What they could do, perhaps in the future version, is to make the lenses frame detachable from the headset gasket to create an AR only wearable device (AR doesn't need lightseal or even gasket as it lay information on top of real objects) which just look like a normal glasses. Then when you insert it back to the headset and lightseal it works as fully function XR. It sounds complicated but it really isn't and makes it more flexible. You can wear the AR glasses with all the functions available anywhere like walking on the street. You can wear the full headset for XR experience when stationary or in a room. With two batteries system: built in battery and external battery, this might just work better.
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
Nope. In some ways it would be more complicated/costly, because it would require a very high bandwidth connection between the headset and phone. And who wants their phone battery to be drained after an hour or two of using the headset?
With current AR glasses that can connect to phones, the phones only have to render two 1080p screens. And they don’t have a dozen cameras’ worth of data to send to the phone.
I think we’re kidding ourselves if we think that external display is staying. It’s an over engineered solution to the problem of talking to someone in VR, an issue already solved by taking off the headset.
There are 2 people you’re going to be addressing with it on: kids and a spouse. The former will be either be scared witless or use a dorky image of the eyes as an Instagram burn depending on their age, the latter kind of demand physical eye contact. If a partner or teenager posts something ridiculing the eyes on social media you’ll never activate them again due to social pressure (and not wanting to be seen as a dork)
It’s gone in G2, replaced either by frosted acrylic and some LEDs (like the top of the HomePod) or gone entirely.
The prescription lenses will go the way of the gold watch and extra space will be made to accommodate glasses. It won’t be any thicker as they will save space by getting rid of the external screen.
It expect direct Thunderbolt Display capabilities so you can plug it into a Mac and get a better floating display.
There are 2 people you’re going to be addressing with it on: kids and a spouse. The former will be either be scared witless or use a dorky image of the eyes as an Instagram burn depending on their age, the latter kind of demand physical eye contact. If a partner or teenager posts something ridiculing the eyes on social media you’ll never activate them again due to social pressure (and not wanting to be seen as a dork)
It’s gone in G2, replaced either by frosted acrylic and some LEDs (like the top of the HomePod) or gone entirely.
The prescription lenses will go the way of the gold watch and extra space will be made to accommodate glasses. It won’t be any thicker as they will save space by getting rid of the external screen.
It expect direct Thunderbolt Display capabilities so you can plug it into a Mac and get a better floating display.
Not sure about the other aspects you mention but I'm pretty sure you are right that the external display won't last long.
The cost/benefit just does not stack up.
Hearing many podcasts after the event this '3D Spooky Fake Eye-O-Vision' was criticized pretty widely.
And to be honest, if you expect me so sit there having a nice chat with you, when you can't be bothered to take the headset off you've got another think coming.
Don't be rude, unless it's a simple question, take the dam thing off if another human is willing to spend the time to be with you in person and talk.
It's like chatting to someone who is looking at their phone doing things whilst you are trying to talk.
"I might come back later when you actually have time to give me your attention and talk to me properly."
Removing a millimeter-thick display isn’t going to make the device significantly thinner, if at all.
Moving the lenses further from your eyes requires making the lenses larger to get an equivalent FOV. It may also mess with eye tracking to have a second set of lenses that isn’t in a fixed position relative to the headset lenses.
The device needs to get thinner, lighter, and wider-FOV. The Vision Pro line will never accommodate glasses.
It's definitely not light given it's glass but it has to be thin for the optics of all the cameras not to get messed up. In essence, the thickness is probably negligible. Though I personally see a non-Pro dropping the front glass for acrylic while keeping Eyesight.
Apple wants to differentiate itself from the competition and likely wants to head towards either AR glasses or a more compact AR passthrough headset. So having EyeSight kills 2 birds with one stone.
I agree with first impressions that it's kind of goofy. However, I don't see Apple removing the feature. Not to mention I highly doubt the OLED display itself costs them much in either cost or room in the device. And if it did, it's one of those scenarios where Apple is willing to keep the feature for the sake of aesthetics or differentiation.
I also definitely don't see them accommodating glasses. Using my Quest 2 hurts even with a spacer and it's just not fun especially if you take into account different glass sizes (mine are thick rimmed). Might also affect eye tracking and perceived FOV.
Plus Apple would miss out on selling prescription inserts. So no way they're removing the magnetic lenses.
Edit: The concept image shown below isn't technologically feasible, but I imagine Apple might want to get to this level of compactness or something similar in the future. While real AR is great, I think Passthrough VR is more feasible in the short to medium term. And maybe EyeSight could improve to the point of looking convincingly transparent.
In the design portion of the AVP announcement, the British guy even mentions something along the lines of Vision Pro "defining the design principle to influence all future designs" so I think passthrough VR and this form factor, including EyeSight, is what Apple has decided on for now.
Last edited:
Edit: The concept image shown below isn't technologically feasible, but I imagine Apple might want to get to this level of compactness or something similar in the future. While real AR is great, I think Passthrough VR is more feasible in the short to medium term. And maybe EyeSight could improve to the point of looking convincingly transparent.
Off topic, but the concept image you show suddenly brings to mind the thought that users will inevitably want to augment their own digital avatar. Imagine the number of number of kids who want to give themselves anime eyes or simply generate their digital avatar with whatever tiktok beauty filter is popular today.
Reminds me of the receptionist in our office, she clearly had a big night the day before - same clothes, no makeup. To be honest I would never have noticed, but since she couldn't do her make up that morning she wore a face mask all day (this was pre-covid times) because the poor girl had this crippling insecurity about leaving the house without makeup.
So fast forward ten years - insecure teen girls won't remove their passthrough VR headsets because they don't want to be seen without their filters on.
No front glass or front display, cheaper materials, no included battery pack, just a power cable Cheaper / simplified headband with the option to purchase the premium headband. Selection of battery pack capacities. Base price will be $1499 with 128GB of storage. Will have storage options up to 1TB. Same screen resolution and cameras as premium device
Everything interesting probably , sadly
Maybe they’ll include a usb charger , battery optional extra
Maybe they’ll include a usb charger , battery optional extra
-They will remove M2 chip
-Tether to USB3 iPhone
-Battery not included(Use magsafe battery)
-2k displays as
Think PSVR2 but with mixed reality for the price of an Imac or Apple Studio at £1,500.
-Tether to USB3 iPhone
-Battery not included(Use magsafe battery)
-2k displays as
Think PSVR2 but with mixed reality for the price of an Imac or Apple Studio at £1,500.
Vision is intended to replace iPhone, not supplement it. You'll notice none of the marketing photos for Vision Pro involve even a hint of iPhone in the room. Apple decided from the start they didn't want a tethered device even if it meant less processing power.
That would be ideal. Hopefully Apple will design a curved battery that sits at the back of the head strap - like Quest 3. This way, the Vision Pro won’t have to be tethered to a battery pack.
However, this is a 1st gen product and I’m sure many of today’s issues will be solved in 3-4 years.
My two cents:
Apple will never launch a Vision Pro which will be worse than the 1st gen Vision Pro, simply because that would result in a user experience not on-par with Apple's standards.
With time, production costs will go down, tech will evolve and new tech will be developed. This might result in a new and cheaper AVP (AT LEAST as good as the 1st gen) and also a more up-to-date version, much like the iPhone line.
Apple will never launch a Vision Pro which will be worse than the 1st gen Vision Pro, simply because that would result in a user experience not on-par with Apple's standards.
With time, production costs will go down, tech will evolve and new tech will be developed. This might result in a new and cheaper AVP (AT LEAST as good as the 1st gen) and also a more up-to-date version, much like the iPhone line.
No, they won't. That resolution is the minimum resolution to kinda replicate the outer world from our eyes' perspective. Going lower would mean seeing our surroundings pixelated. That just won't happen.
Lowering the two 4K screens' res would mean for users to see pixelated surroundings. So, knowing
Apple, that won't happen.
I could understand such a move to reduce costs, but if you think of it, it's also the ONLY headset with this feature, and Apple always wants people to distinguish their products, not just for the quality, but for the features. Also, I think that's a simple LCD screen, pretty cheap.
So, all considered, I doubt they would remove it.
No we can't. The curved front glass is an engineering feat, since it allows all cameras to see the world as it is, without distortion. It's not just for beauty. It needs to be rounded.
I see your point. But think about it: won't more machine learning require a more powerful processor?
That would require for a better - hence more expensive - Mx and Rx SoCs.
I think the metal is necessary for better heat dissipation. Unfortunately, plastic is terrible at that.
This would make sense. But then, wouldn't we need a pair of earpiece to connect to the device? These would probably cost more than the Apple Vision Pro integrated ones.
This.
I mean, they won't make 100% profit, nor 50%, since production costs for high-end tech won't go down so much in such a short time. But yeah, this is the way they'll go, imo
Which is kinda good, because it means they'll keep the bar high, only making better headsets!
they have to hold the same experience, so i think hardware, "less" processor, display, cameras, maybe ram
I know I've said this before at least a couple of times, and there have been a number of people here who have dirtectly disagreed, but I'll state my belief yet again.
The 1st thing Apple are going to drop from this VR/AR headset is the "Spooky Eye Vision" screen on the front.
The 1st thing Apple are going to drop from this VR/AR headset is the "Spooky Eye Vision" screen on the front.
Honestly it would be a bigger surprise if Apple didn't cut the EyeSight display. That they doubled down on it
But yeah I think everyone unanimously agrees the EyeSight display is gonna be gone. Much like the "share your heartrate with another Apple Watch" feature, it's useless and doesn't add anything.
"No it does add something. People can maintain eye contact with you while you wear the headset and you aren't isolated from the outside world." Okay so...multiple things. 1. I live alone, just like most people. There's no one for me to maintain eye contact with. 2. During last Christmas when I was showing off the Quest 2 to friends and family showing the more limited passthrough, we still maintained eye contact just fine since they could still see my face even in black and white.
So why do I need a display on the outside to talk to people? Why do I have to show people my eyes when I'm trying to watch Adult Swim through my $3500 headset? I don't even want my eyes visible to begin with. Plus why do we even need to show our real eyes?
All the EyeSight does is complicate the manufacturing process and drive up the cost, as you not only need to build the exterior display, but also cameras and sensors in the HMD that displays the eyes. But the funny thing is, THE FEATURE ISN'T EVEN DONE YET?! SO WHY EVEN ADVERTISE IT IF IT'S NOT EVEN FINISHED. A feature no one wants that people find creepy, that does nothing but drive up the cost of the headset even more.
Hell, I'm half tempted to say just announce the feature is cancelled and scrap it from the Vision Pro. You could then bundle that with a price drop announcement before launch and that would attract attention to the device more.
^ If you think I'm going to sit there next to you and have a conversation when you can't be bothered to spend a few seconds to take the headset off then you have another think coming.
I'll come back when you can give me your attention.
I'll come back when you can give me your attention.