, lenses and hardware in general. Yeah, Apple could cut corners here and there offering some plastic enclosure instead of aluminum, or removing some non-essential features, but Apple cannot play with most of the (expensive) hardware without ending with significantly worst VR experience. So, for me it is difficult to understand what this "cheaper entre lever offering" is going to be. Vision is not like the iPhone where you can put slightly worst screen and old chip and still have a solid iPhone that can serve you just like the latest and greatest one. For a VR headset a slightly lower refresh rate of the displays has an enormous impact on the qualify of the experience. If Apple cant get cheaper on the most expensive components of Vision Pro, how much they can reduce the price for this entre-level offering maintaining their premium margin?
Yes, but Apple's (traditional) business is in platforms: they make the hardware and the OS, and some first-party apps, and then third parties make more apps. But Apple platforms have never had a starting(!) price this high (maybe the Apple III did). Even the original Mac started lower.
The high starting price means the volume will be relatively low, which means the incentive both for Apple's own teams (e.g. Final Cut Pro) and for third parties to make software will be low. And Apple clearly wants third parties to make apps for it; that's why they keep hosting events in multiple locations across the globe where they invite developers to try their Vision Pro app on a real device. (I think there've been, like, five events times five locations?)
In five years?
$3,500.00
“Vision Air adds three new colors and costs the same as the original Vision Pro at $3,500.00! Choose Vision Pro 5 starting at $5,500, Vision Plus 3 starting at $4,500 and the new Vision Air for just $3,500!!” - Apple
We all know this is how Apple operates.
Last edited:
I didn't ignore the point. It is absolutely a true point, but despite that: one way or another, Apple will need to find a way to drive down cost, or else the platform is DOA. They're clearly banking on
- users will be willing to make some experience sacrifice in order to save money;
- component costs will go down, especially because Apple is making big investments in this area.
My money is on: they're betting on both. They're confident that, two or three years down the road, they can offer a much cheaper Apple Vision non-Pro that won't be as good as the Apple Vision Pro 2 or 3 that'll be out by then, but it'll be good enough to get users excited about the platform.
What Apple is not interested in is offering niche products. There's very few exceptions to this, such as the Mac Pro (which they don't seem sure if they want to continue with).
Cart before horse. If the first series Vision doesn’t succeed then the whole discussion is moot. This isn’t HomePod. There won’t suddenly be a bare bones version of Vision Pro. The hardware you see right now is fairly obviously about the most “paired down” it can get. At $3,500 you know they’ve already made most of the critical compromises necessary simply to bring it to market.
Not really, the first three iPhone generations were pretty much identical:
iPhone (1st generation) - Wikipedia
iPhone 3G - Wikipedia
iPhone 3GS - Wikipedia
Apple always plans several years ahead. Heck, this very thread is about that: them already testing the second generation.
But yes, if AVP1 sales are catastrophic, they might cancel any future products.
How so? It is by far the highest-specced headset.
Not really, the first three iPhone generations were pretty much identical:
iPhone (1st generation) - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
iPhone 3G - Wikipedia
iPhone 3GS - Wikipedia
No they weren't. The iPhone 3G and 3GS were. But what I said is correct -- 1st gen and iPhone 3G enclosure are completely different.
Last edited: