Marketting is why they would call it Retina Ultra... the displays are technically that, but you do not look AT the screens - you look towards a focal point that would likely be between 1.3 meters and 2 meters distance... what would be the screen equivalent that took up your main field of view to cover that all up in screen? Now expand all those dots to cover that screen and then identify the PPI of what that screen would be.
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.
Would you like to guess what Apple will remove for Apple Vision - Not Pro?
- Thread starter Piggie
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe not, but then I was reading it as it was written by another and believed you were stating the resolution downgraded was not a problem because your brain would fill it in.
Yep, agree that all of these are very likely possibilities.
I also think polycarbonate edges instead of aluminum seems possible as well, not just for cost savings, but also the lighter weight of plastic might be a more friendly introduction for regular consumers.
Replacing aluminum would be insignificant over all... just reduce quality. (you are talking of like 20 to 40 grams). You might save 50% on that aluminum by switching it to composite.. so save 10 to 20 grams... not worth changing the device to feeling cheaper.
Last edited:
What can Apple genuinely do that doesn't degrade the experience?
This isn't like comparing iPhone or iPads. There's much less wiggle room for an inferior display, before the experience is dramatically different. No way will Apple use an older chip. The cameras are very important being Apple is focusing the UI and default apps on AR.
Yes, they can use lower grade materials for the design. Yes, they can cut out the built in speakers/earphones. But will that and a slightly inferior display actually sell for half the price as the Vision Pro? I highly doubt it.
This isn't like comparing iPhone or iPads. There's much less wiggle room for an inferior display, before the experience is dramatically different. No way will Apple use an older chip. The cameras are very important being Apple is focusing the UI and default apps on AR.
Yes, they can use lower grade materials for the design. Yes, they can cut out the built in speakers/earphones. But will that and a slightly inferior display actually sell for half the price as the Vision Pro? I highly doubt it.
I think Apple considers the resolution the minimum for the UI they want to deliver, every bit as much as they consider the external screen part of their philosophy on the device.
I do t think we get a consumer version until supply chains on these screens have ramped up to make it less expensive.
I think the vision consumer version will use “less premium” materials (plastic) for the body and potentially outer display. That will open up the easy personalization of having multiple colors available as well.
If you've been following the history of Apple's headset over the past few years, you'll know the outward facing display was a non-negotiable feature from Jony Ive. Reverse pass-through is what makes Apple's headset socially acceptable. Ive steered Apple to a relatively lightweight standalone headset. On the other hand, the alternative design proposed by Mike Rockwell was a much more powerful unit connected to a base station. Given Apple has chosen Jony Ive's direction, I think there is a zero chance Apple will delete that feature on cheaper models.
Keep in mind Apple has already compromised on the resolution compared to Rockwell's design to get to a standalone headset. More importantly, there is no indication from Apple the Vision Pro offers some kind of "baseline" resolution compared to competitors. Apple has been very careful about that in their marketing materials.
Aluminum is already a "less premium" material compared to stainless steel or titanium. Even $249 Watch SE uses aluminum. Will they cut it to plastic for the sake of cutting it down? I don't think so.
Should have known it would be Ive who would have insisted in such a stupid idea.
I'm so glad he's left Apple as pretty much every single product has improved since he left.
Needed to kick him out years ago.
I've not heard one reviewer actually like that idea, and yes it's a dumb idea.
If anyone thinks they will be happy on not consider it rude if you are trying to talk to you, and you don't have the decency to remove the headset you have another think coming.
Honestly, whilst it might be a clever trick technically. It's a fail in the making as People are not going to sit and talk to you, looking at a fake pair of eyes. Take the dam thing off your face whilst I'm talking to you.
Didn't realise it was another dumb Ive idea. I should have known.
And yes, it's going to be scrapped on all the headsets after a little while.
I'm so glad he's left Apple as pretty much every single product has improved since he left.
Needed to kick him out years ago.
I've not heard one reviewer actually like that idea, and yes it's a dumb idea.
If anyone thinks they will be happy on not consider it rude if you are trying to talk to you, and you don't have the decency to remove the headset you have another think coming.
Honestly, whilst it might be a clever trick technically. It's a fail in the making as People are not going to sit and talk to you, looking at a fake pair of eyes. Take the dam thing off your face whilst I'm talking to you.
Didn't realise it was another dumb Ive idea. I should have known.
And yes, it's going to be scrapped on all the headsets after a little while.
I find it hard to imagine because I really feel the Vision Pro truly is the minimum viable product in terms of feature set.
From the displays to the hand and eye tracking. I feel like those are all minimum specs for Apple and visionOS. Even EyeSight is core to their philosophy so I can't imagine them backtracking on that.
But my best guess would be similar to the current iPhone lineup where the non-Pro has the same chip set of last year's iPhone Pro with a few cutbacks in other areas.
So a non-Pro would maybe look like this:
- "Older" chipset from the previous year's Vision Pro (i.e. first non-Pro Vision will have the M2 chip).
- Polycarbonate plastic build similar to the AirPods or the iPhone 5C -- Highly dependent on ability to dissipate heat effectively otherwise they have to stick to aluminum.
- EyeSight display similar to Vision Pro (1st Generation) whereas the Pro gets a higher res/improved version for differentiation.
- Storage starts at 128GB if the Pro starts at 256GB, otherwise starts at 256GB with an upgrade to 512GB being expensive as always. Logic draw from current Macbook lineup.
- Displays being identical to Vision Pro (1st Gen) while the Vision Pro 2 gets improved displays somehow (e.g. ProMotion at 120hz while non-Pro stays at 90).
Edit: but to be honest, the more I think about it the more I'm convinced that Apple just won't compromise on the experience too much. We might not see a non-Pro until the supply chains for the Pro parts are significantly more robust and streamlined such that a more affordable Vision becomes viable at the current specs. So maybe a couple of years at least after the Pro launches next year.
From the displays to the hand and eye tracking. I feel like those are all minimum specs for Apple and visionOS. Even EyeSight is core to their philosophy so I can't imagine them backtracking on that.
But my best guess would be similar to the current iPhone lineup where the non-Pro has the same chip set of last year's iPhone Pro with a few cutbacks in other areas.
So a non-Pro would maybe look like this:
- "Older" chipset from the previous year's Vision Pro (i.e. first non-Pro Vision will have the M2 chip).
- Polycarbonate plastic build similar to the AirPods or the iPhone 5C -- Highly dependent on ability to dissipate heat effectively otherwise they have to stick to aluminum.
- EyeSight display similar to Vision Pro (1st Generation) whereas the Pro gets a higher res/improved version for differentiation.
- Storage starts at 128GB if the Pro starts at 256GB, otherwise starts at 256GB with an upgrade to 512GB being expensive as always. Logic draw from current Macbook lineup.
- Displays being identical to Vision Pro (1st Gen) while the Vision Pro 2 gets improved displays somehow (e.g. ProMotion at 120hz while non-Pro stays at 90).
Edit: but to be honest, the more I think about it the more I'm convinced that Apple just won't compromise on the experience too much. We might not see a non-Pro until the supply chains for the Pro parts are significantly more robust and streamlined such that a more affordable Vision becomes viable at the current specs. So maybe a couple of years at least after the Pro launches next year.
Last edited:
One things for sure, following early press demo's which were only 30 mins long, once the excitement has worn off the issue of weight has been mentioned by quite a few now.
So, if Apple want this to be for normal people to wear for far far longer then getting rid of weight may end up being a priority.
As has been suggested before.
1: Lose the large glass front panel
2: Lose the Spooky Eye screen - which is going to be scrapped soon anyway I'm sure
3: A lighter material for the body/shell of the device (high quality plastic type material)
4: Perhaps with more machine learning a couple of camera's could be removed.
The Vision Pro without a internal battery (battery on a wire you have to carry around)
being heavier than pretty much all the other headsets for sale now which do also include a battery is seriously something they need to address.
And, whilst I don't wish to be negative is a bit of a fail.
Weight of something strapped to the front of your face is a MAJOR issue if you expect people to wear it for hours doing normal things (not just 1 hour of playing a game in VR)
Metal/Glass and pointless screens just screams Jony Ive (form over function) where he messed up so many Apple products in the past.
Hopefully Apple will see sense and with feedback get rid of all the weight they can which will then lead to lower costs for the consumer model.
So, if Apple want this to be for normal people to wear for far far longer then getting rid of weight may end up being a priority.
As has been suggested before.
1: Lose the large glass front panel
2: Lose the Spooky Eye screen - which is going to be scrapped soon anyway I'm sure
3: A lighter material for the body/shell of the device (high quality plastic type material)
4: Perhaps with more machine learning a couple of camera's could be removed.
The Vision Pro without a internal battery (battery on a wire you have to carry around)
being heavier than pretty much all the other headsets for sale now which do also include a battery is seriously something they need to address.
And, whilst I don't wish to be negative is a bit of a fail.
Weight of something strapped to the front of your face is a MAJOR issue if you expect people to wear it for hours doing normal things (not just 1 hour of playing a game in VR)
Metal/Glass and pointless screens just screams Jony Ive (form over function) where he messed up so many Apple products in the past.
Hopefully Apple will see sense and with feedback get rid of all the weight they can which will then lead to lower costs for the consumer model.
According to the financial times, one of the things that might change with a cheaper version is using mini LED instead of micro OLED.
I feel we will follow a similar pattern to the iPhone in its early days with a single product line offered and the previous gen hanging around at a lower price when the next gen device is announced. I think we're quite a number of years out from a regular Vision as a distinct product line being offered.
When/if it comes I feel Vision will then be an accessory to the iPhone. Essentially it will be a monitor you plug in with the battery and processing all happening on the iPhone. It will be lighter and less capable with the Vision Pro being the more powerful device with built in processing.
When/if it comes I feel Vision will then be an accessory to the iPhone. Essentially it will be a monitor you plug in with the battery and processing all happening on the iPhone. It will be lighter and less capable with the Vision Pro being the more powerful device with built in processing.
There won't be any Apple Vision non-Pro which tech will be less than what Apple Vision Pro first gen has.
What might happen is:
a) Apple will keep focusing on only one Vision Pro, slowly improving it's tech and slowly decreasing its price along the years.
b) Apple will keep releasing a Vision Pro, and when the component price will go down significantly then it'll start selling a Apple Vision "Regular", but which technology will still be equal to or greater than today's Apple Vision Pro, while this last will remain very pricey but also top-notch, somewhat like the iPhone lineup.
What might happen is:
a) Apple will keep focusing on only one Vision Pro, slowly improving it's tech and slowly decreasing its price along the years.
b) Apple will keep releasing a Vision Pro, and when the component price will go down significantly then it'll start selling a Apple Vision "Regular", but which technology will still be equal to or greater than today's Apple Vision Pro, while this last will remain very pricey but also top-notch, somewhat like the iPhone lineup.
I agree, I don't think there will be non Pro version for at least the 3rd gen. Apple will focus only on Pro - while simultaneously bring the price down once the MicroOLED is readily available (or new cheaper micro lenses with similar spec were developed) and changing the design slowly. However I don't see Apple is going to remove the external display nor the virtual eyes. It is their trademark, like notch on iPhone to differentiate it with other VRs. Apple love to look different. Some people might opt to never used it, but I will do as I think it is not as creepy as I thought previously (it looks like you are wearing astronaut helmet).
The glass front. That's it.
The Vision Pro, as is, seems like the minimum viable product for a spatial experience. From the eye and hand tracking to the display resolutions. If possible, maybe removing any cameras that aren't fully necessary (perhaps software-side improvements to compensate?). Even the processing power is definitely necessary to drive the OS (both M2 and R1) so cutting that out for an A chip makes no sense.
But otherwise, I feel like the seamless glass front contributes not only to production costs but also significantly to weight. Sure, aluminum is still metal but it's also quite light. Glass on the other hand is always heavy unless I'm missing something. Not to mention aluminum dissipates heat unlike plastic, which if Vision Air uses might mean unnecessary thermal throttling or louder fans.
I think Apple went for the one-piece glass to "hide" the cameras so that onlookers aren't as creeped out by a bunch of lens pointed at them. A non-Pro could maybe substitute the full glass front for an aluminum unibody with glass pieces only covering the individual camera/sensors and the EyeSight display, which I personally DONT want removed. Maybe even using some kind of acrylic cover if they exist for the EyeSight display to make the headset even lighter.
This way a "Vision Air" could be slightly less expensive as well as lighter. But other features need to remain. I see Apple possibly including an M2 (or probably an M3 at that point) in a non-Pro but throttled so the internal fans aren't necessary and saves on both weight and cost. Much like the MacBook Air lacks fans--though with such a small design idk if that's possible.
But TL;DR: I hope Apple just relies on economies of scale to drive down the price of a non-Pro rather than removal of features.
The Vision Pro, as is, seems like the minimum viable product for a spatial experience. From the eye and hand tracking to the display resolutions. If possible, maybe removing any cameras that aren't fully necessary (perhaps software-side improvements to compensate?). Even the processing power is definitely necessary to drive the OS (both M2 and R1) so cutting that out for an A chip makes no sense.
But otherwise, I feel like the seamless glass front contributes not only to production costs but also significantly to weight. Sure, aluminum is still metal but it's also quite light. Glass on the other hand is always heavy unless I'm missing something. Not to mention aluminum dissipates heat unlike plastic, which if Vision Air uses might mean unnecessary thermal throttling or louder fans.
I think Apple went for the one-piece glass to "hide" the cameras so that onlookers aren't as creeped out by a bunch of lens pointed at them. A non-Pro could maybe substitute the full glass front for an aluminum unibody with glass pieces only covering the individual camera/sensors and the EyeSight display, which I personally DONT want removed. Maybe even using some kind of acrylic cover if they exist for the EyeSight display to make the headset even lighter.
This way a "Vision Air" could be slightly less expensive as well as lighter. But other features need to remain. I see Apple possibly including an M2 (or probably an M3 at that point) in a non-Pro but throttled so the internal fans aren't necessary and saves on both weight and cost. Much like the MacBook Air lacks fans--though with such a small design idk if that's possible.
But TL;DR: I hope Apple just relies on economies of scale to drive down the price of a non-Pro rather than removal of features.
Last edited:
Doing the processing off the device won’t really simplify things. The headset would have to send and receive a huge amount of data over a cable, instead of just power. They’d probably at least want to keep the R1 chip onboard to do some processing for head, eye, and hand tracking, to lessen data usage. And I don’t think people will be happy to have a drained phone battery after using their headset for an hour or two.
I think they could remove the face gasket to disallow a fully immersive experience? (like the Quest Pro, ironically)
They could market it with a different product strategy and sell it as more of a reality connected user experience. Sure they could let Logitech sell their own wonky gasket but the potential buyer will upsell themselves to get the more immersive 'Pro' version.
No outward facing screen?
Unapologetically plastic?
Lower resolution might happen but to be honest by the time it releases in 2025 or whatever, the prices for 4K screens may have come way down?
They could market it with a different product strategy and sell it as more of a reality connected user experience. Sure they could let Logitech sell their own wonky gasket but the potential buyer will upsell themselves to get the more immersive 'Pro' version.
No outward facing screen?
Unapologetically plastic?
Lower resolution might happen but to be honest by the time it releases in 2025 or whatever, the prices for 4K screens may have come way down?
Last edited:
That's never happening. That gasket is there to function not just for user comfort but also as a glasses spacer so glasses wearers can use it. Plus the gasket doesn't cost much if any to make, so there's no reason to get rid of it.
Also the Quest Pro was recently cancelled with no plans for a gen 2, while the Quest 3 still has a face gasket.
Now this they could do. Hell the VR press after demoing the Vision Pro at WWDC the #1 thing they all agreed would be logical to cut in a consumer model was the outward display. A lot of people do not like the eye display and would rather it be gone completely.
Of course the question is, will Apple actually remove it? Probably not since they don't want to because "it needs to keep you from being isolated from others" despite the fact I don't want people seeing my eyes.
Plastic would make sense since Quest and Pico are plastic. However it's unlikely they would do plastic since Apple doesn't do any plastic since the iPhone 5c, since they wanna be viewed as luxury and plastic doesn't give the look of luxury.
(Sidenote, I miss the plastic Macbooks. They were so good)
When you lower the resolution this could compromise text and content quality, which defeats the purpose of spatial computing.
Honestly I think a lot of the high cost issues with the Vision Pro is just the fact it's a pain in the ass to manufacture. A curved logic board, curved displays, the only people making the displays is Sony and Sony is prioritizing them for their PSVR 2 headset. It's one of the reasons Apple bought Mira Labs, to figure out how to easily mass produce HMDs to lower costs.
I doubt it. Look at how iPhone Pro models stick around only one year. That's by design.
Apple of 2023 is very different from the Apple of 2007. The company is chasing margins at every step. High component costs and margin expectations mean Apple cannot simply rebadge a Pro device as a mainstream product. To maintain the allure of Pro and the high margins associated with it, they need to have separate features and prices.
Why do you think Apple announced their headset a full 6-12 months before availability? When was the last time Apple paper launched a product?
Apple announced their headset early so they could get critical mass ASAP. Waiting until 2026 or whatever to launch a mainstream headset is the last thing Apple would do. Apple's mainstream headset will come quickly. If that means dropping the resolution to 3.5K, so be it.
Look how quickly $999 iPhone X was relaunched as $749 iPhone XR. It only took 12 months. Apple Watch launched in 2015 and was quickly bifurcated into Series 1 and 2 in 2016 to accommodate mainstream consumers. Vision will follow the same roadmap.
I don't see the manufacturing process is getting simplified anytime soon for cheaper product, not with the current rate of our technology. Unlike iPhone which already has established manufacturing process in place, Vision Pro is the first in kind and a complex one too with all the curved glass (also don't forget with limited materials availability).
Also we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Don't get me wrong, I think Apple still offers the first VisionPro for mainstream. Yes, there is that $3499 price tag, but since when Apple scare about pricing their product that high, or even higher? (MacPro $6999 - $7499). The problem here is not that price tag or public demand, but because it is the first product in line, which is what the 12 months period for. They need to:
1. get the manufacturing process ready in time
2. get all the materials required
3. get the ecosystem running (with developers)
The aluminum & carbon fibre in the frame and the gasket all have functions in what we will know holistically as the Vision Pro. The frame as I understand it is aluminum facing away from the wearer, carbon fibre on the internal frame. The aluminum will act partially as a heat sink that will draw the heat away from the wearer, and the carbon fibre will provide the strength to the frame while not reflecting the heat back at the wearer. Both of those materials are very light in comparison to the overall weight (max 40 grams depending on many factors). Plastic is more prone to cracking and chipping when in small accidents - and hopefully the carbon fibre insert will act as a buffer optics to protect them. Replacing the aluminum with plastic does not buy you much when the optical displays make up a considerable portion of the overall cost of manufacture. The light seal acts to keep the optics at a specified distance from the eyes, which is important for the light which is bent to seem like it is coming from a given focal point and if the screen is moved closer - it will more than likely cause more VR headaches.
We do seem to be struggling to think of many realistic ways to reduce pricing without reducing quality.
Some posters seem to feel that Apple won't sacrifice quality to make it cheaper, but others think that there's not much weight saving to be made (aluminium for a heat sink)
Personally I'm sure after user feedback and trials Apple may find that a few things can be slightly changed.
Perhaps a couple of camera's could be removed as others can cover the same job.
Perhaps also that outer screen will be dropped (I think that's almost certain) as It's probably pretty expensive and of very limited value.
Of course, we have scale of manufacturing which always helps to drive down pricing of components.
However, even taking all these guesses into account, to get from $3500 + Taxes down to a consumer price point feels pretty impossible right now.
IMHO for the current VR ? Enthusiast $1000 (a little over) feels as far as you could push the pricing realistically to get any decent sales numbers.
If you watch Apple's own video of "normal people" wearing them. If that's their market it's still way too expensive.
Meta who is aiming at the $500 mark is probably where you need to try for to convince a typical person in the street to want one (even then I feel it's hard unless there is a major case for owning one)
It feels like Apple wants to create a new market.
It's very obviously ignoring the current customers who own VR headsets as there was nothing in the Keynote aimed at them whatsoever. Which is kinda odd when you think about it.
A bit like creating a new car and totally ignoring the only real current customers of cars.
As I've said multiple times. It's sure going to be interesting to see how this all pans out, as right now, apart from YouTubers, Apple enthusiasts and some businesses trying things out, if feels like there is no market for this product.
And making it cheap enough that "normal people" will be tempted to buy it is such a long long way away.
Some posters seem to feel that Apple won't sacrifice quality to make it cheaper, but others think that there's not much weight saving to be made (aluminium for a heat sink)
Personally I'm sure after user feedback and trials Apple may find that a few things can be slightly changed.
Perhaps a couple of camera's could be removed as others can cover the same job.
Perhaps also that outer screen will be dropped (I think that's almost certain) as It's probably pretty expensive and of very limited value.
Of course, we have scale of manufacturing which always helps to drive down pricing of components.
However, even taking all these guesses into account, to get from $3500 + Taxes down to a consumer price point feels pretty impossible right now.
IMHO for the current VR ? Enthusiast $1000 (a little over) feels as far as you could push the pricing realistically to get any decent sales numbers.
If you watch Apple's own video of "normal people" wearing them. If that's their market it's still way too expensive.
Meta who is aiming at the $500 mark is probably where you need to try for to convince a typical person in the street to want one (even then I feel it's hard unless there is a major case for owning one)
It feels like Apple wants to create a new market.
It's very obviously ignoring the current customers who own VR headsets as there was nothing in the Keynote aimed at them whatsoever. Which is kinda odd when you think about it.
A bit like creating a new car and totally ignoring the only real current customers of cars.
As I've said multiple times. It's sure going to be interesting to see how this all pans out, as right now, apart from YouTubers, Apple enthusiasts and some businesses trying things out, if feels like there is no market for this product.
And making it cheap enough that "normal people" will be tempted to buy it is such a long long way away.