I would not call indirect viewing fully immersive though... VR is what Apple calls fully immersed... so saying otherwise would just make it more confusing when you communicate since you are neither fully correct, and you are using language that is directly contradicting how it is used with regards to Vision Pro.
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.
Vision Pro "too heavy" according to testers
- Thread starter Spaceboi Scaphandre
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are right, it does need face interface also to create distant focal point between eyes and lenses. I wonder if they could trim the length of it to be much shorter?
I’m guessing that the optimal distance from your eyes to the lenses is similar to the same distance in a typical pair of glasses, plus a bit more room so prescription lens inserts will fit if needed. In headsets with a lot of room, you can usually just wear glasses inside the headset. The Vision Pro doesn’t have room for glasses, and that’s because the lenses are already too close to your eyes.
The Valve Index VR headset has customizable eye-relief distance, but it looks like the AVP doesn’t.
A thinner facial interface may be able to get the lenses a few mm closer to your eyes, but it probably wouldn’t be a major difference.
PC VR gamers have been known to use thinner face interfaces to get a wider FOV in headsets without good eye-relief adjustability.
From Gurman:
"During testing of the device, Apple determined that some people with smaller body sizes and heads would struggle to wear the headset for more than half an hour or so, the amount of time the company let media members test the Vision Pro after its introduction. Apple looked to offset that issue with the recent development of a second strap that sits across the top of a user’s head. The design of that accessory isn’t finalized."
www.bloomberg.com
"During testing of the device, Apple determined that some people with smaller body sizes and heads would struggle to wear the headset for more than half an hour or so, the amount of time the company let media members test the Vision Pro after its introduction. Apple looked to offset that issue with the recent development of a second strap that sits across the top of a user’s head. The design of that accessory isn’t finalized."
Apple Plans a Slow, Appointment-Only Rollout of Its $3,500 Vision Pro
Apple Inc. is planning a retail launch of its Vision Pro headset with appointments and in-store promotion in select US markets early next year, underscoring the niche and complex nature of the mixed-reality device.
www.bloomberg.com
Not everyone had a perfect fit because they only had 4 sizes of the light seal and on release they would likely have as many as 12 sizes. If the fit is not perfect it will rest heavier on the face.From Gurman:
"During testing of the device, Apple determined that some people with smaller body sizes and heads would struggle to wear the headset for more than half an hour or so, the amount of time the company let media members test the Vision Pro after its introduction. Apple looked to offset that issue with the recent development of a second strap that sits across the top of a user’s head. The design of that accessory isn’t finalized."
Apple Plans a Slow, Appointment-Only Rollout of Its $3,500 Vision Pro
Apple Inc. is planning a retail launch of its Vision Pro headset with appointments and in-store promotion in select US markets early next year, underscoring the niche and complex nature of the mixed-reality device.
Yeah, I realise that the weight should be supported by the full contact surface between the light shield and the face. A perfect seal is required for the comfortable use, any gaps that exists will make it feels heavier on the face. I just hope Apple will provide something like rubber gum material that can fill in the gaps.
This is a good visual to show where Apple can make easy gains in the coming years.
A smaller rear strap and more lightweight face gasket (maybe even just a forehead pad like the Quest Pro) are easy ways to make the headset feel smaller or make it more lightweight without putting any R&D into the actual hardware.
Also things like making the outward facing OLED screen bigger are easy wins to make it look more advanced.
Was just thinking about the apparent 'heft' of the headset (whether true or not) but at the introduction I noticed there is an awful lot of forehead on the device - enough to fit Groucho Marx's eyebrows.
This next statement is pure fantasy, but I really hoped that it would be a slimmer profile. I honestly would have taken the compute unit at the end of the cable with the battery to make the headset itself more svelte.
( excuse the dodgy photoshopping! )
This next statement is pure fantasy, but I really hoped that it would be a slimmer profile. I honestly would have taken the compute unit at the end of the cable with the battery to make the headset itself more svelte.
( excuse the dodgy photoshopping! )
The weight of the compute unit is likely a small small percentage of the overall weight. I have not weighed motherboards with chips on them (M1+ that is) but I am pretty sure they are not much of the weight. Aluminum is also fairly light (the unit has aluminum for part of the frame, and carbon fibre for the other part - my guess is Aluminum outwards acting partially as a heatsink, and carbon fiber for things that are inward facing of may touch your face. The glass-like optics and outward paneling would like be the bulk of the weight of the unit. Also even if you moved compute down, the unit would still not be void of any compute capability requirements - just less so.
At the target 12ms latency (about the time of one frame at 83hz), anything you do to move the processing away from the display is going to affect that latency. This is not a VR but AR device where the input of visual images get merged and objects recognized for surfaces before displaying the image... it is not overlaying images on reality without having to worry about the objects that are there for real life (which would be more of an informational overlay only). The total bandwidth of your typical USB-C / Thunderbolt connector (small wire) is about 8K@60hz (single direction, both directions and you would have to split the bandwidth between the two and have additional set aside for managing the data). 2 x 4K displays at 60hz would be half that (one direction, 2 directions would be the full bandwidth - and a bit more). So all that data would have to go down (additional latency) the pipe to the compute unit, then get processed, and graphics created and merged, then piped back up (more additional latency)... But it gets worse, because you are not sending 2 cameras worth of data down to the compute unit, you are sending 12 cameras worth of data, plus additional sensor data such as LiDAR etc. That would mean you would likely have to go to fibre optic transeivers and fiber optic cables - which would both increase costs and add it's own latency since they also affect it. So basically the pipe would be a mess of high speed congestion and latency issues.
There is a reason why there has been a lot of research money into merging the compute into the head unit and moving compute down would not save much weight - probably not noticeable at all. So moving it down would make more people sick (12 ms will still have some that feel it but a lot less), and reduce the experience of the unit without much benefit.
I just don't see how they would be able to feasibly implement what you are asking.
BTW, we don't know how much of the it feels sort of heavy is from people that did not have the best fit (It really has to fit well to make it feel lighter)...and there were not a lot of sizing available during the demo. It would be nice if they had the option for custom fitting as well.
Retail units will have a 3D printed insert in the light seal based on a facial scan of the user. Supposedly it will be a perfect fit to the scanned user’s face.
That is not what I heard, a 3 scanner would determine which of 12 (to be determined, but 12 was the number used as an estimate) sizes... not custom made seals.
Yeah, don't worry, just a fantasy statement from me.
I just wish it was smaller - a more forward reaching product ergonomically. This is top-tier in hardware fidelity but it fundamentally looks like a slimmer, really polished version of an HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, something consumers have seen since 2016.
It'll be interesting to see how this develops. All the big ticket product categories Apple released over the last 15 years were technologically limited in their 1st generation. iPhone / iPad / Apple Watch. Perhaps this is just a statement of intent though - that this is what VR headsets will have to look like for the next decade or so. the Ray-Ban pass-through future is just not anywhere near feasible in the near future.
All that said, for me the Operating System is the headline event here. My biggest complaint about VR has always been the user experience. I spent way too many hours lifting my headset and peering down my nose through the gap at the PC monitor while trying to fix SteamVR or ReVive or WMR. This is something I have absolute confidence that Apple is going to solve with VisionOS. The polished experience is what I'm looking forward too.
...Still wish it was smaller though!
Tons of people are dreaming of this as a computer replacement, meaning they are planning to use it for over 5 years.
It’s a first gen computing product in a new category. Nobody is realistically expecting to use it for more than a couple years before much better versions arrive.
Given the price, I could see some Vison Pro's being passed around (re-sold) multiple times actually.
It could easily be one of those type of products that many many want to try and see what it's like, and enjoy the experience for a while, before deciding it's not really ready for prime time, and now they've had the experience, they have gotten over it and are happy to wait for a lighter/slimmer upgraded future model when the software had matured more.
So then sell it on, not losing too much money, onto the next person to go through the same process.
I could see this happening to some vision pro devices multiple times.
Heck I could even imagine a small market for lending out the device for a month or two for the right price.
Guarantee there are many on these forums who don't want to spend $3500/$4000 but would love to pay perhaps a couple of $1000 to play with one for a month.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to wear someone else’s sweat band. I think people will either love it or hate it. They’ll know within the 15 day return window whether it works for them or not.
A personal choice of course, but millions purchase pre-used phones, and a mobile phone is generally the dirtiest device anyone owns.
Hint.... I don't expect many people will be using a Vision Pro when they spend time in the bathroom/toilet, and yet I'd expect almost every single pre-owned phone has spent many hours in there.
Glass and metal parts on iPhone are easy to disinfect, but the fabric headband and light seal would give me second thought.
That is a fair point and one that may bother some people I agree.
I purchased a Quest 2 a few months ago, pre-used, and went on to buy a pre-used meta deluxe headband.
If it looked filthy I would not have worn it, but it all looked fine.
I have seen filthy ones I'd not consider.
I imagine it will not be long before 3rd party headbands and facial interfaces for even the Vision Pro are available for sale, so perhaps this may be a issue for some that could be worked around.
If I could buy a vision pro with dirty headband/facial interface for say $1999 I'd be all over it, and would find a way to deal with those parts
Or friends
It’s like riding a scooter, might be fun but you don’t want your friends to see you doing it 😂
Naw I already imagine we will be seeing people walking around with it like idiots in public to flex.