What We Know About the Apple Vision Pro Hardware So Far

[Confused-User]

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.

Why not wish for a micropony to go with your microLED? Commercially, they don't exist yet. The *earliest* you'll see them is in Apple Watches, next year, *maybe*. And I don't know when they will arrive for displays of this quality and resolution but it won't be soon. So if you want that, you'd have to wait at least a couple more years (more likely 4+) anyway. For those of us not religious about a nearly imaginary tech, we're getting an earlier option.

FWIW, OLED issues are much less problematic than they used to be. I don't know how things will play out with the Vision but based on current OLED lifespans I'm not worried. The vision will be obsolete in 4-7 years (not a ding against Apple, that's just how the tech curve works), likely long before there's a serious problem with the OLEDs.

 

[subjonas]

I kinda like that the battery is external because it should be easy to replace when it inevitably goes bad. And this way everyone won’t assume they need to upgrade their device just because the battery degrades like they do with phones. Better for the environment. Of course a lot less people would be eager to frequently upgrade a $3500 device anyway.

 

[Confused-User]

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 don't claim to know how things will play out. I do think it's pretty wild we have so many authorities here who do know. Maybe instead of buying a Vision I should buy my own crystal ball.

 

[slplss]

I don't claim to know how things will play out. I do think it's pretty wild we have so many authorities here who do know. Maybe instead of buying a Vision I should buy my own crystal ball.

It’s ok not to have an opinion. I’m speaking out of my experience with already existing headsets and don’t consider myself any kind of authority who would like to influence anyone else.

 

[siddavis]

No sir, that is incorrect. It is a supple woven cable per Tim Cook.

Ha! This is exactly what I was going to post!

Did anyone else notice the orange on some of the small elements? But wait, there’s more - it’s international orange.

 

[VulchR]

Just in case if you didn’t know. You can get an All-Day Use when it’s plugged into a wall plug. 🔌 ⚡️

View attachment 2214819

Hmm... Infrared sensors for tracking eye movements can dry out the eyes (the corneas), but it depends of course how much energy the infrared sensors project on the eye and where the infrared is projected.

 

[xxray]

I feel bad complaining about anything on technology this advanced and innovative, but it’s disappointing that the screens aren’t 120Hz, even if it was only while plugged in too. I guess that’s for a future version.

 

[arobert3434]

"Digital Crown". It's a knob, Apple.

 

[neuropsychguy]

"Digital Crown". It's a knob, Apple.

It's a trademark, just like iPhone is. An iPhone is just a phone.

 

[lysingur]

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...

It's funny how Dunning–Kruger effect works. 9 out of 10 backs and forths on MacRumors are always initiated by some guy who thinks he knows the "facts" but can't even read.

1. Just because there is AR in ARKit doesn't mean Tim Cook had already an AR headset in the works back in 2017. You're just hung up on semantics. You also might want to check what purpose ARKit actually served in 2017 before all your word posturing.
2. Not sure the ineptness of Siri is irrelevant when on this very site an article was published detailing how the very engineers who developed Vision Pro wanted their own voice assistant because Siri was so bad.
3. I never said Meta was a pioneer in anything. Again, you can't read. This probably explains why you're so hung up on semantics.
4. What's funny is for someone who assails others for lack of historical knowledge, you actually said "There is no software like. There is no hardware like it." as if this is the first AR headset the world has ever seen. I'm not surprised judging from your boastful tone but would just like to point out the irony.
5. Just because Apple had a highly successful product in the iPhone, doesn't mean it will always have a highly successful product like the iPhone. Do you get the logic?
6. Lastly, since you're so fond of telling others to use Google (is it the search engine of your choice? So plebian for your taste, if you don't mind me saying😂), how about searching the year that Facebook bought Oculus (also funny that you think branding actually matters in an argument by mentioning the time Facebook renamed to Meta), then a leader in virtual reality technology?

If you want a strong comeback, actually point out where my facts are wrong, instead of coming up with this weak grade-9-level drivel we're all already so accustomed to on this site.

 

[neuropsychguy]

It will be interesting to see what Samsung and some other companies come out with in the next year to try and catch Apple on this. They have 6+ months to get something figured out and rushed out.

 

[lysingur]

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 just can't be bothered to give your the references given your unhelpful attitude.

Apparently "extrapolation" isn't one of your cognitive abilities. Do you really need a study specifically on AR headsets to tell you prolonged use of a screen a few inches from your eyes hurts your vision? Like, seriously? Why do you think as we age, we become more and more likely to get cataracts? And is there an ophthalmologist specialized in vision correction surgery in your family that you get to talk to as you wish? I don't think so.

Yeah, I will say it again, Apple copies Meta when it comes to Spatial Personas. If you've actually been following AR/VR since Facebook bought Oculus, you'll know Apple only started seriously thinking about an AR/VR headset after Mark Zuckerberg went all in on Metaverse. The fact that you're boasting about your ignorance and actually expect anybody to take you seriously is actually quite amusing.

 

[deebinem]

Otterbox will make a case

With their penchant for rugged protection, it will look like this:

 

[newyorksole]

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.

precisely! lol

and just imagine what it’ll be like when it’s actually close to release. plenty of new apps from developers to be shown off and other features/improvements that Apple came up with as well.

the media/marketing blitz is going to be nuts.

 

[BEUVK]

Why does Apple use a goggles design instead of a helmet design? With a helmet design, you can push the Vision Pro up without taking it off when not in use. With goggles design, you have to take it off when not in use. Helmet design is more convenient. The helmet will be the battery and you don't have the cable connecting to the battery wrapped around your waist. It is a much better and minimalist design.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

1. Spatial Audio from Airpods
2. Lidar from iPhone
3. U1 Proximity Awareness from multiple products
4. Continuity from iPhone
5. Facial Recognition from iPhone
6. Motion and Geo sensor from Watch

7. Sidecar to connect Mac displays.

 

[armandxp]

The first iPhone absolutely destroyed all other 'smartphones' on the market for usability and UI.

Yeah, looking back at the original iPhone from 2007, and saying it was a terrible device, from what we now have in 2023, is silly. It was amazing, for me at least. I loved every second of using it. Except for AT&T’s terrible network. Lol

 

[joecomo]

It’s 11.5 megapixels per eye. That’s smack in the middle between 4K (8.3 Mpx) and 5K (14.7 Mpx).

seems they shrank 2 iMac screens

 

[lysingur]

1. Spatial Audio from Airpods
2. Lidar from iPhone
3. U1 Proximity Awareness from multiple products
4. Continuity from iPhone
5. Facial Recognition from iPhone
6. Motion and Geo sensor from Watch

Only a couple of techs on this list have a direct bearing on AR/VR.

 

[The Game 161]

Didn't realize this was only 90Hz - seems kind of low. The Quest 2 can do 120Hz already.

This also has lower lacency, 4k resolution and micro oled so I don't think it needs it. Not given battery issues

 

[lysingur]

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.

Just like we still don't have a consumer flying car, we most likely won't have a pair of AR/VR glasses that can do all the things Vision Pro can do now and more but only weigh slightly more than a pair of average prescription glasses. We just don't have the technology that will allow us to do it.

And why do it at all? The most successful products are those that solve a problem. What problem do flying cars solve? Congestion? Tunnels are a much better solution than flying cars that might crash into buildings. What problems does an AR/VR headset solve? And are there better solutions to these problems than an AR/VR headset that weighs a ton and sits on your head? It's good that Apple went with visionOS instead of realityOS because it's one product that's in fact quite out of touch with reality.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

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.

I'm guessing you're talking about the MBA and not the iPad Air. On iPads it's quite different where the screen produces a lot of heat at peak brightness especially the 12in Pros, and there isn't much that can be done passively to limit that. Given the high res, high refresh rate displays and its proximity to warm skin, I would wager the thermal envelope of the vision pro is a lot more similar to the iPad. By the looks of the side vents the vision pro probably already requires active cooling running just visionOS. If you run macOS on top, it would need something extra so it wouldn't overheat.

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.

The advantage of a laptop on a flight really comes from the fact that it's one piece and rigid. Economy tray tables are usually about the size of a 16" MBP. That's really not enough space for both a keyboard and a mouse horizontally. Laptops are nice because you can have it hang off the edge a little without worry and the trackpad is built in. As for the assistive pointer, it's very similar to what the HoloLens and Quest Pro headsets do with hand tracking. It's fine for a click on a big button once in a while, but doing something that needs a lot of precise clicking like moving the cursor in a word processor would be a huge PITA since you need to aim in mid-air and hold the position while performing a click gesture.

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.

You're right that it's debatable. It might even be better for sales in the short term. But the point is that the iPad apps would be as nice to use as Android tablets apps even today if not for Apple limiting iPhone apps when they launched iPad. The holdouts who are still only on macOS are the pro apps that haven't adapted their apps for iPad. Apple probably wants as many of them running natively as possible since they are position vision pro as the future of computing.

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...

For those less intensive scenarios, I'm sure it'll be totally fine. But then those scenarios are also already well-served by iOS/iPadOS/visionOS. If my work didn't need any type of dev tools or design apps, I can totally already do all of my work on the iPad. The tasks that you need a Mac for is usually either multi-tasking heavy or performance heavy, which means that in turn, the vision pro would need to have more performance for macOS to be useful on it.

In the end, the cross section of people who would buy this for the built-in macOS would be limited to those who 1) need very limited computing power yet whose needs are not fulfilled by visionOS/iOS apps, 2) has enough budget to purchase something that has significantly less performance for a much larger amount of money, 3) okay with keeping it plugged in all the time or carrying a huge power bank, 4) never need to show other people the screen they are working on or plug into anything to present, 5) okay with noisier cooling or a heavier/larger device. All that in exchange for not carrying a MBA alongside the headset. I'm sure these users exist, but I find it hard to believe that there are enough to justify a whole sub product line for them, especially at a higher price.

 

[BorisDG]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1666352409218801665

Interesting that the main OLED panel is by Sony and not Samsung or LG.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

The first iPhone absolutely destroyed all other 'smartphones' on the market for usability and UI.

Yes, but I think the point they were trying to make was that even though the first iPhone was groundbreaking in its usability and UI, it was a terrible value compared to what came along after only a couple of generations.

 

[JosephAW]

Can't wait to read about the first car accident caused by someone wearing it while driving