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.
What We Know About the Apple Vision Pro Hardware So Far
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think they gave it the Pro moniker because they want developers and professionals to invest in it with time and money. Something like this is worth the $3500 if you recoup the cost with a single project.
My guess is that like laptop computers and cellular/smartphones, business people will help refine the Apple Vision Pro experience, then a regular Apple Vision will be announced.
microLED tech is good for brightness , but if you think about it, Apple Vision (or any headset for the matter) has no brightness issue cuz inside the headset it’s extremely dim, so any display tech would be enough. Now, OLED has the best contrast ratio, black is truly black. MicroLED would be tricky, especially considering how small a screen that is. The risk is that those areas that should be pitch black might actually be illuminated.
😆😆😆 I can't believe anybody actually believes Apple and Tim Cook had any sort of vision for the eventual materialization of Vision Pro. Did you forget Siri?
It's more like the organic progression of the tech industry as a whole forced Tim Cook's hand in coming out with a product that hedges against future competitors, e.g., to fend off potential rivals like Meta. The technology used in AirPods isn't exactly revolutionary — wireless audio has been around long before AirPods. The same goes for graphics. Vision Pro, like all gadgets, is equipped with whatever technology that's available at the time of its development. Had Apple not had its own chip, it would've used a third-party chip.
Lest people forget: Apple really only started pursuing an AR/VR headset in earnest after Meta had gone all in. $3.5K with 2 hr battery life is evidence that it's not a polished product made for daily use like the original iPhone. When the original iPhone came out, iPods, Palm Pilot, Nokia phones, and electronic dictionaries that were popular in parts of Asia had already a huge user base. People know what the iPhone was for. It's here to replace all the aforementioned gadgets. But you can't say the same about Vision Pro. What practical application does it really have? The iPhone solved a fundamental problem with Nokia phones, e.g., tiny keyboards that are unwieldy to use, while introducing revolutionary innovations such as finger gestures. Vision Pro had none of that. Neither has it solved any fundamental problems with an AR/VR headset such as its heft nor has it brought any new ideas.
It's more tech fetishism than anything else if you let the dopamine high pass and think rationally about it.
Last edited:
It's not about the hardware — although I understand why people find it so fascinating because it is a triumph.
It's not about the here and now, either — although again I understand why people are so fascinated.
This is a technology for 2030 onwards.
Apple's striding into the lead with the next big user-interface paradigm.
Comparisons to the original Mac are so very apt. Limited hardware (remember floppy swapping?!). Only really for enthusiasts. A learning curve for everybody who uses it. But also, it created the future and the computing paradigm that every single one of us use today.
Alphabet/Google, Meta etc will be scrabbling to keep up right now. Memos will be flying around their corporate HQs with people saying their minds were blown, and orders to copy and clone what Apple's doing. Just like with iPhoneOS and Android. And just like with Android, whatever they create will never be quite as good – although there might be occasional gimmicks that seem to throw shade on Apple.
All Apple needs to do now is keep up the pace. Keep ahead. If it can then it's going to own the coming decades, just like it's owned the last few. It's a huge undertaking.
I have a feeling that the technology will be consistently underwhelming until there's a technological breakthrough. e.g. always poor battery life. Always heavy headsets. And then Apple will figure out how to make ordinary glasses and, wow, it all makes sense. But those years of underwhelming/not quite right hardware could be damaging to the whole endeavour.
Alas, with Siri and AI, Apple very badly dropped the ball. Apple lost the competitive advantage around decade ago and hasn't had the vision or the ability to regain the ground. We've all been complaining about Siri for years. Apple was deaf.
So, I'm not so sure any longer that Apple can maintain the lead it has with AR. Siri should be warning to them — and us. Just like with digital assistants, another company might take what Apple has done and just do it better. I'd say there's maybe a 50% likelihood of this.
But ultimately time will tell.
It's not about the here and now, either — although again I understand why people are so fascinated.
This is a technology for 2030 onwards.
Apple's striding into the lead with the next big user-interface paradigm.
Comparisons to the original Mac are so very apt. Limited hardware (remember floppy swapping?!). Only really for enthusiasts. A learning curve for everybody who uses it. But also, it created the future and the computing paradigm that every single one of us use today.
Alphabet/Google, Meta etc will be scrabbling to keep up right now. Memos will be flying around their corporate HQs with people saying their minds were blown, and orders to copy and clone what Apple's doing. Just like with iPhoneOS and Android. And just like with Android, whatever they create will never be quite as good – although there might be occasional gimmicks that seem to throw shade on Apple.
All Apple needs to do now is keep up the pace. Keep ahead. If it can then it's going to own the coming decades, just like it's owned the last few. It's a huge undertaking.
I have a feeling that the technology will be consistently underwhelming until there's a technological breakthrough. e.g. always poor battery life. Always heavy headsets. And then Apple will figure out how to make ordinary glasses and, wow, it all makes sense. But those years of underwhelming/not quite right hardware could be damaging to the whole endeavour.
Alas, with Siri and AI, Apple very badly dropped the ball. Apple lost the competitive advantage around decade ago and hasn't had the vision or the ability to regain the ground. We've all been complaining about Siri for years. Apple was deaf.
So, I'm not so sure any longer that Apple can maintain the lead it has with AR. Siri should be warning to them — and us. Just like with digital assistants, another company might take what Apple has done and just do it better. I'd say there's maybe a 50% likelihood of this.
But ultimately time will tell.
Last edited:
All I know is ophthalmologists are going to make a killing in the next couple of decades.
There is just no way that prolonged use of an AR headset won't leave any lasting damage to your vision. People were complaining that a Retina screen gives them migraines when it first came out (MacBook Pro 2012). How do you think the same people would react to a Retina screen that's only inches away from their pupils?
Unlike a freestanding monitor, you have no way of turning away from a screen that's in between your eyes. Vision Pro's battery life is probably the only thing that's going to stop people from using it for hours on end if they don't develop a headache first.
Man, don’t tempt me
I already want one! But yeah, it’s seriously impressive for a first gen and I have a suspicion it’ll be a long time between iterations. Even just thinking about battery life, they can easily just release bigger battery packs for longer life.
Even if we ignore the powerdraw, I don't think the thermal envelope would handle anywhere near the kind of computing experience people would find acceptable for a lot of work. I wouldn't be surprised if it runs worse than a Core M on the 12in MB.
You will also need to bring a keyboard and mouse to get any real work done, at which point you're not really saving that much more space compared to just having a MacBook open on the tray table and using the headset as a big display.
It will happen regardless? If you look at iPad compatibility, it took many years before a lot of apps even got an iPad version. I would imagine the headset would have a much smaller user base in the beginning given its price, giving developers even less motivation to develop something native.
If you've tried running intensive apps on an iPad Pro with a M chip, you'll know how much the performance relies on the passive cooling (i.e. it would start dropping frames if the display is full brightness for a long time). Given the size of this and its proximity to the user's face, the thermals would be even worse especially given how little room there will be for a heatsink. I doubt even early adopters would want to spend $4k-5k to use macOS with worse performance than a MBA.
If Apple sells something that can do this, the hardware would need to become even heavier and bulkier. Maybe in a few generations when the hardware catches up. It sounds nice in theory but I doubt it's feasible right now without some big compromises.
It's actually Apple that's copying Meta.
The idea of "Spatial Personas" is cribbed directly from Mark Z.
The first iPhone was terrible, why would anyone want to own that, unless you keep it sealed in a box and resell it after 20 years for a lot of money?
These realistic VR avatars are not really new if you've been following VR research. The problem is that up to this point no one has implemented a usable version that runs on consumer level hardware. Even Meta's codec persona was nothing more than a tech demo when they showed it off last year, and we haven't head anything about it since.
Last edited:
That's not the definition of 'tethered' when referring to VR or AR headsets. Tethered means connected to a computer, limiting your mobility. The original quote was incorrect in that it assumes that tethering a headset is for the purpose pf powering it, which is not the case - it's to provide the processing power to drive the display, which the Apple Headset does internally.
No doubt someone will release a headband that carries the battery on the back, so you'll have a cable about 15cm long.
The first iPhone absolutely destroyed all other 'smartphones' on the market for usability and UI.
That's not microLED, that's miniLED. Completely different thing. So far nothing has microLED, which has the advantages of OLED without the drawbacks. Was expecting this headset would be the first...guess it's still too hard to make.
Yes. OLED is still OLED, which is only temporarily good. Have fun with your $3,500 headset that has color degradation after a few years. Do you even know what microLED is? Hint: it's not miniLED.
My points are 1) Apple didn't come up with the idea for Spatial Personas on its own and 2) Vision Pro is basically a tacit kudos to Mark Zuckerberg and his vision.
So by saying "[t]hese realistic VR avatars are not really new if you've been following VR research..." You're actually agreeing with the points that I was trying to make, especially point 1.
Last edited:
This is part of the reason AR/VR headsets can’t become our daily drivers and replace monitors. It’s simply not natural for humans to wear a thick, heavy headset that covers half of your face for prolonged periods of time. But that’s the way Apple has presented it, pretty wild.
I was going to say that your post is a clear contender for all-time clueless hall-of-fame greats, but your followup crediting Meta as a pioneer clearly takes it from risible to "paid shill". Or, if you're not getting paid, perhaps you should market yourself better. (Or, produce a better product. If I were Meta I wouldn't pay you for these sad efforts.)
The dig against Siri is valid but irrelevant. Your timeline is an obvious lie, if you do a modest amount of googling to see. Apple's been pushing AR/VR out in the open where we can see it, with extraordinary software and APIs, for years. ARKit was first released in 2017, and it was already a big step forward then. They brought out LIDAR on the iphone 12 in 2020. Facebook was renamed Meta about a year later.
"Organic progression of the tech industry"? Lol. There is no software like it. There is no hardware like it. And there won't be a clear competitor for years. Google was able to copy the iPhone well enough to fool the gullible after a couple years. It will take longer than that for anyone, even google, to get credibly close to this.
Will it succeed? I think so, but nobody knows the future. Apparently, you don't know the past either...
Who's complaining about migraines from retina screens?
I'm glad to know that you've published a refereed study in a reputable journal proving that AR headsets will damage your vision. Wait, what? You didn't? Because you actually know nothing about this at all? How did you forget to mention that?
Apple's dedication of valuable keynote time to their vision health efforts this year suggests that this is top of mind for them. Could this be a transparent ploy on their part to head off a perception of vision issues with the headset at the outset before it becomes a big (probably mostly/all fake) story? Sure. So what? It's either true or it isn't. We'll see. Given the potential liability issues, I suspect Apple knows a lot more about this than some random sh!tposter. (The same one who thinks Meta is a great pioneer and Apple a copycat, lol.)
I'm quite certain you're wrong. I use an M2 Air regularly. Heavy loads get it warm, never too hot to touch, and it has NO cooling. The Vision has some cooling. Even if it ships with an M2 (and I don't think we'll know for sure about that until next year), it would be fine. And if it gets throttled back by 20% sometimes to stay cool? BFD. It's still WAY better than hauling around a laptop, in a substantial number of use cases.
Also not correct. How often do you fly? Keeping just a keyboard (even, maybe, with a mousepad) in front of you rather than a whole laptop is a huge win. And you probably will NOT need a mouse. Check out the assistive pointer tech, it might really be good enough.
I'm certain you're right. But which effect do you think is stronger? The effect of increasing sales because of a builtin MacOS mode (positive) or the effect of lessening software demand because there's already a MacOS version of some program (negative)? I'll bet the positive at least equals the negative. But the whole point is moot! The vision *already* can run most ipad software natively! So devs who are lazy will still be able to be lazy. The MacOS software base is unlikely to add much in the way of disincentives.
I doubt your doubt. I certainly would. Don't forget the M2 MBA is drastically more powerful than the best Apple laptop from three years ago. I can afford to give back some of that power (especially, only in long-running tasks; bursty speed would be fine).
In fact, many business users don't need all that power. They're doing presentations (or making them), writing documents, working on spreadsheets, tossing off emails, etc. Heat is not going to be an issue in those scenarios.
You're right, for some users it'll be different. Most of those are using Pros and Maxes, and many of them are wishing Apple could shoehorn an Ultra into an MBP. And for some of that group, the Vision won't cut it. But for many, it'll still be a great option for certain scenarios, where they don't want to (or can't) pull out the MBP. Or, say, where the ability to work in 3D overwhelms other considerations.
Sure, except, for some people, the compromises are entirely acceptable. For the rest, there's always the M5-based Vision Ultra in 2026...
You don't get to have an opinion about this. You only get to have facts.
The facts are already pretty widely reported. It *does* look natural. Surprise!
It's possible that some people will actually notice the refresh. So far, nobody who's used it has made that claim.
As for better than 90Hz, it seems likely that latency in the camera pipeline is the limiting factor here for now. In a few years, who knows?
The biggest issue with OLED is uneven wear of pixels. This is a complete non-issue with VR, because there is pretty much never anything in a fixed position on the screens.