I obviously don't know the cost of making the AVP, and how much of the research and development Apple is trying to recover on every sale. But, if price is the issue, why doesn't Apple lower the price to like $2000? They would potentially lose on every sale. But they would build a market that allows recover the money in the future.
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.
Will Apple Ever Make AR Smart Glasses?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Three things need to get better in the Apple Watch and then I can finally leave my iPhone behind:
- Directions / map (esp. for public transport)
- Uber
And of these, WhatsApp is the only absolute must-have.
But but but you don’t understand, Steve Jobs would have forced the engineers magically to make AVP only 100G and $999 for 8TB of storage and 256GB of RAM with a 20 hour battery life.
Tim just won’t Cook.
/S
Which is kind of ridiculous because, in Apple’s history, there are so many examples of them introducing something just a little too early.
The Lisa was the ridiculously overpriced computer that Macintosh wouldn’t have existed without.
The Newton obviously was the iPhone/iPad, just about 15 years too early.
The G4Cube of course, and one can almost make a direct line from when Apple introduced the 2013 Mac Pro, then the 2015 MacBook, then in 2016 started working behind the scenes to move their computers over to ARM.
The 12 inch MacBook was basically a trial run for the current line of Apple Silicon laptops.
Four years before the Apple Watch, there was the iPod nano Watch, and even apple’s health features can be linked all the way back to the iPod days.
knowsuchpeace
macrumors member
because apple doesn't do that. meta has been doing that for years, and they're struggling so much they had to show a product they cant ship.
the non-pro vision will be in the $2000 range whenever it's ready and there is more content available for it.
edit: also, the displays used in vision pro cant be manufactured on scales much larger than what they have right now. there's a reason there aren't any cheaper headsets using these same microOLED displays
Fitness? How do you use the Apple Watch for Fitness? I would think most people use it for
- notifications (keeping phone on silent)
- messaging
- phone calls
- listening to music and podcasts
- silent alarms and timers
- setting Reminders
- Apple Pay
- weather forecasts
Besides tracking the odd walk, hike, ski, or run distances and speed, what does it do for fitness? I really am curious because I read this everywhere.
JOLoughlin
macrumors regular
Disagree or have a different perspective depending on the point brought up. I love the Vision Pro and use it all the time. Because it is excellent VR/MR spatial computer and I love VR/MR. VR/MR is its own thing. People keep comparing VR/MR products to AR products (or Shareholder Kits) and I don’t get it.
Something tells me sales of Vision Pro are roughly where Apple expects them to be and sales aren’t really the metric they’re measuring for this generation of product. I think the primary metric is in-store demos and just laying the foundation for Apple’s spatial computing endeavors. It’s still too early. We are 8months in what is likely to be a 10+ year endeavor before we get a clear picture of how Apple will build this space.
I say this because AR glasses are as different in use and affordances to VR/MR as the AirPods/iPhone/Watch is to a Mac. Yes, both are worn on face and are spatial computers but that’s basically where the conversation ends. Because AR glasses will be worn out in public in the chaotic world and do fundamentally different things. The design languages are vastly different.
I do have to say I recently got the Meta Ray-Bans and I find them more uncomfortable to use than the Vision Pro (I personally don’t find the Vision Pro uncomfortable at all except when using the Solo Knit Strap for over 30min). Its partly a different types of “uncomfortable” but that’s a separate subject. Because “smart” glasses are even another type of product category (though I think the design language is closer to where AR is going, mixed with yes, some things we see in MR products).
Something tells me sales of Vision Pro are roughly where Apple expects them to be and sales aren’t really the metric they’re measuring for this generation of product. I think the primary metric is in-store demos and just laying the foundation for Apple’s spatial computing endeavors. It’s still too early. We are 8months in what is likely to be a 10+ year endeavor before we get a clear picture of how Apple will build this space.
I say this because AR glasses are as different in use and affordances to VR/MR as the AirPods/iPhone/Watch is to a Mac. Yes, both are worn on face and are spatial computers but that’s basically where the conversation ends. Because AR glasses will be worn out in public in the chaotic world and do fundamentally different things. The design languages are vastly different.
I do have to say I recently got the Meta Ray-Bans and I find them more uncomfortable to use than the Vision Pro (I personally don’t find the Vision Pro uncomfortable at all except when using the Solo Knit Strap for over 30min). Its partly a different types of “uncomfortable” but that’s a separate subject. Because “smart” glasses are even another type of product category (though I think the design language is closer to where AR is going, mixed with yes, some things we see in MR products).
Apple is privacy focused well beyond all other tech companies. They have the market cornered for Smart Glasses in regards to keeping people from worrying about
There are super fast very close proximity low latency high bandwidth WiFi tech that could easily be used to do all computation streamed.
Glasses need to be sensors, a small battery to run them, some sort of projected or transparent displays, and low latency communication to the smartphone. They shouldn’t work without a smartphone as the brain.
This helps reduce the size and weight and increase the acceptable look of the glasses.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Article title "ever" is a very long time. Will it ever snow in Miami? Probably. Will we ever discover intelligent life in the universe? Likely. Will we ever visit other solar systems? Probably. Will we ever find cures for cancer? Likely.
Apple ever develop a glasses product? Where there's a tech buck to be made, Apple will likely go there.
Can a glasses product be Vpro miniaturized into "sleek, normal glasses" as people keep posting? Maybe... but where's the battery/power? Where's the cameras? How do you keep light from coming in from the sides and washing out the virtual view? How do you keep bright light from beyond the lenses from washing out the VR/AR view? Why don't our iDevices have a transparent screen all the way through a transparent back like we're holding a pane of glass? Because light behind the device would wash out the view of such a screen.
There's already many such products that look sort of like "normal" glasses, that shift the "heavy lifting and power" to a computer or smart phone. Why don't all who want that own those products? Those don't even require Apple's gigantic margin... so they are priced relatively cheap... certainly much cheaper than Apple's cut of the same, using the same components would cost. So why don't all calling for VR/AR glasses own VR/AR glasses? Tick nearly all of the buttons "we" are seeking: much cheaper, looks like normal glasses, lean on other tech for the computing power, light weight, smaller, etc. So why don't "we" already wear them? Perhaps because "we" don't actually want that product either???
Some refer back to Google Glass as being about right... but hop back to threads at the time that Google glass was trying to be sold and "we" rip it to shreds as a product. Go ahead... do the search... and see what we say about it when it was actually a product for sale to consumers. You'd think you're reading the original iPod launch thread where many of "us" ripped that product to shreds too with comments like "too expensive", "no use case", "<competitor version> better/cheaper", etc. And we know how right "we" were about the iPod disaster. 😉
And even IF there was a glasses product, do people who don't need glasses want to wear glasses anyway? When people are given a choice of glasses vs. contacts vs. lasik surgery, many don't choose the glasses... even though they are the cheapest option. Why? Because even regular/sleek glasses get the same "what will other people think?" psychology.
And note the huge variety of glasses designs, reflecting the "eye of the beholder" element of what would be judged as "attractive" glasses. Is there a one-design-fits-all "glasses" here? Look how hard we agonize over approx. 4 slight variations of iPhone... and how much "we" worry about even shades of colors. I dare anyone to post the "ideal" look of "normal" glasses and have others not find fault with the design and offer differing frames/colors/etc.
I actually lean quite positive on the Vpro product & concept. The obvious mainstream "use case" that the "no use case" crowd keeps ignoring so they can write "NO" (use case) in every thread is the very same reason that just about all tech companies are also experimenting with folds & rolls: provide an ANY size MOBILE screen on demand. Instead of being limited to the physical size potential of a bi- or tri-fold screen or some kind or rollable screen, Vpro provides an ANY size screen. Weight of device does NOT scale with screen size... that is, it is not getting heavier as you make the view screen bigger. No fold or roll can do that.
When I have to switch from 40" ultra-wide desktop to 16" MB, productivity plunges. That "biggest" MB screen feels puny when I have to use it. Can Apple make a 40" MB? They could... but that would be one hefty & heavy MB. Could I throw a bunch of extra physical screens in the bag to give myself more screens to approximate the 40"? I could, but that's a lot of added weight to carry around. In virtualizing the screen, Vpro solves all such problems. Is that a real, mainstream problem needing solved? Anyone who feels like they are more productive on bigger screens knows exactly what I'm talking about. If you (reader) are quick to hook your MB to a bigger screen at any opportunity because you prefer greater screen R.E., Vpro lets you have that bigger screen wherever you are... not just where a physically bigger screen is forever anchored.
"But I have..." or "I'd rather buy..." "...a <big screen> TV". Yes, if you don't ALREADY have one, buy yourself a big-screen TV. But that can't hit the road with you. You're not setting up that 80" OLED TV on the tray table on the plane. So if you see a benefit of any size screen when you are away from your desktop screens and/or TV, buy yourself a TV (if you don't already have one) and consider this as a laptop screen of any size when you are on the road.
Vpro also fully addresses many very BIG problems with "make sleek, normal glasses" such as light intrusion from all sides of the "screen", background light washing out the view beyond the lenses, power supply, etc. The pessimists among us just ignore such ideas because they undermine the plausibility of nearly the full Vpro experience in a "sleek, normal glasses" product... AKA "we detest the bird in hand for 2 in the bush," even if the 2 are inaccessible without some monumental innovations. Can those innovations "ever" arrive? Yes, ever is a long time. But between now and "ever", Vpro offers many tangible solutions to the very real problems with "sleek, normal."
I very much get how "we" hate the price and thus we pile up all of this other rationale to why the product doesn't make any sense... but as you address the list of issues people have with it to try to imagine this "sleek glasses" product, you introduce gigantic problems that seem to need towards "ever" to resolve... starting with POWER supply, flowing into "where do the many cameras go to make it work?" and "how do we deal with all of the surrounding (bright) light?" just for starters.
I hope Apple can "ever" build our varying dream versions of such a product. In the meantime, if you would like to have a MB 24", MB 27", MB 30", MB 40", MB 80" today, there IS a product that works now... in 2024. Else, wish it into oblivion and long for even a MB 17" for slightly more screen space with added weight. Could Apple give us 2 more inches of MB screen for even more weight? Is a relatively puny 20" screen plausible even though it will be heavier still? Etc.
Apple ever develop a glasses product? Where there's a tech buck to be made, Apple will likely go there.
Can a glasses product be Vpro miniaturized into "sleek, normal glasses" as people keep posting? Maybe... but where's the battery/power? Where's the cameras? How do you keep light from coming in from the sides and washing out the virtual view? How do you keep bright light from beyond the lenses from washing out the VR/AR view? Why don't our iDevices have a transparent screen all the way through a transparent back like we're holding a pane of glass? Because light behind the device would wash out the view of such a screen.
There's already many such products that look sort of like "normal" glasses, that shift the "heavy lifting and power" to a computer or smart phone. Why don't all who want that own those products? Those don't even require Apple's gigantic margin... so they are priced relatively cheap... certainly much cheaper than Apple's cut of the same, using the same components would cost. So why don't all calling for VR/AR glasses own VR/AR glasses? Tick nearly all of the buttons "we" are seeking: much cheaper, looks like normal glasses, lean on other tech for the computing power, light weight, smaller, etc. So why don't "we" already wear them? Perhaps because "we" don't actually want that product either???
Some refer back to Google Glass as being about right... but hop back to threads at the time that Google glass was trying to be sold and "we" rip it to shreds as a product. Go ahead... do the search... and see what we say about it when it was actually a product for sale to consumers. You'd think you're reading the original iPod launch thread where many of "us" ripped that product to shreds too with comments like "too expensive", "no use case", "<competitor version> better/cheaper", etc. And we know how right "we" were about the iPod disaster. 😉
And even IF there was a glasses product, do people who don't need glasses want to wear glasses anyway? When people are given a choice of glasses vs. contacts vs. lasik surgery, many don't choose the glasses... even though they are the cheapest option. Why? Because even regular/sleek glasses get the same "what will other people think?" psychology.
And note the huge variety of glasses designs, reflecting the "eye of the beholder" element of what would be judged as "attractive" glasses. Is there a one-design-fits-all "glasses" here? Look how hard we agonize over approx. 4 slight variations of iPhone... and how much "we" worry about even shades of colors. I dare anyone to post the "ideal" look of "normal" glasses and have others not find fault with the design and offer differing frames/colors/etc.
I actually lean quite positive on the Vpro product & concept. The obvious mainstream "use case" that the "no use case" crowd keeps ignoring so they can write "NO" (use case) in every thread is the very same reason that just about all tech companies are also experimenting with folds & rolls: provide an ANY size MOBILE screen on demand. Instead of being limited to the physical size potential of a bi- or tri-fold screen or some kind or rollable screen, Vpro provides an ANY size screen. Weight of device does NOT scale with screen size... that is, it is not getting heavier as you make the view screen bigger. No fold or roll can do that.
When I have to switch from 40" ultra-wide desktop to 16" MB, productivity plunges. That "biggest" MB screen feels puny when I have to use it. Can Apple make a 40" MB? They could... but that would be one hefty & heavy MB. Could I throw a bunch of extra physical screens in the bag to give myself more screens to approximate the 40"? I could, but that's a lot of added weight to carry around. In virtualizing the screen, Vpro solves all such problems. Is that a real, mainstream problem needing solved? Anyone who feels like they are more productive on bigger screens knows exactly what I'm talking about. If you (reader) are quick to hook your MB to a bigger screen at any opportunity because you prefer greater screen R.E., Vpro lets you have that bigger screen wherever you are... not just where a physically bigger screen is forever anchored.
"But I have..." or "I'd rather buy..." "...a <big screen> TV". Yes, if you don't ALREADY have one, buy yourself a big-screen TV. But that can't hit the road with you. You're not setting up that 80" OLED TV on the tray table on the plane. So if you see a benefit of any size screen when you are away from your desktop screens and/or TV, buy yourself a TV (if you don't already have one) and consider this as a laptop screen of any size when you are on the road.
Vpro also fully addresses many very BIG problems with "make sleek, normal glasses" such as light intrusion from all sides of the "screen", background light washing out the view beyond the lenses, power supply, etc. The pessimists among us just ignore such ideas because they undermine the plausibility of nearly the full Vpro experience in a "sleek, normal glasses" product... AKA "we detest the bird in hand for 2 in the bush," even if the 2 are inaccessible without some monumental innovations. Can those innovations "ever" arrive? Yes, ever is a long time. But between now and "ever", Vpro offers many tangible solutions to the very real problems with "sleek, normal."
I very much get how "we" hate the price and thus we pile up all of this other rationale to why the product doesn't make any sense... but as you address the list of issues people have with it to try to imagine this "sleek glasses" product, you introduce gigantic problems that seem to need towards "ever" to resolve... starting with POWER supply, flowing into "where do the many cameras go to make it work?" and "how do we deal with all of the surrounding (bright) light?" just for starters.
I hope Apple can "ever" build our varying dream versions of such a product. In the meantime, if you would like to have a MB 24", MB 27", MB 30", MB 40", MB 80" today, there IS a product that works now... in 2024. Else, wish it into oblivion and long for even a MB 17" for slightly more screen space with added weight. Could Apple give us 2 more inches of MB screen for even more weight? Is a relatively puny 20" screen plausible even though it will be heavier still? Etc.
Last edited:
Col4bin
macrumors 68000
Rychiar
macrumors 601
I think everyone over exaggerates the negatives of the Vision Pro cus they’re clearly not using it enough to work around them. If you have the right light seal and pull the solo band down low on the back of your head so the pressure isn’t on your face I can personally wear them for many hours. I’ve watched two marvel movies in a row on them. I get how they’d be isolating to someone with a family but I live alone so I think it’s amazing and it allows me to actually immerse myself ina movie with no distractions. Even if I had a family I’d still probably use it to watch tv late at night . Hell, my whole life my dad stayed up late watching tv at a low volume in the living room after everyone else went to bed . This woulda been the perfect device for him then or even now if they could bring the price down to something he would actually pay. Seeing what meta has done with their glasses prototype Apple should definitely still be putting a lot of R&D into this stuff. It’s not like they don’t have the money. What I’ve never heard about those meta glasses however is what the battery life is like? I can’t see them lasting long til battery tech improves. Sadly, despite the battery breakthrough articles I feel like I’ve been reading for years, nothing ever seems to come to fruition with battery life improvements
211
macrumors 6502
I didn’t even get that far! I didn’t bother to try it as there’s no point as I can’t afford it. It is first generation, though. Second generation usually is a significant upgrade
WarmWinterHat
Suspended
I only use mine for fitness and time/timers/alarms. I have all notifications turned off, have never used Apple Pay on it, don't take calls, never used it for music/podcasts. Weather sometimes.
I track my steps, my trail running via gps, yoga, climbing, and all the other workouts I do weekly. I record a workout 6-10 times per week. Not sure what isn't understandable?
I will probably go back to Garmin for my next watch.
Last edited:
iPod had a killer app for use amongst regular people - music. Everybody knew that cellphones sucked but everybody knew they needed a cellphone for personal use. The iPhone had that opportunity and took it. Apple Watch is still junk in my mind and I don't know many people who enjoy them. Too big and too clunky. Apple never made any money from Macs until the mid-90s when the Apple 2 variants profits eventually died, but even those took a few retries when the Lisa and Apple 3 crashed and burned. The Apple headset still looks like a prop from a 40 year old show about lizard aliens. Apple did what Apple does though. Released a high end, limited edition build to bleed early adopters dry. Those profits will be pay back for the el cheapo version for the unwashed masses, and recouping original investment costs. So Apple really hasn't lost any money at this point.
klasma
macrumors G4
It's class-4 mixed reality (MR/XR): https://cs.gmu.edu/~zduric/cs499/Readings/r76JBo-Milgram_IEICE_1994.pdf
"Augmented Reality" is normally used only up to class 3 (optical pass-through).
The Apple Goggles only had a short period to impress and blew it. No amount of saying you're it wrong or perseverance with a flawed device will resonate with the majority of people. Comfort on the head is the absolute fundamental priority and reality is our heads and necks are not meant to have such a heavy, clunky product on them for extended periods. Might I offer that your dad would have been better getting a cheap pair of wired headphones to hook into the TV output.
I am 100% certain that Steve Jobs would skip out on VR completely. He would recognise it for what it is: niche, clunky and geeky. The wired battery hanging from the head would send him into a spiral.
He would have focused on AR glasses that look stylish, sleek and that would want to be worn by the general population. The first editions would probably just have basic functions like mirroring notifications from your iPhone and getting Apple Maps directions, but over the years tech would keep improving and they would become a standard piece of tech that everyone uses.
He would have focused on AR glasses that look stylish, sleek and that would want to be worn by the general population. The first editions would probably just have basic functions like mirroring notifications from your iPhone and getting Apple Maps directions, but over the years tech would keep improving and they would become a standard piece of tech that everyone uses.
Pants was the savant y'all weren't. Apple *is* now a glorified consumer gimmicks firm, and it's worked out like the proverbial mofo for them😆
As you should. Since the AW doesn't support ANT+, it's a complete failed product for swimmers, runners and cyclists.
klasma
macrumors G4
Apple never sells hardware at a loss in the mere hope of future profits. Personally, I also doubt that $2000 would make a huge difference in success in the market. Aside from the comfort issue and still murky pass-through quality, the AVP is also hampered by its limited software and lack of 3D controllers.
Here's a hint: everything that people consider useful for mobile computing (laptop, smartphone, tablet, watch) have the drawback of relatively small screens. Gosh, what if there was a product that gave you big screens/multiple screens and was also mobile?
It's amazing how hard it is for people to see the problem that AVP is solving. You may not personally like the 1.0 version but it makes complete sense as a product.
It's amazing how hard it is for people to see the problem that AVP is solving. You may not personally like the 1.0 version but it makes complete sense as a product.
coherence
macrumors newbie
If there's anyone out there who fits the profile for “the magic quickly wears off for most” and is willing to part with their Vision for a good price, I'm acutely interested in making an offer.
I purchased mine on Day One of pre-orders to enable my PhD research in spatial computing, machine learning and physics visualization, but it was stolen by a corrupt customs agent on the day it was set to arrive.
I was on travels overseas and had purchased first-class theft and damage insurance—but came to find out it has an exclusion for state-level scandals or corruption, so I'm still working to replace it to this day.
I purchased mine on Day One of pre-orders to enable my PhD research in spatial computing, machine learning and physics visualization, but it was stolen by a corrupt customs agent on the day it was set to arrive.
I was on travels overseas and had purchased first-class theft and damage insurance—but came to find out it has an exclusion for state-level scandals or corruption, so I'm still working to replace it to this day.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Ummm, Jobs rolled out "niche, clunky and geeky" (at the time) iPod. And "we" ripped it to shreds even in the launch day thread on this very website. What were the headline gripes with iPod? "Too expensive", "what's the use case?", "<competitors> already own this space", "ugly", "why would anyone want to carry around?", etc. Read familiar?
I can't speculate if Jobs would have rolled out Vpro. Who knows? When anyone sets aside their biases (often established without even trying one first-hand), Vpro provides an any-size screen wherever one happens to be. As competitors pursue folds/rolls to try to offer bigger than (towards the limits now?) physical screens in mobile devices, Vpro offers all such screen sizes and farrrrrrr bigger in the same physical size and at the same physical weight. And because it is built to block out intrusive light- which won't happen with "regular glasses", one can clearly see this any-size screen in up to the brightest daylight if desired. No "sleek normal glasses" can do that: as the surrounding light scales up, the visuals are increasingly washed out.
If Jobs would have focused on "stylish sleek" normal-looking glasses, there would probably be no Apple VR/AR product yet... nor for years to come. Else, the owner of such a product will need to make their environment quite dark to have much of a picture... which basically seems as "socially isolating" as all that "we" sling at Vpro. If I have to throw a heavy towel over my head or step into a closet to make the surrounding light dark enough for a good picture in these hypothetical sleek & sexy "normal-looking" glasses, am I not at least AS socially isolating myself?
How do existing "regular glasses" ones do it? To solve this problem, they have filters that go over the lenses to make the background completely black- which means users can't see through at all... unlike Vpro where technology makes it possible to see others when they approach. How do existing ones deal with surrounding light? They don't really... and thus have the washed-out picture vs. Vpro full light seal... unless users makes it dark in the environment they are in or steps into a closet or similar where they can cut surrounding light.
If you want a great virtual picture, you have to seal the light. Why don't movie theaters have big beautiful windows to let outside light in? It would affect the picture. Remember Drive-In theaters (for the youngsters among us, you took your date/fam in a car to an outside theater, parked in a slot, hung an incredible mono speaker on your window and watched through the windshield)? Remember how they ran matinee movies all day long? No? Only at night? Why didn't they have daytime showings?
These hypothetical Apple glasses won't resolve that without some kind of light-blocking seal. I don't think Jobs could have overcome that simple reality- distortion field or not. As one adds a light seal, they no longer look like "sleek, normal glasses."
What I think Jobs would have done better: "the rest" of the task... such as putting as much into the apps & software AFTER the launch as all that went into bringing it to market. This product NEEDS a steady flow of dazzling software & content. I suspect an effort (and money allocation) like AppleTV+ would do the trick. I'm far from either Cook or Jobs, but if I was running this show, the first big thing given the timing of the launch would have been prime VR seats at the Superbowl in which the worst seats in the stadium were selling for prices starting at $9K (or nearly 3 Vpros)... to be followed up by prime VR seats for March Madness... NBA playoffs, Olympics, etc. How much are tickets to Taylor Swift concert going for (go ahead, look it up)? Cut a deal with her for prime VR seats. All other desirable concerts too? Broadway Season VR tickets? Etc. Here's prime seats to a regular season Miami Heat game...
$86K would buy a LOT of Vpros and some kind of subscription season-ticket service to have up to millions of bodies sit in the same VR seats so that all involved on the sell side can profit and the customers lacking $86K for ONE game can feel significant value too.
Apple seemed to apply their "we're serious about gaming this time" strategy which is basically "build it and they will come". What both this and gaming on Mac needs is more than that... like spending a chunk of the endless well of cash doing nothing as well as applying dedicated talent- like talent cranking out AppleTV+ content- working on Vpro wow after wow. I definitely do NOT think THIS is a "build it and they will come" product. It needs "software side" stimulation/subsidies/dedication/focus.
In my imagination, I also can envision seemingly "product first" (minded) Jobs rolling out some incarnation of Vpro with a line like "A Mac, an iPhone, an iPad... a Mac, an iPhone, an iPad" echoing another line he DID use to launch another product: "an iPod, a phone, an internet device." Apparently, Cook preferred to avoid the potential cannibalization of letting it be all 3 in one device. How different the value proposition would look if it was $1X00 iPhone-VR + $X00 iPad-VR + $1X00-$4X00 Mac-VR + $X00 Watch-VR + $X00-$7X00 TV-VR within ONE device that costs substantially less than all of those products sold separately. And note that the approx. $1K iPhone subsidy alone would immediately seem to cut the Vpro price to $2499*.
Last edited:
WarmWinterHat
Suspended
Yea, that's a big bummer and my bike has ANT+ sensors. The BT options just don't compare.