Would you like to guess what Apple will remove for Apple Vision - Not Pro?

[Piggie]

Just for fun, would you like to explain what you think Apple will do to create the Apple Vision, as opposed to the Apple Vision Pro headset.

Knowing Apple, they don't want a bad name for the actual image quality which is fundamental to this product, so I don't feel they will really want to mess with the display very much. Perhaps a very slight downgrade, but not enough to be very noticable.

The first and most obvious thing I can see being removed is the Spooky Eye display screen on the front. Many reviews have even suggested this may be scrapped anyway, so I feel that's an easy thing to go and save costs.
Then we can scrap the expensive curved front glass as that won't be needed.

Eye tracking I feel will stay along with the hand tracking. But I feel they may be able to use more machine learning to simply remove a few camera's and still do the same job.

Perhaps a plastic housing? But then Apple are not really into Plastic, so I'm not sure about that.

The headband, perhaps a little cheaper, but I can't really see that making much of a price difference.

Speakers could be removed, or made less impressive and they could push more towards a cheaper version and suggest airpods if you want higher quality.

Or.........................

They are actually making around 100% profit on the current headset and not much will actually be removed.
It will just be cut in price, stay pretty much the same, and a higher end model will appear to become the next pro model.

Your thoughts?

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Just for fun, would you like to explain what you think Apple will do to create the Apple Vision, as opposed to the Apple Vision Pro headset.

Knowing Apple, they don't want a bad name for the actual image quality which is fundamental to this product, so I don't feel they will really want to mess with the display very much. Perhaps a very slight downgrade, but not enough to be very noticable.

The first and most obvious thing I can see being removed is the Spooky Eye display screen on the front. Many reviews have even suggested this may be scrapped anyway, so I feel that's an easy thing to go and save costs.
Then we can scrap the expensive curved front glass as that won't be needed.

Eye tracking I feel will stay along with the hand tracking. But I feel they may be able to use more machine learning to simply remove a few camera's and still do the same job.

Perhaps a plastic housing? But then Apple are not really into Plastic, so I'm not sure about that.

The headband, perhaps a little cheaper, but I can't really see that making much of a price difference.

Speakers could be removed, or made less impressive and they could push more towards a cheaper version and suggest airpods if you want higher quality.

Or.........................

They are actually making around 100% profit on the current headset and not much will actually be removed.
It will just be cut in price, stay pretty much the same, and a higher end model will appear to become the next pro model.

Your thoughts?

The spooky eye display will be replaced by something that mimics the Battlestar Galactica (Classic) Cylons... or maybe that is just my wish list for it 🤣
Seriously though it is too far away right now since it likely would not be available til 2026+. By then maybe the existing components will come down in price to be the 'Air' model (though likely $2,000+ at that point still). It won't be until the following releases after that that they would likely have the Air model that meets their standards by maybe 2028 at $1,500ish (but not less than that).

 

[Piggie]

The spooky eye display will be replaced by something that mimics the Battlestar Galactica (Classic) Cylons... or maybe that is just my wish list for it 🤣
Seriously though it is too far away right now since it likely would not be available til 2026+. By then maybe the existing components will come down in price to be the 'Air' model (though likely $2,000+ at that point still). It won't be until the following releases after that that they would likely have the Air model that meets their standards by maybe 2028 at $1,500ish (but not less than that).

I feel you are being too pessimistic.
I'd suggest it has to come sooner than 2026+
And I'd suggest a $1499 price point.

 

[JPack]

Apple will cut the resolution of the twin micro-OLED displays for sure. That is one of the most expensive parts of the headset. Think iPhone XR/11 LCD. The side benefit is allowing Apple to use a cheaper A-series chip with a cheaper cooling system to drive the headset.

100% Apple will keep the external OLED display. It’s not an expensive component and the resolution can be lower. Most importantly, it’s fundamental to Vision and is what differentiates their product. Apple positions their headset as a social product rather than isolating.

Apple can delete the audio system and make you buy your own AirPods or Bluetooth earbuds. They might be able to cut the camera, sensor, and illuminator count by some amount which could reduce outdoor performance.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Apple will cut the resolution of the twin micro-OLED displays for sure. That is one of the most expensive parts of the headset. Think iPhone XR/11 LCD. The side benefit is allowing Apple to use a cheaper A-series chip with a cheaper cooling system to drive the headset.

100% Apple will keep the external OLED display. It’s not an expensive component and the resolution can be lower. Most importantly, it’s fundamental to Vision and is what differentiates their product. Apple positions their headset as a social product rather than isolating.

Apple can delete the audio system and make you buy your own AirPods or Bluetooth earbuds. They might be able to cut the camera, sensor, and illuminator count by some amount which could reduce outdoor performance.

I don't think so I think the 4K lenses are the minimum for Apple. The rumour is that Apple is working on 6K ones for the pro line for the next one in a few years. I think Apple will work on reducing the price on the 4K ones and won't release anything beneath that level... I think they have no problem leaving the bottom end of the market with low res panels to the likes of Meta etc.

 

[JPack]

I don't think so I think the 4K lenses are the minimum for Apple. The rumour is that Apple is working on 6K ones for the pro line for the next one in a few years. I think Apple will work on reducing the price on the 4K ones and won't release anything beneath that level... I think they have no problem leaving the bottom end of the market with low res panels to the likes of Meta etc.

Right now, the displays exceed 4K. And without the Vision Pro selling in significant numbers, there is no way to reduce the cost of those displays. Keep in mind the low cost version is targeted for 2025 so it’s not a lot of time either.

We have seen Apple use lower resolution displays on iPhone, iPad, Mac. Not sure why Vision would be different.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Those were all existing product lines, 2 out of three had basically no competition so to speak of at the beginning. Apple had the cheaper technology available to them earlier, but I think made a concious decision to enter the market only once the technology they were able to create differentiated them enough from existing headsets... High enough technology where it is at a level where 10%+ won't get sick wearing it... I just do not see Apple wanting to damage the brand by being an alsoran at the low end. The displays are not limited run because of the price, it is because they are currently at the bleeding edge and they are not able to produce them in the quantity needed. Once they work out the manufacturing issues and the quantity improves - the cost will come down (though not down to Meta Quest level). It is similar to the difference in the cost of bleeding edge of silicon - early adopters at the bleeding edge pay much more for that privlege but after a few years, the plants still pump out more of those old ones... at a much lower price... Apple will let the technology slide down into the spot it will eventually take --- which is why I don't expect the 'regular' device to be less than $2,000 on the next round (probably somewhere above that price but below $3,000 which was the original target price mentioned in rumours -- I think the $3,499 price was just a way of dampening down demand for a product that they won't have enough at that price anyways). So I think the floor will be basically this resolution @ 90 refresh - while the pro line will move up to 6K@120 (maybe even at a higher initial price than $3,499).

 

[JPack]

Those were all existing product lines, 2 out of three had basically no competition so to speak of at the beginning. Apple had the cheaper technology available to them earlier, but I think made a concious decision to enter the market only once the technology they were able to create differentiated them enough from existing headsets... High enough technology where it is at a level where 10%+ won't get sick wearing it... I just do not see Apple wanting to damage the brand by being an alsoran at the low end. The displays are not limited run because of the price, it is because they are currently at the bleeding edge and they are not able to produce them in the quantity needed. Once they work out the manufacturing issues and the quantity improves - the cost will come down (though not down to Meta Quest level). It is similar to the difference in the cost of bleeding edge of silicon - early adopters at the bleeding edge pay much more for that privlege but after a few years, the plants still pump out more of those old ones... at a much lower price... Apple will let the technology slide down into the spot it will eventually take --- which is why I don't expect the 'regular' device to be less than $2,000 on the next round (probably somewhere above that price but below $3,000 which was the original target price mentioned in rumours -- I think the $3,499 price was just a way of dampening down demand for a product that they won't have enough at that price anyways). So I think the floor will be basically this resolution @ 90 refresh - while the pro line will move up to 6K@120 (maybe even at a higher initial price than $3,499).

In other words, the display costs more $350. For comparison, the cutting edge iPhone X display cost $110 when it launched. What did we see next year? The iPhone XR with an LCD.

The idea that Apple won't cut the display resolution is almost a dream. What alternative part can Apple cut to make it a $2,499 product? The headband? The battery?

The resolution won't be too low, maybe in the 3.5K range or whatever the A18 Pro silicon can drive.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

View attachment 2226615

In other words, the display costs more $350. For comparison, the cutting edge iPhone X display cost $110 when it launched. What did we see next year? The iPhone XR with an LCD.

The idea that Apple won't cut the display resolution is almost a dream. What alternative part can Apple cut to make it a $2,499 product? The headband? The battery?

The resolution won't be too low, maybe in the 3.5K range or whatever the A18 Pro silicon can drive.

The entire supply available to Apple because of manufacturing issues is 900,000. Until they can manufacture in the volume of the iPhone X display - it will remain priced at a premium relative to that volume. Once manufacturing issues are worked out... that price will lower. They have 2 to 3 years of production (probably til early 2026) to work out volume lowering the price of components by working out issues that make mass production difficult (that includes new things like curved motherboards which is new and likely costly - a requirement to make the device thinner). The price rumoured just before launch was $3,000... my bet is that is what they would have gone with if not for the mass manufacturing issues... so lowering the unit price for the Vision to something like $2,299 would require being able to reduce the price of components by around 22%. For tech that is bleeding edge an overall cost reduction of 22% is well within the realm of possibility and would allow Apple to release the first Vision at around the $2,299 price as a repurposed Vision Pro 2024. It is not just the displays that are a premium run, it is the manufacturing, curved motherboards, cameras, sensors, etc.

If they cannot hit that price and they want a higher end Pro - they will just hit whatever price they can above that amount but the Pro would be free to go up in price for real professional uses. The current silicon R1/M2 is based on 5nm, by 2026 the target is for production of 2nm chips by TSMC.

 

[Jensend]

View attachment 2226615

In other words, the display costs more $350. For comparison, the cutting edge iPhone X display cost $110 when it launched. What did we see next year? The iPhone XR with an LCD.

The idea that Apple won't cut the display resolution is almost a dream. What alternative part can Apple cut to make it a $2,499 product? The headband? The battery?

The resolution won't be too low, maybe in the 3.5K range or whatever the A18 Pro silicon can drive.

When you’re slicing blocks with lightsabers, you can get away with very low resolutions, but when you’re reading text on a website, lower resolutions just won’t cut it.

 

[Sheepish-Lord]

Battery pack sold separately which honestly might not be that bad because I have no doubt Apple will eventually make bigger batteries to swap out.

 

[Piggie]

Battery pack sold separately which honestly might not be that bad because I have no doubt Apple will eventually make bigger batteries to swap out.

Well, whilst that might sounds crazy now.
Remember Apple started the trend of selling a device (iPhone) that comes with no way of keeping it powered up. Forcing you to buy a charger either from Apple or a 3rd party, unless you already had a charger.

So using that logic, whilst it sounds crazy, and I don't think they would dare do it (not yet anyway) they could sell a headset and say the battery pack is extra, or you use another battery pack.
As I say, I don't think they would be that greedy? Well it is Apple so you never know

 

[JPack]

When you’re slicing blocks with lightsabers, you can get away with very low resolutions, but when you’re reading text on a website, lower resolutions just won’t cut it.

Same argument we heard with iPhone XR.

"No way it'll come with LCD. Apple won't go backwards."

"326 PPI won't cut it. iPhone X has 458 PPI. Even iPhone 6 Plus has 401 PPI."

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Same argument we heard with iPhone XR.

"No way it'll come with LCD. Apple won't go backwards."

"326 PPI won't cut it. iPhone X has 458 PPI. Even iPhone 6 Plus has 401 PPI."

The PPI for the visual image on the Vision Pro is considerably less (5K/27" panel at around 80cm at around 15 million pixels/220PPI, focal point likely between 1.3 meters and 2 meters larger field of view at 23 million). Yes, it is really high on the panel sitting in front of your eye, but it translates to the equivalent of much less than that at the focal point. As I said, it is really the minimum that Apple would be confortable these days going with.

 

[JPack]

The PPI for the visual image on the Vision Pro is considerably less (5K/27" panel at around 80cm at around 15 million pixels/220PPI, focal point likely between 1.3 meters and 2 meters larger field of view at 23 million). Yes, it is really high on the panel sitting in front of your eye, but it translates to the equivalent of much less than that at the focal point. As I said, it is really the minimum that Apple would be confortable these days going with.

Apple would rather grab market and mind share ASAP over the objections of a few techies who say the image is relatively grainy. You guys are really underestimating how much Apple software, integration, and sheer brand recognition are worth.

"Nobody will buy a smartphone with a 720p display in 2018."

And if the mainstream Vision has the same resolution as the Vision Pro, how will Apple sell the Pro? Or do you think consumers will say, "Sure, I have no problem spending an extra $1,000 for the Pro battery and Pro headband"?

 

[Jensend]

Same argument we heard with iPhone XR.

The iPhone XR was Retina, so by Apple's metrics, it shouldn't have a perceivably lower resolution. The XR held at a typical viewing distance will have a higher PPD than the Vison Pro.

"No way it'll come with LCD. Apple won't go backwards."

I think an LCD Apple Vision could work. It's not that I don't see Apple "going backwards", rather that I think UIs and Apps built for Apple Vision Pro's resolution wouldn't work well at lower resolutions.

"326 PPI won't cut it. iPhone X has 458 PPI. Even iPhone 6 Plus has 401 PPI."

Part of the reason the OLED iPhones have a higher resolution is because they don't a full set of RGB subpixels for each pixel. A square inch of an OLED iPhone display has almost exactly the same number of red and blue subpixels as a square inch of the 326 PPI LCD iPhones (about 99% as many).

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Apple would rather grab market and mind share ASAP over the objections of a few techies who say the image is relatively grainy. You guys are really underestimating how much Apple software, integration, and sheer brand recognition are worth.

"Nobody will buy a smartphone with a 720p display in 2018."

And if the mainstream Vision has the same resolution as the Vision Pro, how will Apple sell the Pro? Or do you think consumers will say, "Sure, I have no problem spending an extra $1,000 for the Pro battery and Pro headband"?

If true, Apple would have come out with a device much easier to compete with the likes of Meta Quest (it is after all ... They have an idea of what their market is and if it makes more than 10% of people sick, or you cannot use it in your everyday life or it makes real life look like smaller versions of legos... and is only really useful as a game device... then that was not the market Apple was after... so they worked on their R&D longer... Facebook bought Oculus in 2014 (yes that long ago), that is 10 years before Apple's first 'AR' device.

 

[JPack]

The iPhone XR was Retina, so by Apple's metrics, it shouldn't have a perceivably lower resolution. The XR held at a typical viewing distance will have a higher PPD than the Vison Pro.

I think an LCD Apple Vision could work. It's not that I don't see Apple "going backwards", rather that I think UIs and Apps built for Apple Vision Pro's resolution wouldn't work well at lower resolutions.

Part of the reason the OLED iPhones have a higher resolution is because they don't a full set of RGB subpixels for each pixel. A square inch of an OLED iPhone display has almost exactly the same number of red and blue subpixels as a square inch of the 326 PPI LCD iPhones (about 99% as many).

Retina was a marketing line in the sand in 2010. In real world conditions, the X has a sharper display whether you look at it normally or with a magnifying glass. We saw 401 PPI iPhone 6 Plus so clearly, Apple didn't think 326 PPI "Retina" was good enough.

If Apple decrees a lower resolution for mainstream Vision, developers will follow. Everyone goes where the money is.

 

[JPack]

If true, Apple would have come out with a device much easier to compete with the likes of Meta Quest (it is after all ... They have an idea of what their market is and if it makes more than 10% of people sick, or you cannot use it in your everyday life or it makes real life look like smaller versions of legos... and is only really useful as a game device... then that was not the market Apple was after... so they worked on their R&D longer... Facebook bought Oculus in 2014 (yes that long ago), that is 10 years before Apple's first 'AR' device.

I'm not sure why you think it has to be binary: "Either it's Vision Pro resolution or it's gonna be something like Meta Quest and make you sick!"

Apple's Pro headset offers nearly 2.5X more pixels than Meta Quest. Don't you think there's something in between?

 

[Jensend]

Apple would rather grab market and mind share ASAP over the objections of a few techies who say the image is relatively grainy. You guys are really underestimating how much Apple software, integration, and sheer brand recognition are worth.

"Nobody will buy a smartphone with a 720p display in 2018."

And if the mainstream Vision has the same resolution as the Vision Pro, how will Apple sell the Pro? Or do you think consumers will say, "Sure, I have no problem spending an extra $1,000 for the Pro battery and Pro headband"?

Yup, the Vision Pro will have lower PPD than any device they sell today. But it's not really directly comparable, because you get some degree of temporal super-sampling from VR—when you are using VR your head is always moving subtly, so your brain can perceive slightly higher detail by combining and comparing multiple slightly different images.

 

[JPack]

Yup, the Vision Pro will have lower PPD than any device they sell today. But it's not really directly comparable, because you get some degree of temporal super-sampling from VR—when you are using VR your head is always moving subtly, so your brain can perceive slightly higher detail by combining and comparing multiple slightly different images.

The point I'm trying to make is, has Apple said anything along the lines of "If we offered any lower resolution like our competitors, you would have a poor experience. So we've set the bar at 4K+ and we call call this Vision Retina Ultra." I don't think so. So while the experience would be lower, there's no indication it's off the table.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Yup, the Vision Pro will have lower PPD than any device they sell today. But it's not really directly comparable, because you get some degree of temporal super-sampling from VR—when you are using VR your head is always moving subtly, so your brain can perceive slightly higher detail by combining and comparing multiple slightly different images.

Time will tell if I am right about Apple's direction or not. However, this is NOT a VR device, it can be used as a VR device but it is not marketted or slotted as such... and Apple does not currently have any interest in entering the VR market... they are focused on AR. But in Apple's case AR is not just overlaying images with Virtual, they are merging the Virtual into the real world... and no matter how great the images are - what is being merged in is not real quality (i.e. the stuff you would see externally) and the focus of their marketting is not you jerking back and forth and your head is always moving... this is NOT marketted as a gaming device... they won't reject games, they might even show some play time off... but that is not the focus of the device. No one I mentioned said the images were indistinquishable from real life, just very good... (i.e. not there at the target yet, but enough for now). If you want a lower end device go with the Meta Quest 3 or Pro - is basically how Apple is approaching this...
If you were to pick up a book or read a sign, it will be readable but it won't be confusable with looking at the book for real.

 

[Jensend]

Retina was a marketing line in the sand in 2010. In real world conditions, the X has a sharper display whether you look at it normally or with a magnifying glass. We saw 401 PPI iPhone 6 Plus so clearly, Apple didn't think 326 PPI "Retina" was good enough.

If Apple decrees a lower resolution for mainstream Vision, developers will follow. Everyone goes where the money is.

View attachment 2226896

Yes, I know that the XS has more total sub-pixels per inch... I don't need a photo of the screens. Though if you are going to go that route, you should also show an example of a red graphic on a black background.

The PPI for the iPhones Plus was probably so Apple could advertise it as a 1080p screen.

There is some value to having higher than Retina resolution. You may want to lean in to a monitor to look at something from a closer than typical distance, or hold your phone closer to your face.
With VR you are always at a fixed distance from the screen, so the two scenarios can't really be directly compared.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Yes, I know that the XS has more total sub-pixels per inch... I don't need a photo of the screens. Though if you are going to go that route, you should also show an example of a red graphic on a black background.

The PPI for the iPhones Plus was probably so Apple could advertise it as a 1080p screen.

There is some value to having higher than Retina resolution. You may want to lean in to a monitor to look at something from a closer than typical distance, or hold your phone closer to your face.
With VR you are always at a fixed distance from the screen, so the two scenarios can't really be directly compared.

I would say the fixed focal point is more how the PPI should be measured especially when you compare it to whether it would be a retina screen or not (hint it would not).

 

[Jensend]

Apple's Pro headset offers nearly 2.5X more pixels than Meta Quest. Don't you think there's something in between?

Apple Vision (not pro) could have slightly lower resolution, but I don't think Apple could lower the resolution enough that it would lead to significant cost savings while also not not having a significantly negative impact on the overall experience.

The point I'm trying to make is, has Apple said anything along the lines of "If we offered any lower resolution like our competitors, you would have a poor experience. So we've set the bar at 4K+ and we call call this Vision Retina Ultra." I don't think so. So while the experience would be lower, there's no indication it's off the table.

The Vision Pro is already less than Retina resolution, so why would they call it Retina Ultra?

Mostly what I'm saying is that I think there's less flexibility in resolution options for a VR/AR device meant for reading text on webpages than there is for a gaming-focused VR device.