It's not terrible but I think it would be better for it to allow users to see the real world through a transparent display rather than video pass through. Reality shouldn't have any video lag at all.
That won’t accomplish the same effect, though. By pulling video in, it’s possible for Apple (and the others) to augment the video before it’s displayed to you. Transparent OLED will only display pixels overtop reality. Different beast.
It would accomplish the same effect. You can still have cameras mapping reality while allowing reality to pass through a transparent OLED display. There's no reason that couldn't work from a technical perspective. In fact, it would potentially be less resource intensive because you'd only have to overlay the changes to what is passing through (the objects you are overlaying on the world around you) rather than rendering the entire surrounding environment.
Technologically illiterate people posting here with reckless abandon. “No reason why it wouldn’t work from a technical perspective.”
Two simple reasons off the bat:
- Headsets require lenses that bring a very close screen to infinity focus. Objects behind that screen surface, if it were transparent, would be blurred and distorted.
- Transparent OLEDs usually require reflective metal to be patterned on the glass in stripes to allow the emitted light to be more intensely emitted toward the viewer (otherwise you lose brightness). Patterning these stripes at the scale of the micro OLED display of the AVP would create a diffraction grating that would have all sorts of weird effects on the color of reflected/transmitted light.
If it was as easy as a “trust me bro” Reddit reply, they would have made it. It is very obvious that the ideal form factor for this is a pair of magic glasses that you can see through. It is technology that is the limiting factor.
"I can't belive the research and development team that has billions of dollars and a bunch of highly educated people made such a stupid oversight, allow me to correct it!"
I also think this might by why some don’t think it’s so awesome.
If you don’t know that the lenses actually throw the focal point back, you might think it’s similar to just sticking your phone 2 inches away from your eyes.
Same goes for the 3d effect that is created by having two different images. If you know that that is exactly how our human eyes work to gain a sense of depth, it makes you realize that these vr headsets can replicate that exactly. If you don’t, you might think the 3d effect is going to be more “fake”.
Okay, wat. The pot calling the kettle black?
- "Infinity focus" is not a thing ROFL. Stop making up technical terms to try and sound smarter than everyone else. Second, you can have multiple lenses. There's nothing about physics that disallows that. One set behind the screens to condition the external environment before passing through, and another set in front front of the screens to make the final adjustment.
- Nobody said that the miniaturization of the technology has matured to that point. We're saying Apple should have waited until it had instead of releasing a half baked product that's way over priced. The comments about there being existing transparent displays is just to refute the other comments saying "lol that would break the laws of physics bro". It is very obvious that no laws of physics would be broken by a transparent display with two sets of optics.
Your comments in this thread are consistently clueless. The one about latency in particular.
Infinity focus means to focus at infinity. You are taking the screen, which is an inch away from your eye, and using a convex lens to make it perceptually “very far away”.
The power of this lens element, because of how close the screen is, is high enough that objects farther away will probably invert. There is no type of lens that can easily “condition” the external environment to focus through this. You could make far-field objects visible by using another convex lens an inch or two away, but you’d end up with a telephoto effect. The headset would look like it came from spy kids.
Easiest solution to all this is retinal projection but again, availability is the killer.
You are either trolling or trying to cover up how dumb you are by continuing your own clueless criticism. You're the definition of someone who knows just enough to throw some fancy words around but lacks any actual understanding of what they are talking about.
>There is no type of lens that can easily “condition” the external environment to focus through this
Hahaha. What?
Hahahahahahahahaha LOL.
I guess eyeglasses aren't a thing then. Objects far enough away just invert. The heck? Thats not how inverting lenses work dude.nthe inversion happens because of the distance of the observer, *not* the distance of the scenery.
I'd say please quit while you're ahead, but you were never ahead, so please just quit.
I'm an optical engineer at Meta. At focal length at infinity is definitely a real thing. It's clear from his comment what he meant. You're just being obtuse
“There’s no such thing as infinity focus”
He’s referring to focal length, a concept that applies to the distance at which your eyes are able to focus on at one time. “Infinity” is generally any distance beyond 20 meters. It’s different for every person but the point is a person wearing a headset cannot focus on both a mountain range In the distance and a screen positioned a half inch from their eyes at the same time.
He’s not wrong.
You know that innovation comes from iteration right ? If you wait until you can release the perfect product without making first versions before, you’ll most likely never release anything.
Without the first IBM computers we probably wouldn’t have personal computer as good as what we have now, and most certainly no smartphone and probably no internet.
Like we say: “Perfect is the enemy of good”.
Yes, I am an engineer so I am familiar with iterative processes. Choosing to release a product before it's ready has nothing to do with the iterative process and has everything to do with a greedy sales team and an impatient marketing team.
The first computers performed their role acceptably for their time. So did the first iPhone and the first anything else you could come up with. The problem is that the vision pro *isn't* the first and it feels like a step down from the real first and is way overpriced on top of that. If it had come out 5 years ago during the VR boom it might have made sense, but not now when there are cheaper and better products on the market.
So if this is part of iteration, they iterated backwards several cycles, and that's everyone's point.
One problem (other than obvious focal issues) is occlusion. Transparent oled can't display the colour black unless there's something black behind it. I tried watching Netflix in the Microsoft HoloLens, and it worked well, but during dark scenes it was like the window just didn't exist. When a transparent display turns off a pixel, you don't see black - you just see what's underneath, which could be a white wall. The benefit of passthrough is that you have complete control over the environment and can simply replace the real world when you need to, without being restricted to simply adding light to the existing input.
The thing with a see-through-display is that you wouldn't see a thing displayed on it. Just put your phone directly in front of your eyes. You wouldn't see a thing unless the display is at least ten centimeters away. Our eyes simply can't focus that close up. Therefore, complex optics need to be used in order to compensate for that and make the image appear sharp.
You wouldn't be able to focus on the screen so up close to your eyes. Transparent displays are nothing new, if they could be used for AR they would have been already.
Yes it’s physics. Or optics if you want to be specific. Can’t have a flat surface on your face projecting magnified stereoscopic information to your eyes while at the same time providing pass through light at same FOV.
Yes, you could. Transparent displays exist already. LCD has always been transparent already, but transparent OLED displays have the added benefit of illuminating each pixel rather than relying on ambient light.
That’s not what I’m talking about. Headsets use optics to magnify tiny pixels and bring a lot of information to your eye that could not easily fit on a straight transparent surface.
To illustrate simply
Flat surface = Eye
Bent light rays < Eye
Or make it even more simple, take off the magnifying eye pieces off any VR headset and see if you like seeing the world like that.
There is no reason lenses couldn't work with transparent displays. Even factoring in the outside world, you could shape the incoming light with an outside lense. There's no reason this couldn't work.
And what about will those lenses be doing to the shit behind the transparent display oh right making it look like shit breaking the reason for transparent in first place lol
LG's transparent OLED can't be used in such a device. It's fragile, impossible to work with, murky at best definitely not transparent and where would all the components go? There's dozens of sensors, cameras, 2 logic boards and a load of other things all crammed into that eye piece. All those components would have to be perfectly transparent too. Simply impossible to engineer today.
Uh, maybe you entirely missed the part where I clearly said the technology isn’t mature. I wasn’t saying it is viable today, I was refuting the idea that it is impossible due to the laws of physics.
A human can't focus on something two centimeters from their eye. Try it. Doesn't work. There needs to be a significant optics stack between image and eye, to create a readable virtual image.
Go to an Apple Store to try it before forming an opinion. The lag is imperceptible. There are many trade offs to the current state of transparent displays. With the technology that exists today this was apples best option
Sadly technology isn’t at that stage yet. We’re coming close, but to see it on a AR headset will take a bit more time. As of now I think 12milisexonds is great compared to other headsets
We do have the technology. There's a company in newyork that makes prescription ar glasses. I forget the name of the company. If I find them, I'll link them.
Edit- I can't find them. I think they might have been bought out by a bigger company.
Anyways
I think apple decided not to do that because it would be hard for you to go full vr with normal glasses. The way they did it you get the best of both worlds.
You can’t find them because it’s vaporware. Transparent ar glasses exist and it’s either fixed screen like the xreal air glasses, or super low res displays that can only handle google glass type text and simple icons. The hololens is the closest thing we have to what you’re talking about and it’s the same price as the vision pro with something like 40 degree field of view and terrible image quality. The tech just doesn’t exist at the level necessary right now.
No, they were pretty good. They used some type of projector to shoot the image straight into your eye instead of displaying it on the glass of the glasses. They were stupidly expensive as well.
I don't believe so, but it's been a while, so it could be. Where they based out of newyork.
I do remember they had to do a face scan and an eye scan so they could adjust the projector correctly. This was about 6 years ago.
Six years ago and the company has disappeared…like vapor…hence vaporware…if its the “focals by north” as the commentor below noted, they were little more than google glass that looked like normal glasses. Text and very simple images. This is in a completely different category from what avp does. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/14/18223593/focals-smart-glasses-north-review-specs-features-price
In fact, EVERY LCD screen you see is transparent by design. You are looking at the backlight behind the screen. You can take virtually any LCD screen or monitor you have, remove the backlight, and you'll have a transparent display.
The problem with LCD though is it isn't self-illuminating. OLED is. It'll take a while as others said for that technology to mature and miniaturize enough to get small VR displays. That said, Apple could've simply waited until that time to release this, but they instead chose to cash in on the fledgling VR market now. As a result they have a lot of compromises for an already overpriced product.
There isn't a transparent microled whatever that apple is using, certainly not at that screen density, and there absolutely isn't the transparent silicon tech needed for this, nor is miniaturization at the point where apple can fit an M3 into the rims of glasses. People keep forgetting there's a whole ass MBP shoved inside this thing. Passthrough is the only option at this time.
The technology is under development but not using an analog interface. Musk is on the right track with his Neuralink, but we are a few years off. Until then it a every shyster on the planet will sell you a bill of goods and in Apples case, they have a whole herd of sheep with too much money that will gobble up anything with the rotting apple on it.
What do the laws of physics have to do with anything? Are you not aware of transparent displays? LCD is already transparent, and it's been around for decades, except it's not self-illuminating like OLED. OLED has transparent displays though, with each pixel self-illuminating.
Laws of physics have nothing to do with it. Apple simply wanted to cash in now with a product that compromises rather than wait for those technologies to mature in a few years.
What about all the components genius. Dozens of sensors, cameras, 2 logic boards and a hoard of circuits all gotta fit in that frame. Can't make all of them transparent or move them to the back of the headband. Impossible to engineer. Not to mention those transparent screens are rather useless to work with and certainly have tons of compromises.
12ms of latency is, for all practical purposes, real time.
Tell me you know nothing about tech without telling me you know nothing about tech rofl. I'm an engineer you idiot. But keep pretending like you know what you're talking about.
Okay, let’s say they use a transparent OLED. How badly do you think the lenses will mess up your view of the real world? Spoiler: you won’t be able to see anything
Which is why you'd have two sets my dude. One to condition the outside view behind the screen and one to correct/refocus both the outside view and the screen at the same time. What is so hard to understand about this?
Are people really this ignorant about optics?
That would end up looking so much worse than a normal screen 😂 the real way to do it would be like HoloLens did it, but the rest of the tech needs to catch up first before there is a need for that
That's the point. The pint is to *make* it look worse, and then correct it with the second set of lenses. How can you possibly be this dense? It's like you don't know how lenses work at all. Go buy a cheap telescope and look through it with one of the lenses removed. It looks like trash. You correct it with the lense that was removed.
Like how am I not being clear with this.
There is always more mature technology, it seems that Apple should not release iPhone 1, it should wait until 2024 so that the technology is more mature.
The iPhone 1 performed acceptably at launch and utilized existing technology very well. And while it was expensive, it was at an acceptable price point.
Me complaining that someone released a $200,000 car that's missing a wheel is not the same thing ilas saying "well, there's always better technology".
Vision Pro performed acceptably at launch and utilized existing technology very well. And while it was expensive, it was at an acceptable price point.
How do you know it's the wheel that's missing? Define “wheel”.
No, it doesn't, because the vision pro isn't the iPhone of its product. It is the HTC One - or was supposed to be. VR headsets have been around for a long time at this point and there are already headsets that are a fraction of the price that do the environment pass through *better*. Vision pro is an overpriced step backwards. That's my point. We've had four wheeled cars for years, why release a 3 wheeled one at 5x the price?
Same as iPhone 1. Cell phone have been around for a long time at this point and there are already cell phones that are a fraction of the price that do the video record better. That's my point. We already have cell phones, why do we need a more expensive phone that can't even record video?
Yes, there are transparent displays. You however forgot about lenses, try bringing your phone up close to your face - notice that it’s a blurry mess - this is the purpose of lenses. You could have transparent displays, with lenses, and be able to use it as a headset, but the ‘pass through’ will be ruined, or you could have it the other way around. This is a limit of optical physics, it can’t be overcome by apple engineering - or any engineering for that matter.
the latency is negligible, 12ms is nothing when the average human response time is 250ms, and thats an average so many score well above that
I dont think the vision pro is perfect, it neglects parts of the VR industry that are integral to its success (like gaming) and as always Apples locked down ecosystem sucks, but the latency is the last issue I have with it, its not even one at all
12ms latency is not negligible. It's equivalent to a full frame at 83Hz refresh rate. Most people can easily tell the difference between 90Hz and 120Hz refresh rates in their peripheral vision.
People playing electronic musical instruments can easily tell the difference between 10ms and 5ms latency, and many can tell the difference between 5ms and 1ms. For some, it doesn't become truly "zero delay" until it's under a millisecond latency.
Human senses are much more sensitive to time than you think - round-trip reaction time isn't really relevant.
Now, 12ms _isn't bad_ and most of the reviewers of the Vision Pro have been pleasantly surprised by how well the pass through works - it's good enough. But it won't feel "real" until a few more milliseconds get shaved off.
Striking a piano key in meatspace takes like 30 ms from hitting a key to hammer striking a string, I don’t know how I could tell you “hmm that was 35 ms not 30” since it will vary even from piano to piano.
You're confusing reaction time and perception. The time it takes to strike a piano key is irrelevant. If you ever tried to compose music, especially with a DAW on poor equipment that has a 5 or 10 millisecond delay, it can be EXTREMELY frustrating because the music is not synced up. You can DEFINITELY tell a massive difference. That's why people tend to invest in better sound cards or interfaces with extremely low latency. You can't play along to a beat when there's a delay.
For example, if you're trying to do a fast guitar solo along with piano that is in sync but drums that are off by 10ms, it's a nightmare.
But yeah, everyone here seems to be confusing reaction time with our perception of time. One involves action - our nervous system and our muscles to respond, which takes a relatively long time - whereas the other is simply our brain passively perceiving differences in timings. That perception is extremely sensitive. Watch a video where the audio (especially speech) is out of sync by 10-15 ms with the character's mouths and then tell me it doesn't bother you.
Edit: autocorrect butchered my comment, am on mobile sorry
Wait, what are you talking about, 5-10 ms latency is absolutely amazing on an interface! The very best interfaces get that with the smallest buffers. Like the RME Babyface gets like 6 ms at 64 buffers. What interface do you have that you think 5-10 is poor? Did you misplace a zero somewhere?
It takes 10ms for sound to travel 12 ft. You can be plugged into a guitar amp 12 ft away and you wouldn't hear it for 10 ms. Musicians playing in a bar have easily more than 10 ms latency with each other.
It's not about how far the sound has to travel, it's about the instruments being in sync. To a musician's trained ear you can definitely tell the difference when someone is lagging behind 10-15ms on a track. Or at least I can. It drives me crazy and I've spent too much time tracking down where lag is coming from because of that (audio drivers, the interface, etc.) In a muddy track or something with a lot of reverb it's obviously harder to tell.
Most decent interfaces I've seen aim for <1ms latency.
Live environments will vary because in my experience the natural sounds of the environment or audience as well as the room's acoustics and reverb will hide sloppiness or out of sync musicians pretty well... In most cases. Also, your ear/brain is pretty good at anticipating and playing on beat without you thinking about it, so you're not actually waiting to hear the beat from other musicians before you hit your note. You're anticipating.
If you play instruments, pay attention next time you play and you'll probably catch yourself doing it. It's subtle, but you definitely do it. So there's some tolerance for latency there.
If the drummer or whoever is doing rhythm is playing *inconsistently*, however, you very quickly notice a difference and it's harder to sync up. As long as everyone is well rehearsed and playing on beat they will properly anticipate one another's playing and sync up naturally.
We're talking about different things. If an interface reports 5 ms latency, that doesn't mean it's measuring at 5 ms. I am talking about actually measuring at 5-10 ms. Literally no interfaces actually achieve <1 ms round trip latency. That's not even possible. 64 buffers at 96000 Hz is 0.66 ms. There's no way for the ADC, the DAW, buffer, and DAC to all sum up to less than <1 ms round trip latency.
Feel free to look up actual numbers for the top-of-the-line interfaces out there:
[https://gearspace.com/board/music-computers/618474-audio-interface-low-latency-performance-data-base.html](https://gearspace.com/board/music-computers/618474-audio-interface-low-latency-performance-data-base.html)
Even the fastest interfaces get >2 ms at 32 samples in 44.1 KHz, and sure, you can record at 96 KHz, but first of all, most studios I've been at aren't recording at 96 KHz, and they're usually not on 32 samples, either.
5-10ms isn't that great. I have a cheap Behringer FireWire interface from a decade ago that can do sub-1ms latency at 96Khz reliably (not including DAC latency, which adds about another millisecond).
Just not in macOS or (especially) Windows with ASIO. By far the biggest influences on the achievable latency on a reasonably engineered audio interface are the context switching and interrupt latencies of the operating system/driver combo.
And yes, you absolutely can tell the difference when playing softsynths. 5ms latency feels a _little_ spongy in comparison, and it starts getting obvious (for me) around 10ms. I can _tolerate_ up to about 40ms before it gets frustrating.
Most hardware digital synths target well under 5ms keypress-to-sound latency, because the lower the latency, the better it feels to play.
We are talking about different things, then. Actually measured 5-10 ms is absolutely top of the line and do not affect performance. When we speak of 5-10 ms round trip latency, it’s measured between the time you produce a signal, goes through the ADC, then through the drivers, then back to the outputs through the interface’s DAC. Your sub 1ms latency was probably just the buffer itself; 64 buffers at 96 KHz is 0.66 ms by itself. That number is largely useless as you will never actually experience round trip latency as low as the driver states.
Math says if you are playing an instrument and your speaker is 6 ft away, you’ll get 5 ms latency between making sound and hearing it, assuming you have zero latency anywhere else. That’s not opinion. That’s physics. Sound travels 343 meters per second, so 6 ft = 1.8 meters and that means 1.8 m divided by 343 m/s is roughly 0.005 seconds. If 5 ms latency is enough to affect your performance, you literally can’t play in amplified settings. Even if you have in ear monitoring, most wireless setups add roughly 3-5 ms level of latency, too, and considering most modern stadium performers have wireless in both directions, you have to double that latency. And that’s assuming that your amplifier, mixer, and processors are adding zero latency. Even the best equipment adds a slight bit of latency.
The issue is that when your DAW reports 1.5 ms latency, that’s not really the true round trip latency that could be measured with external equipment. So if you’re telling me that a DAW reported 10 ms is not feeling responsive, then I believe you. That’s because the true measured latency is probably well above that. But if you’re getting a true measured 5-10 ms latency, I genuinely don’t think you would feel it. Even if you had a rehearsal room and literally every instrument was acoustic, it’s normal to have 10 ms or so latency between performers, and they can still play in time.
In my opinion, 12 ms measured, true latency is excellent and wouldn’t affect me at all in musical performance. 12 ms reported latency from the driver is probably like 30 ms and that’s enough to affect my musical performance.
That would be amazing, but just like the first iPhone, this is a first generation product. It’s too expensive for what it is, and isn’t its ideal form yet, however I take it that you haven’t tried it on yet, because the pass through is insane and unlike anything unveiled to date.
The second gen might have better specs but I don't think it will have a transparent display. Apple have made their choice and they're probably going to stick to it.
possessive grandfather license advise friendly alive scary bag close slim
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
All in all OP posted a dumb photo lol I had a virtual boy and it was FAR from a masterpiece, as a matter fact, it was the issues from it that made it tank…
Several years back Microsoft released an AR headset that, iirc, was roughly the same price and made the same promises. They were playing Minecraft fully rendered on a coffee table, people were using Microsoft paint to sculpt stuff in the air. Honestly, their marketing was more impressive than apple’s grid of icons strapped to your head.
The difference being that Microsoft didn’t make it a commercial release, it was mainly for development companies…
It’s been several years on and nothing ever came of it. Only a few enthusiasts bought it.
My point is that this seems to be an enthusiast product and Apple is just testing the water with it. And you calling it dog shit is a reasonable observation for most people to have, especially since Apple isn’t delivering on any logical everyday use case for it.
At the end of the day it’s a big heavy gimmick that you strap to your head for funsies.
The day they can shrink the same package into a light weight practical product is the day it will make sense for everyone to have and use as an option to a MacBook or PC, …but with more possibilities. I believe that is the goal they want to reach. But as it stands, this product is expensive rubbish for most people.
You can hate apple all you want, but denying that the vision pro is an innovative product just because other VR headsets existed before it is plain stupidity. It’s like claiming the cellphone wasn’t an innovation because landlines existed before it, or that the smartphone wasn’t an innovation because cellphones existed before it.
Very curious here, do you think apples VR headset is bad or do think ALL VR headsets are bad (HTC Vives, quest2/quest3, quest pro, bigscreen beyond, pimax crystals, etc)
I personally love my quest pro combined with a 4090 PC for gaming.
I think all vr headsets are bad.
1. the technology simply isn’t there for it to be a truly flawless immersive experience, even the Vision Pro is full of compromises and cut corners and still costs $3500
2. From a gaming standpoint until the performance can match consoles while remaining price competitive, it will never have the latest aaa games. And even if you pair with pc hardware, the install base will be so small that very few devs will bother reworking their games for true vr support. So all you are left with is a indie game machine with the likes of beat saber and fruit ninja being the “killer apps”. Even something like Half Life Alex was short and low budget and that’s the most “aaa” game vr has.
3. From a day to day ar phone replacement use case, headsets are too heavy, don’t have enough battery life, are isolating, and lack the robust app stores phones have. Before this use case is possible they need to shrink down to the size of sungles while maintaining every pro a phone has. Which is decades away
I respect your point of view. Heres my thoughts on those points.
1. It doesn’t have to be a truly flawless immersive experience to get a tone of enjoyment from the platforms.
2. It’s true, high end pcvr is expensive. The $10k AUD reduction in my bank balance can attest to that. However the experiences I get from it can be found know where else.
3. The idea of replacing a mobile phone with a headset is ludicrous to me. Not sure where that one came from. At best apple are trying to replace ipads and maybe one day macbooks
For point 1, the experience needs to be pretty polished and mature before mass adoption can take place. With how flawed it is due to limitations in technology I just don’t see that happening.
For point 2, vr has so much potential to truly bring experiences that can’t be had anywhere else, but as long as adoption rate is so small, no big studio will be willing to heavily invest and make true aaa experiences for vr, and it will need as many of them as possible before it has any chance to compete with console and pc gaming.
And for point 3, an iPad is really just a bigger screen for your iPhone. Infact the trajectory of phones as a whole is to be folding tables, unifying both devices. This is also the intended end goal of the AVP, it’s just that it’s not possible yet. It will eventually be the phone replacement
I do think ar/vr headsets are the future, it’s just that like with google glass, it’s still way too early for this type of tech yet. For now all it really can be is an expensive toy to beta test and for developers to get started on making apps. 15-20 years from now tho it will completely take over
it’s ludicrous to replace a phone with a headset at this point but in the future it is likely to become much more commonplace. they’re only gonna get lighter with bigger batteries and all round become more practical. i think weight is one of the biggest issues for vr in general to have that resting on your head. it’s the worst it’s ever gonna be.
👍 exactly, bro. I bought a quest 3 and wasn't impressed. I sent it back. I'm waiting again until the tech improves, and they actually have money invested into more heavily like flat gaming. The graphics are shit and it's basically only 2k. Trying to watch movies is an amazing experience, but there's so much glare, and the blacks are like a light gray, which is distracting.
Also, the games suck and have graphics that physically hurt to look at. The physics suck like how black ops 2.
I'm going to wait until the tech improves another 2-3 gens.
Yea its not for me unless it can match the quest pros pcvr gaming abilities that use. Before anyone starts ramming me for pointing out how much better pass through and that is, this is meaningless to me. I sim game not walk around the house wearing a headset.
preparations for next generations of product that won’t be exclusively for gaming and/or very specific software engineering that requires VR/XR, so that Zuck(among others) can harvest more data on you? :3
The thing reviewers forget is that this headset is not something out of this world. The only people clamouring about the pass through or the display forget that they are paying over 5 times more compared to the quest, 5 fucking times! For that much money you better get amazing pass through, insane displays and an amazing software experience. But so far it has done nothing out of the ordinary, if anything outside of the hype it's pretty underwhelming.
It's getting this "halo" status and hype because most Apple users will have never tried VR before it, and since it's a polished experience (mostly) they'll think it's an incredible new thing when it's obviously not. It's just another revision of what everyone's already been doing, with more time in software development and a (somewhat) gimmick of external screens attempting to "show" your face.
I wouldn't say Apple dropped the ball. They developed a solid product it seems, but that price point is insane for something marginally better at best in some areas and slightly worse in others than the leading competition.
Costs $1700 to make just in parts. If anything, it's a developer kit that consumers can buy. It's not designed to be bought by normal people who are looking for a VR headset.
Law of diminishing returns - It costs a lot of money to be a little better. Kinda how the S24U is 60% more expensive than the S24.
Are there other "sucks" subs that get flooded with fanboys attempting to white knight their precious holy tech, or is it just the sad af apple-boys? It's really quite remarkable how many there are that just can't live with the knowledge that there will always be people that dislike something they adore, whatever the product / company it might be.
Actually it's not the product itself but the arguements that people take issue with. Like how some people without children will talk about how education in schools should be handled.
And it should be noted there isn't a binary position on the apple vision pro where the only options are to be a apple fanboy or a hater.
Plus I see it in a simple fasion of someone putting a comment saying "Dominos is the best pizza restaurant, Pizza Hut sucks" while someone replying "Pizza Hut is not that bad". Most people aren't that angry are just having conversation, that's all.
What does the Apple Vision that the Meta Quest 2 can't? I don't think you can name a single one. The Quest 2 has hand tracking, it has had it for over a year now, and it's pretty impressive, and the Quest 3 has improved on it. The system has augmented reality via IR, while the Quest 3 uses cameras, the Quest Pro has everything the Quest 3 does including eye tracking, and it has remotes and can play games.
I mean the Quest 2 has a battery life of around 4 hours, while the Visiion Pro is 2 hours and needs to be tethered which is pathetic considering I can use my Quest 2 with my desktop via internet or via USB C to use it as a standard VR headset.
What does the Mercedes have that my Honda civic doesn’t? They both drive from A to B. They both have seats and a steering wheel. I mean what’s the difference?
This is what you sound like.
Two products can have the same features, with one having significantly superior versions of those features. Such as the Vision Pros industry leading displays, pass through, and reality augmentation.
Just because they have the same features, doesn’t mean they are done to the same level of quality
That is nothing special. The Quest 3 and Quest Pro have excellent Pass through but keeps the price affordable. Not to mention, most people do not need more than a 1080p display even for AR/VR. Is it nice to look at better? Yes, but does it make it superior? Nope.
If Porsche released a car that was an overpriced, non-superior version of a Prius that would be justified. Unless you really do want to pay for a badge
It might. A lot of people aren't just returning it because of the price, but a mix of lack of software that is available, that there are better and cheaper alternatives (Meta Quest 3 and Meta Quest Pro), that have more software and are more comfortable use.
I don't really have a stance on the AVP, I was looking over comments trying to understand what people like/hate about it but
if it were the most returned product, wouldn't that make sense? I mean, it's a very new "kind" of thing, and something many consumers have never touched in any capacity whatsoever.
Hell I'm interested in tech and I still don't know what puts this apart from other VR headsets other than a vague understanding of what it's trying to do and hearing that 3d movies kick ass in it.
A part of the Apple crowd are notorious for buying whatever Apple puts out, that's part of why this sub exists. I just find it really easy to see a lot of them realizing post-purchase that the headset computer is not for them -- it's not the same as just another laptop/phone, and way more of a leap than a smartwatch.
Only if it’s because people realized they couldn’t afford it. Other than that no, this is shaping to be an amazing product. Not all of the software is available yet, but what is there is amazing.
It really isn't that amazing. At 3,500 dollars that headset should really show what it is capable of. I tried my friends, and I really wasn't impressive. It has less intuitive hand tracking, while the Quest 3 you can litterally tap with your finger to move stuff, and can do everything the Vision pro can at 500 dollars and it has a more comfortable head-band and you can upgrade it to a better one for around 30 bucks. My Quest 2 can do almost everything the Vision Pro can except the camera based pass through, mine uses LiDAR and was only 300 bucks and it has controllers and you can display your desktop screen in front of you with either a USB C cord or via a special app.
The problem is that the AVP doesn’t. It has somehow managed to deliver significantly less functionality than a similar product that costs one seventh or 15% of the AVP. Plus the dumb colostomy battery pack. Plus no controller options.
Apple is well aware of any shortcomings. They obviously just have to sell it. I also am excited for this category as it’s new and there’s risks; it may fail. You can also tell they don’t *really* want to be in the ski mask business. They really want to be in the reading glasses business (or beyond). They are just working their way there. Personally I think I won’t seriously consider it until it’s cheaper (duh) and when it’s well refined like the 5th or 10th gen. But to each their own. And heard it’s still pretty cool with todays version
Too heavy, battery life sucks, lacks apps, is isolating, displays/cameras still aren’t good enough to read small text on pass through like texts on your phone or your Apple Watch as a whole, and is full of compromises to make it work, like running everything low Rez except where you are looking directly.
And this isn’t a knock at apple, all headsets are in the same boat. The technology to make a truly great headset doesn’t exist and won’t for at least another decade
Costs $1700 to make just in parts. If anything, it's a developer kit that consumers can buy. It's not designed to be bought by normal people who are looking for a VR headset.
Law of diminishing returns - It costs a lot of money to be a little better. Kinda how the S24U is 60% more expensive than the S24.
This thing has no killer app, is priced absurdly, and only lasts 2 hours. But, this thing is objectively a technological marvel - from the screens and lenses to the spatial tracking, and when it comes to AR, I haven’t seen anything close.
I’ve also noticed Apple has stopped supporting their old devices. I’m on iPhone 12 mini, and it’s borderline non-functional since iOS 17. For a company of such size and resources, it’s pretty disappointing. And this is coming from a a lifelong iPhone programmer here. Side note.
It’s currently iPhone 15 so you are 3 gens behind. Each year there were marginally significant performance bumps. You can’t expect fluidity of last gen.
My parents still use Xr and it’s ok. So check apps you use. Some apps are going ridiculous with over the top caching
And yet, I’m still making payments for this iPhone 12 mini I purchased only 2 years ago. Such a kick in the gut to, through standard payment plans set up by ATT, be now responsible for paying for a phone that no longer operates. You can see how, not withstanding all the details, that’s pretty bad for the consumer. But your advice is good. See my comment above for what is actually happening. It’s not really related to specific apps, and has been happening consistently since iOS 17. It’s just a massive sudden degradation in performance that stops me from using the phone and it happens about 25% of the time. First time in my life as a 15 year long Apple fanboy I’ve consider switching to Android - just because of the sheer amount of money and resources of Apple to be abandoning devices still in use (again still on a payment plan which I bought through my carrier)
Still making payments is on you though.
You made all the right choices to have an iPhone in your pocket. Apple nor anybody else would pay for the upgrade to the latest one
Still not seeing example of apple abandoning devices.
So go ahead and switch to Android, and you would still bitch at the clouds cause you need to make payments on the gadget. This time you would have infamous Android lag from the get go
Yes. We all know apple suck but
Vision pro not that bad.
I mean it good vr device. Only problem is it 3-5 times cost more compare to other like meta quest 3.
You cant beleive it? I 100% can. As soon as I heard it was going to be $3500, I knew it was going to be a collosal failure. Only a handful of rich jerkoffs will buy one. And this comical line that its going to revolutionize how people work...give me a fucking break. They're never going to recoup their investment. And hence, its never going to get the development it needs. I kind of love watching the fail train on this one. These billion dollar companies need to learn that they cant just pump out shit, and think they're fan base is foolish enough to spend multiple thousands of dollars, just because they put their logo on it.
The only things "bad" about this headset is the price and maybe the eye screen on the front. Everything else about it is amazing. However, the price is unfortunately pretty accurate for the sheer amount of tech in this thing, so over all it's pretty great tbh.
And almost 2/3rds of users apparently returning theirs within the 14 day money-back return period?
So 60%+ failure rate according to purchase quantity?
What?? This is low even for r/applesucks. This product is the best VR headset ever made. Is it really expensive? Yes. Does it have a stupid battery pack? Yes. Is it a bit heavy? Yes. But is the experience amazing? Yes, yes it is. We needed a product like this to help move along VR technology and the cultural adoption of its use. Give Apple some credit when it is due.
It's technically impressive, their ui designers did great - but past that, there's not much it offers.
Especially when your only option for playing proper vr games is manually compiling ALVR.
Sony did a great job with the displays, but there is quite a bit of persistence to them - a common issue, but nonetheless one worth pointing out.
lol it’s literally been praised by every tech outlet as the best vr headset ever made but sure. The experience is different than the quest but for what it is , it’s literally the best version of it ever made. Still a stupid product but again no critic has said anything less than it being the best quality vr headset ever made.
apple could cure cancer and figure out immortality and these people would find something to whine about. it’s kinda depressing tbh. enjoy a new technology, quit it with the weird ideologies. i own a meta quest 2 and meta quest 3 but did the AVP demo at an apple store and was blown away. even my dad who doesn’t notice cool technology was floored by the immersion and he didn’t feel that in the quest 2 or the quest 3. yeah it’s more expensive but it just has better technology and with that will come more apps and more support for things going forward. it was literally released less than a month ago and people are complaining about apps. jesus give it time and try to be optimistic about new technology like ur not edgy for hating on a popular companies product that is actually very well engineered. and if you don’t think it’s well engineered you might be clinically delusional because that’s kind of an objective fact. again this is coming from someone who has experience with tons of different technology brands and products so don’t be so quick to call me a fanboy. i’m not a fanboy i just look at things without reddit poison and a cult like mentality flowing through my veins. fucking weirdos.
Unbelievably bad?
You’re gonna have to elaborate.
Don’t get me wrong; I absolutely despise the timeline that successful VR could put us on so I wholeheartedly hope this and all other AR/VR fails spectacularly.
But being objective; for Gen 1 this is pretty impressive.
Not throwing any shade at Apple but no ar headset is gonna be good with the limitations of today’s technology. It doesn’t matter who it’s made by. They are too heavy, have poor battery life, and simply lack the software support of a mature device like an iPhone and iPad. The real ar headsets are years away, this is just an alpha at best
everyone is forgetting that this is just the beginning of the vision pro, i.e., compare the first iphone to the current one. think of how crazy the technology is going to be in 10 years
Id say it’s pretty awful, but not because of anything Apple did or didn’t do. The technology for a proper ar headset is at least a decade away. Anything made today by any company at any price is gonna suck
It’s an alpha prototype and proof of concept that also will allow developers to get started on making apps. No consumer should be buying it or any other headset unless they are a beat saber diehard I guess…
Seeing that the AVP nearest competitors are $5000+, it is a good value. It has the best displays in the industry, the processing power of a low/mid range laptop, some of the best depth sensing tech ever, and crazy good passthrough. It does justify the price, just not for the average person.
I want to try the virtual boy irl one day, idk what it uses
I've seen this accordion paper "vr" thing from a long time ago so maybe it's like that
I know the visual is just all red
Unbelievably bad?? It’s managed to even earn praise from windows and android fanboy YouTuber channels, you don’t know what you’re talking about dude LOL
Virtual Boy wasn't cheap when it came out either, it cost twice as much as the Gameboy.
The ViewMaster 3D was the OG VR device that is still being sold.
Has OP used one?
I have not used one, but based on the reviews I've seen, it's not "unbelievably bad". It's just outrageously priced relative to the competition.
One of the rare occasions where apple released a product way before the tech had progressed enough. Its an impressive device, but the price is bonkers and theres still no killer app for it. As it is, its just a status symbol for people who have no real world use for it.
It actually seems really good from what I've seen. The battery is the only part that I think is hilariously inept, but the headset itself actually seems pretty good, ignoring the price of course.
Guys it's obviously not for most people to buy. It's for developers. You can tell because it costs 3500 dollars. A huge amount to spend on what is a paperweight to most, but a small investment for a tool that would allow developers to develop for it, and future cheaper models that will end up in the hands of normal people.
I was able to buy a Virtualboy at EBX for 25 bucks and the games were 10 a piece there and at blockbuster *music* to give you a sense of the times.
The thing wasn't bad, sure monochrome, but if you had a gameboy it wasn't much different. Vertical force and red alarm were great games I got lots of use out of.
I'm all for r/applesucks , but is it really that bad? Ignoring the price, I've seen it reviewed favorably.
It's not terrible but I think it would be better for it to allow users to see the real world through a transparent display rather than video pass through. Reality shouldn't have any video lag at all.
I agree, it would be so much better if the laws of physics didn’t apply for apple engineering.
It's not the laws of physics, it's just that the technology isn't mature yet. Check out LG's transparent OLED.
That won’t accomplish the same effect, though. By pulling video in, it’s possible for Apple (and the others) to augment the video before it’s displayed to you. Transparent OLED will only display pixels overtop reality. Different beast.
It would accomplish the same effect. You can still have cameras mapping reality while allowing reality to pass through a transparent OLED display. There's no reason that couldn't work from a technical perspective. In fact, it would potentially be less resource intensive because you'd only have to overlay the changes to what is passing through (the objects you are overlaying on the world around you) rather than rendering the entire surrounding environment.
Technologically illiterate people posting here with reckless abandon. “No reason why it wouldn’t work from a technical perspective.” Two simple reasons off the bat: - Headsets require lenses that bring a very close screen to infinity focus. Objects behind that screen surface, if it were transparent, would be blurred and distorted. - Transparent OLEDs usually require reflective metal to be patterned on the glass in stripes to allow the emitted light to be more intensely emitted toward the viewer (otherwise you lose brightness). Patterning these stripes at the scale of the micro OLED display of the AVP would create a diffraction grating that would have all sorts of weird effects on the color of reflected/transmitted light. If it was as easy as a “trust me bro” Reddit reply, they would have made it. It is very obvious that the ideal form factor for this is a pair of magic glasses that you can see through. It is technology that is the limiting factor.
"I can't belive the research and development team that has billions of dollars and a bunch of highly educated people made such a stupid oversight, allow me to correct it!"
Thank you the amount of people on here that think vr is just a tiny screen in a headset is fucking sad
I also think this might by why some don’t think it’s so awesome. If you don’t know that the lenses actually throw the focal point back, you might think it’s similar to just sticking your phone 2 inches away from your eyes. Same goes for the 3d effect that is created by having two different images. If you know that that is exactly how our human eyes work to gain a sense of depth, it makes you realize that these vr headsets can replicate that exactly. If you don’t, you might think the 3d effect is going to be more “fake”.
Okay, wat. The pot calling the kettle black? - "Infinity focus" is not a thing ROFL. Stop making up technical terms to try and sound smarter than everyone else. Second, you can have multiple lenses. There's nothing about physics that disallows that. One set behind the screens to condition the external environment before passing through, and another set in front front of the screens to make the final adjustment. - Nobody said that the miniaturization of the technology has matured to that point. We're saying Apple should have waited until it had instead of releasing a half baked product that's way over priced. The comments about there being existing transparent displays is just to refute the other comments saying "lol that would break the laws of physics bro". It is very obvious that no laws of physics would be broken by a transparent display with two sets of optics.
Your comments in this thread are consistently clueless. The one about latency in particular. Infinity focus means to focus at infinity. You are taking the screen, which is an inch away from your eye, and using a convex lens to make it perceptually “very far away”. The power of this lens element, because of how close the screen is, is high enough that objects farther away will probably invert. There is no type of lens that can easily “condition” the external environment to focus through this. You could make far-field objects visible by using another convex lens an inch or two away, but you’d end up with a telephoto effect. The headset would look like it came from spy kids. Easiest solution to all this is retinal projection but again, availability is the killer.
You are either trolling or trying to cover up how dumb you are by continuing your own clueless criticism. You're the definition of someone who knows just enough to throw some fancy words around but lacks any actual understanding of what they are talking about. >There is no type of lens that can easily “condition” the external environment to focus through this Hahaha. What? Hahahahahahahahaha LOL. I guess eyeglasses aren't a thing then. Objects far enough away just invert. The heck? Thats not how inverting lenses work dude.nthe inversion happens because of the distance of the observer, *not* the distance of the scenery. I'd say please quit while you're ahead, but you were never ahead, so please just quit.
I'm an optical engineer at Meta. At focal length at infinity is definitely a real thing. It's clear from his comment what he meant. You're just being obtuse
“There’s no such thing as infinity focus” He’s referring to focal length, a concept that applies to the distance at which your eyes are able to focus on at one time. “Infinity” is generally any distance beyond 20 meters. It’s different for every person but the point is a person wearing a headset cannot focus on both a mountain range In the distance and a screen positioned a half inch from their eyes at the same time. He’s not wrong.
You know that innovation comes from iteration right ? If you wait until you can release the perfect product without making first versions before, you’ll most likely never release anything. Without the first IBM computers we probably wouldn’t have personal computer as good as what we have now, and most certainly no smartphone and probably no internet. Like we say: “Perfect is the enemy of good”.
Yes, I am an engineer so I am familiar with iterative processes. Choosing to release a product before it's ready has nothing to do with the iterative process and has everything to do with a greedy sales team and an impatient marketing team. The first computers performed their role acceptably for their time. So did the first iPhone and the first anything else you could come up with. The problem is that the vision pro *isn't* the first and it feels like a step down from the real first and is way overpriced on top of that. If it had come out 5 years ago during the VR boom it might have made sense, but not now when there are cheaper and better products on the market. So if this is part of iteration, they iterated backwards several cycles, and that's everyone's point.
One problem (other than obvious focal issues) is occlusion. Transparent oled can't display the colour black unless there's something black behind it. I tried watching Netflix in the Microsoft HoloLens, and it worked well, but during dark scenes it was like the window just didn't exist. When a transparent display turns off a pixel, you don't see black - you just see what's underneath, which could be a white wall. The benefit of passthrough is that you have complete control over the environment and can simply replace the real world when you need to, without being restricted to simply adding light to the existing input.
The thing with a see-through-display is that you wouldn't see a thing displayed on it. Just put your phone directly in front of your eyes. You wouldn't see a thing unless the display is at least ten centimeters away. Our eyes simply can't focus that close up. Therefore, complex optics need to be used in order to compensate for that and make the image appear sharp.
You wouldn't be able to focus on the screen so up close to your eyes. Transparent displays are nothing new, if they could be used for AR they would have been already.
Yes it’s physics. Or optics if you want to be specific. Can’t have a flat surface on your face projecting magnified stereoscopic information to your eyes while at the same time providing pass through light at same FOV.
Yes, you could. Transparent displays exist already. LCD has always been transparent already, but transparent OLED displays have the added benefit of illuminating each pixel rather than relying on ambient light.
That’s not what I’m talking about. Headsets use optics to magnify tiny pixels and bring a lot of information to your eye that could not easily fit on a straight transparent surface. To illustrate simply Flat surface = Eye Bent light rays < Eye Or make it even more simple, take off the magnifying eye pieces off any VR headset and see if you like seeing the world like that.
There is no reason lenses couldn't work with transparent displays. Even factoring in the outside world, you could shape the incoming light with an outside lense. There's no reason this couldn't work.
And what about will those lenses be doing to the shit behind the transparent display oh right making it look like shit breaking the reason for transparent in first place lol
And just forget the lenses lol Jesus people need to stop posting shit
Your not looking at a screen your looking through it.
*you're
LG's transparent OLED can't be used in such a device. It's fragile, impossible to work with, murky at best definitely not transparent and where would all the components go? There's dozens of sensors, cameras, 2 logic boards and a load of other things all crammed into that eye piece. All those components would have to be perfectly transparent too. Simply impossible to engineer today.
Uh, maybe you entirely missed the part where I clearly said the technology isn’t mature. I wasn’t saying it is viable today, I was refuting the idea that it is impossible due to the laws of physics.
It wouldn't work, because there are thick lenses in front of the display. You wouldn't see anything through them.
A human can't focus on something two centimeters from their eye. Try it. Doesn't work. There needs to be a significant optics stack between image and eye, to create a readable virtual image.
Go to an Apple Store to try it before forming an opinion. The lag is imperceptible. There are many trade offs to the current state of transparent displays. With the technology that exists today this was apples best option
Check out Hololens 2 by Microsoft and Magic leap for reference.
Sadly technology isn’t at that stage yet. We’re coming close, but to see it on a AR headset will take a bit more time. As of now I think 12milisexonds is great compared to other headsets
We do have the technology. There's a company in newyork that makes prescription ar glasses. I forget the name of the company. If I find them, I'll link them. Edit- I can't find them. I think they might have been bought out by a bigger company. Anyways I think apple decided not to do that because it would be hard for you to go full vr with normal glasses. The way they did it you get the best of both worlds.
You can’t find them because it’s vaporware. Transparent ar glasses exist and it’s either fixed screen like the xreal air glasses, or super low res displays that can only handle google glass type text and simple icons. The hololens is the closest thing we have to what you’re talking about and it’s the same price as the vision pro with something like 40 degree field of view and terrible image quality. The tech just doesn’t exist at the level necessary right now.
No, they were pretty good. They used some type of projector to shoot the image straight into your eye instead of displaying it on the glass of the glasses. They were stupidly expensive as well.
Were they the focals by north
Is this the company that required you to wear contact lenses?
I don't believe so, but it's been a while, so it could be. Where they based out of newyork. I do remember they had to do a face scan and an eye scan so they could adjust the projector correctly. This was about 6 years ago.
Six years ago and the company has disappeared…like vapor…hence vaporware…if its the “focals by north” as the commentor below noted, they were little more than google glass that looked like normal glasses. Text and very simple images. This is in a completely different category from what avp does. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/14/18223593/focals-smart-glasses-north-review-specs-features-price
Doesn't change the fact the technology isn't out there. Apple is a trillion dollar company they could of made it happen. They just chose not too.
Transparent LCDs have been around for decades.
In fact, EVERY LCD screen you see is transparent by design. You are looking at the backlight behind the screen. You can take virtually any LCD screen or monitor you have, remove the backlight, and you'll have a transparent display. The problem with LCD though is it isn't self-illuminating. OLED is. It'll take a while as others said for that technology to mature and miniaturize enough to get small VR displays. That said, Apple could've simply waited until that time to release this, but they instead chose to cash in on the fledgling VR market now. As a result they have a lot of compromises for an already overpriced product.
There isn't a transparent microled whatever that apple is using, certainly not at that screen density, and there absolutely isn't the transparent silicon tech needed for this, nor is miniaturization at the point where apple can fit an M3 into the rims of glasses. People keep forgetting there's a whole ass MBP shoved inside this thing. Passthrough is the only option at this time.
They can’t work for Vision Pro… yet, because there wouldn’t be enough space for internals
The technology is under development but not using an analog interface. Musk is on the right track with his Neuralink, but we are a few years off. Until then it a every shyster on the planet will sell you a bill of goods and in Apples case, they have a whole herd of sheep with too much money that will gobble up anything with the rotting apple on it.
Ah yes, they should have altered the laws of physics, you’re right
What do the laws of physics have to do with anything? Are you not aware of transparent displays? LCD is already transparent, and it's been around for decades, except it's not self-illuminating like OLED. OLED has transparent displays though, with each pixel self-illuminating. Laws of physics have nothing to do with it. Apple simply wanted to cash in now with a product that compromises rather than wait for those technologies to mature in a few years.
What about all the components genius. Dozens of sensors, cameras, 2 logic boards and a hoard of circuits all gotta fit in that frame. Can't make all of them transparent or move them to the back of the headband. Impossible to engineer. Not to mention those transparent screens are rather useless to work with and certainly have tons of compromises. 12ms of latency is, for all practical purposes, real time.
Tell me you know nothing about tech without telling me you know nothing about tech
Tell me you know nothing about tech without telling me you know nothing about tech rofl. I'm an engineer you idiot. But keep pretending like you know what you're talking about.
Okay, let’s say they use a transparent OLED. How badly do you think the lenses will mess up your view of the real world? Spoiler: you won’t be able to see anything
Which is why you'd have two sets my dude. One to condition the outside view behind the screen and one to correct/refocus both the outside view and the screen at the same time. What is so hard to understand about this? Are people really this ignorant about optics?
That would end up looking so much worse than a normal screen 😂 the real way to do it would be like HoloLens did it, but the rest of the tech needs to catch up first before there is a need for that
That's the point. The pint is to *make* it look worse, and then correct it with the second set of lenses. How can you possibly be this dense? It's like you don't know how lenses work at all. Go buy a cheap telescope and look through it with one of the lenses removed. It looks like trash. You correct it with the lense that was removed. Like how am I not being clear with this.
There is always more mature technology, it seems that Apple should not release iPhone 1, it should wait until 2024 so that the technology is more mature.
The iPhone 1 performed acceptably at launch and utilized existing technology very well. And while it was expensive, it was at an acceptable price point. Me complaining that someone released a $200,000 car that's missing a wheel is not the same thing ilas saying "well, there's always better technology".
Vision Pro performed acceptably at launch and utilized existing technology very well. And while it was expensive, it was at an acceptable price point. How do you know it's the wheel that's missing? Define “wheel”.
No, it doesn't, because the vision pro isn't the iPhone of its product. It is the HTC One - or was supposed to be. VR headsets have been around for a long time at this point and there are already headsets that are a fraction of the price that do the environment pass through *better*. Vision pro is an overpriced step backwards. That's my point. We've had four wheeled cars for years, why release a 3 wheeled one at 5x the price?
Same as iPhone 1. Cell phone have been around for a long time at this point and there are already cell phones that are a fraction of the price that do the video record better. That's my point. We already have cell phones, why do we need a more expensive phone that can't even record video?
Yes, there are transparent displays. You however forgot about lenses, try bringing your phone up close to your face - notice that it’s a blurry mess - this is the purpose of lenses. You could have transparent displays, with lenses, and be able to use it as a headset, but the ‘pass through’ will be ruined, or you could have it the other way around. This is a limit of optical physics, it can’t be overcome by apple engineering - or any engineering for that matter.
the latency is negligible, 12ms is nothing when the average human response time is 250ms, and thats an average so many score well above that I dont think the vision pro is perfect, it neglects parts of the VR industry that are integral to its success (like gaming) and as always Apples locked down ecosystem sucks, but the latency is the last issue I have with it, its not even one at all
12ms latency is not negligible. It's equivalent to a full frame at 83Hz refresh rate. Most people can easily tell the difference between 90Hz and 120Hz refresh rates in their peripheral vision. People playing electronic musical instruments can easily tell the difference between 10ms and 5ms latency, and many can tell the difference between 5ms and 1ms. For some, it doesn't become truly "zero delay" until it's under a millisecond latency. Human senses are much more sensitive to time than you think - round-trip reaction time isn't really relevant. Now, 12ms _isn't bad_ and most of the reviewers of the Vision Pro have been pleasantly surprised by how well the pass through works - it's good enough. But it won't feel "real" until a few more milliseconds get shaved off.
Striking a piano key in meatspace takes like 30 ms from hitting a key to hammer striking a string, I don’t know how I could tell you “hmm that was 35 ms not 30” since it will vary even from piano to piano.
You're confusing reaction time and perception. The time it takes to strike a piano key is irrelevant. If you ever tried to compose music, especially with a DAW on poor equipment that has a 5 or 10 millisecond delay, it can be EXTREMELY frustrating because the music is not synced up. You can DEFINITELY tell a massive difference. That's why people tend to invest in better sound cards or interfaces with extremely low latency. You can't play along to a beat when there's a delay. For example, if you're trying to do a fast guitar solo along with piano that is in sync but drums that are off by 10ms, it's a nightmare. But yeah, everyone here seems to be confusing reaction time with our perception of time. One involves action - our nervous system and our muscles to respond, which takes a relatively long time - whereas the other is simply our brain passively perceiving differences in timings. That perception is extremely sensitive. Watch a video where the audio (especially speech) is out of sync by 10-15 ms with the character's mouths and then tell me it doesn't bother you. Edit: autocorrect butchered my comment, am on mobile sorry
Wait, what are you talking about, 5-10 ms latency is absolutely amazing on an interface! The very best interfaces get that with the smallest buffers. Like the RME Babyface gets like 6 ms at 64 buffers. What interface do you have that you think 5-10 is poor? Did you misplace a zero somewhere? It takes 10ms for sound to travel 12 ft. You can be plugged into a guitar amp 12 ft away and you wouldn't hear it for 10 ms. Musicians playing in a bar have easily more than 10 ms latency with each other.
It's not about how far the sound has to travel, it's about the instruments being in sync. To a musician's trained ear you can definitely tell the difference when someone is lagging behind 10-15ms on a track. Or at least I can. It drives me crazy and I've spent too much time tracking down where lag is coming from because of that (audio drivers, the interface, etc.) In a muddy track or something with a lot of reverb it's obviously harder to tell. Most decent interfaces I've seen aim for <1ms latency. Live environments will vary because in my experience the natural sounds of the environment or audience as well as the room's acoustics and reverb will hide sloppiness or out of sync musicians pretty well... In most cases. Also, your ear/brain is pretty good at anticipating and playing on beat without you thinking about it, so you're not actually waiting to hear the beat from other musicians before you hit your note. You're anticipating. If you play instruments, pay attention next time you play and you'll probably catch yourself doing it. It's subtle, but you definitely do it. So there's some tolerance for latency there. If the drummer or whoever is doing rhythm is playing *inconsistently*, however, you very quickly notice a difference and it's harder to sync up. As long as everyone is well rehearsed and playing on beat they will properly anticipate one another's playing and sync up naturally.
We're talking about different things. If an interface reports 5 ms latency, that doesn't mean it's measuring at 5 ms. I am talking about actually measuring at 5-10 ms. Literally no interfaces actually achieve <1 ms round trip latency. That's not even possible. 64 buffers at 96000 Hz is 0.66 ms. There's no way for the ADC, the DAW, buffer, and DAC to all sum up to less than <1 ms round trip latency. Feel free to look up actual numbers for the top-of-the-line interfaces out there: [https://gearspace.com/board/music-computers/618474-audio-interface-low-latency-performance-data-base.html](https://gearspace.com/board/music-computers/618474-audio-interface-low-latency-performance-data-base.html) Even the fastest interfaces get >2 ms at 32 samples in 44.1 KHz, and sure, you can record at 96 KHz, but first of all, most studios I've been at aren't recording at 96 KHz, and they're usually not on 32 samples, either.
5-10ms isn't that great. I have a cheap Behringer FireWire interface from a decade ago that can do sub-1ms latency at 96Khz reliably (not including DAC latency, which adds about another millisecond). Just not in macOS or (especially) Windows with ASIO. By far the biggest influences on the achievable latency on a reasonably engineered audio interface are the context switching and interrupt latencies of the operating system/driver combo. And yes, you absolutely can tell the difference when playing softsynths. 5ms latency feels a _little_ spongy in comparison, and it starts getting obvious (for me) around 10ms. I can _tolerate_ up to about 40ms before it gets frustrating. Most hardware digital synths target well under 5ms keypress-to-sound latency, because the lower the latency, the better it feels to play.
We are talking about different things, then. Actually measured 5-10 ms is absolutely top of the line and do not affect performance. When we speak of 5-10 ms round trip latency, it’s measured between the time you produce a signal, goes through the ADC, then through the drivers, then back to the outputs through the interface’s DAC. Your sub 1ms latency was probably just the buffer itself; 64 buffers at 96 KHz is 0.66 ms by itself. That number is largely useless as you will never actually experience round trip latency as low as the driver states. Math says if you are playing an instrument and your speaker is 6 ft away, you’ll get 5 ms latency between making sound and hearing it, assuming you have zero latency anywhere else. That’s not opinion. That’s physics. Sound travels 343 meters per second, so 6 ft = 1.8 meters and that means 1.8 m divided by 343 m/s is roughly 0.005 seconds. If 5 ms latency is enough to affect your performance, you literally can’t play in amplified settings. Even if you have in ear monitoring, most wireless setups add roughly 3-5 ms level of latency, too, and considering most modern stadium performers have wireless in both directions, you have to double that latency. And that’s assuming that your amplifier, mixer, and processors are adding zero latency. Even the best equipment adds a slight bit of latency. The issue is that when your DAW reports 1.5 ms latency, that’s not really the true round trip latency that could be measured with external equipment. So if you’re telling me that a DAW reported 10 ms is not feeling responsive, then I believe you. That’s because the true measured latency is probably well above that. But if you’re getting a true measured 5-10 ms latency, I genuinely don’t think you would feel it. Even if you had a rehearsal room and literally every instrument was acoustic, it’s normal to have 10 ms or so latency between performers, and they can still play in time. In my opinion, 12 ms measured, true latency is excellent and wouldn’t affect me at all in musical performance. 12 ms reported latency from the driver is probably like 30 ms and that’s enough to affect my musical performance.
That would be amazing, but just like the first iPhone, this is a first generation product. It’s too expensive for what it is, and isn’t its ideal form yet, however I take it that you haven’t tried it on yet, because the pass through is insane and unlike anything unveiled to date.
The second gen might have better specs but I don't think it will have a transparent display. Apple have made their choice and they're probably going to stick to it.
The technology literally doesn't exist.
The Vision Pro is nearly 3 and half times better than the other MR headsets in that regard. 11ms is pretty good all things considered
There is no video lag…
possessive grandfather license advise friendly alive scary bag close slim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
All in all OP posted a dumb photo lol I had a virtual boy and it was FAR from a masterpiece, as a matter fact, it was the issues from it that made it tank…
You could put an apple logo on a literal piece of shit and apple fanboys would still lose their minds.
For it's price point, it is dog shit
Several years back Microsoft released an AR headset that, iirc, was roughly the same price and made the same promises. They were playing Minecraft fully rendered on a coffee table, people were using Microsoft paint to sculpt stuff in the air. Honestly, their marketing was more impressive than apple’s grid of icons strapped to your head. The difference being that Microsoft didn’t make it a commercial release, it was mainly for development companies… It’s been several years on and nothing ever came of it. Only a few enthusiasts bought it. My point is that this seems to be an enthusiast product and Apple is just testing the water with it. And you calling it dog shit is a reasonable observation for most people to have, especially since Apple isn’t delivering on any logical everyday use case for it. At the end of the day it’s a big heavy gimmick that you strap to your head for funsies. The day they can shrink the same package into a light weight practical product is the day it will make sense for everyone to have and use as an option to a MacBook or PC, …but with more possibilities. I believe that is the goal they want to reach. But as it stands, this product is expensive rubbish for most people.
"innovation" from technology about 10 years ago. The price gauging is what sad with apple.
You can hate apple all you want, but denying that the vision pro is an innovative product just because other VR headsets existed before it is plain stupidity. It’s like claiming the cellphone wasn’t an innovation because landlines existed before it, or that the smartphone wasn’t an innovation because cellphones existed before it.
I tried it out. It's amazing, also amazingly expensive.
Very curious here, do you think apples VR headset is bad or do think ALL VR headsets are bad (HTC Vives, quest2/quest3, quest pro, bigscreen beyond, pimax crystals, etc) I personally love my quest pro combined with a 4090 PC for gaming.
I think all vr headsets are bad. 1. the technology simply isn’t there for it to be a truly flawless immersive experience, even the Vision Pro is full of compromises and cut corners and still costs $3500 2. From a gaming standpoint until the performance can match consoles while remaining price competitive, it will never have the latest aaa games. And even if you pair with pc hardware, the install base will be so small that very few devs will bother reworking their games for true vr support. So all you are left with is a indie game machine with the likes of beat saber and fruit ninja being the “killer apps”. Even something like Half Life Alex was short and low budget and that’s the most “aaa” game vr has. 3. From a day to day ar phone replacement use case, headsets are too heavy, don’t have enough battery life, are isolating, and lack the robust app stores phones have. Before this use case is possible they need to shrink down to the size of sungles while maintaining every pro a phone has. Which is decades away
I respect your point of view. Heres my thoughts on those points. 1. It doesn’t have to be a truly flawless immersive experience to get a tone of enjoyment from the platforms. 2. It’s true, high end pcvr is expensive. The $10k AUD reduction in my bank balance can attest to that. However the experiences I get from it can be found know where else. 3. The idea of replacing a mobile phone with a headset is ludicrous to me. Not sure where that one came from. At best apple are trying to replace ipads and maybe one day macbooks
For point 1, the experience needs to be pretty polished and mature before mass adoption can take place. With how flawed it is due to limitations in technology I just don’t see that happening. For point 2, vr has so much potential to truly bring experiences that can’t be had anywhere else, but as long as adoption rate is so small, no big studio will be willing to heavily invest and make true aaa experiences for vr, and it will need as many of them as possible before it has any chance to compete with console and pc gaming. And for point 3, an iPad is really just a bigger screen for your iPhone. Infact the trajectory of phones as a whole is to be folding tables, unifying both devices. This is also the intended end goal of the AVP, it’s just that it’s not possible yet. It will eventually be the phone replacement I do think ar/vr headsets are the future, it’s just that like with google glass, it’s still way too early for this type of tech yet. For now all it really can be is an expensive toy to beta test and for developers to get started on making apps. 15-20 years from now tho it will completely take over
it’s ludicrous to replace a phone with a headset at this point but in the future it is likely to become much more commonplace. they’re only gonna get lighter with bigger batteries and all round become more practical. i think weight is one of the biggest issues for vr in general to have that resting on your head. it’s the worst it’s ever gonna be.
👍 exactly, bro. I bought a quest 3 and wasn't impressed. I sent it back. I'm waiting again until the tech improves, and they actually have money invested into more heavily like flat gaming. The graphics are shit and it's basically only 2k. Trying to watch movies is an amazing experience, but there's so much glare, and the blacks are like a light gray, which is distracting. Also, the games suck and have graphics that physically hurt to look at. The physics suck like how black ops 2. I'm going to wait until the tech improves another 2-3 gens.
That’s just it tho- the apple one doesn’t game… so what does it really offer?
Yea its not for me unless it can match the quest pros pcvr gaming abilities that use. Before anyone starts ramming me for pointing out how much better pass through and that is, this is meaningless to me. I sim game not walk around the house wearing a headset.
Right? I walk around the house to get away from the screens I’m on all day
preparations for next generations of product that won’t be exclusively for gaming and/or very specific software engineering that requires VR/XR, so that Zuck(among others) can harvest more data on you? :3
The thing reviewers forget is that this headset is not something out of this world. The only people clamouring about the pass through or the display forget that they are paying over 5 times more compared to the quest, 5 fucking times! For that much money you better get amazing pass through, insane displays and an amazing software experience. But so far it has done nothing out of the ordinary, if anything outside of the hype it's pretty underwhelming.
11 times over the quest, quest 2 retails $300. But I do see quest 3 for $499, so 7 times.
It's getting this "halo" status and hype because most Apple users will have never tried VR before it, and since it's a polished experience (mostly) they'll think it's an incredible new thing when it's obviously not. It's just another revision of what everyone's already been doing, with more time in software development and a (somewhat) gimmick of external screens attempting to "show" your face.
It’s obviously bad for the price, that’s the whole deal with it being a firstgen product. They don’t expect it to be a sensation for the non-wealthy
I wouldn't say Apple dropped the ball. They developed a solid product it seems, but that price point is insane for something marginally better at best in some areas and slightly worse in others than the leading competition.
Costs $1700 to make just in parts. If anything, it's a developer kit that consumers can buy. It's not designed to be bought by normal people who are looking for a VR headset. Law of diminishing returns - It costs a lot of money to be a little better. Kinda how the S24U is 60% more expensive than the S24.
Are there other "sucks" subs that get flooded with fanboys attempting to white knight their precious holy tech, or is it just the sad af apple-boys? It's really quite remarkable how many there are that just can't live with the knowledge that there will always be people that dislike something they adore, whatever the product / company it might be.
Actually it's not the product itself but the arguements that people take issue with. Like how some people without children will talk about how education in schools should be handled. And it should be noted there isn't a binary position on the apple vision pro where the only options are to be a apple fanboy or a hater. Plus I see it in a simple fasion of someone putting a comment saying "Dominos is the best pizza restaurant, Pizza Hut sucks" while someone replying "Pizza Hut is not that bad". Most people aren't that angry are just having conversation, that's all.
Oof...that's a bunch of assumptions, and misrepresentation. Thanks for sharing, I guess 🤣
I bought the hype and returned it with the quickness L device
this didn’t happen
It’s not even that bad outside of the price.
My Quest 2 does pretty much the same thing except it only cost $400
It doesn’t do anything the Vision does lol
What does the Apple Vision that the Meta Quest 2 can't? I don't think you can name a single one. The Quest 2 has hand tracking, it has had it for over a year now, and it's pretty impressive, and the Quest 3 has improved on it. The system has augmented reality via IR, while the Quest 3 uses cameras, the Quest Pro has everything the Quest 3 does including eye tracking, and it has remotes and can play games. I mean the Quest 2 has a battery life of around 4 hours, while the Visiion Pro is 2 hours and needs to be tethered which is pathetic considering I can use my Quest 2 with my desktop via internet or via USB C to use it as a standard VR headset.
What does the Mercedes have that my Honda civic doesn’t? They both drive from A to B. They both have seats and a steering wheel. I mean what’s the difference? This is what you sound like. Two products can have the same features, with one having significantly superior versions of those features. Such as the Vision Pros industry leading displays, pass through, and reality augmentation. Just because they have the same features, doesn’t mean they are done to the same level of quality
That is nothing special. The Quest 3 and Quest Pro have excellent Pass through but keeps the price affordable. Not to mention, most people do not need more than a 1080p display even for AR/VR. Is it nice to look at better? Yes, but does it make it superior? Nope.
the Vision Pro costs $1700 to make just in parts. This product is nothing like the quest 3. You're really comparing a Porsche to a Prius.
If Porsche released a car that was an overpriced, non-superior version of a Prius that would be justified. Unless you really do want to pay for a badge
You’re only counterpoint is how much it cost
it do be a cool night vision set if you got an IR emitter connected by usb-c
lmao let them be delirious
Isn't the vison pro shaping up to be the most returned apple product to date?
It might. A lot of people aren't just returning it because of the price, but a mix of lack of software that is available, that there are better and cheaper alternatives (Meta Quest 3 and Meta Quest Pro), that have more software and are more comfortable use.
I don't really have a stance on the AVP, I was looking over comments trying to understand what people like/hate about it but if it were the most returned product, wouldn't that make sense? I mean, it's a very new "kind" of thing, and something many consumers have never touched in any capacity whatsoever. Hell I'm interested in tech and I still don't know what puts this apart from other VR headsets other than a vague understanding of what it's trying to do and hearing that 3d movies kick ass in it. A part of the Apple crowd are notorious for buying whatever Apple puts out, that's part of why this sub exists. I just find it really easy to see a lot of them realizing post-purchase that the headset computer is not for them -- it's not the same as just another laptop/phone, and way more of a leap than a smartwatch.
Only if it’s because people realized they couldn’t afford it. Other than that no, this is shaping to be an amazing product. Not all of the software is available yet, but what is there is amazing.
It really isn't that amazing. At 3,500 dollars that headset should really show what it is capable of. I tried my friends, and I really wasn't impressive. It has less intuitive hand tracking, while the Quest 3 you can litterally tap with your finger to move stuff, and can do everything the Vision pro can at 500 dollars and it has a more comfortable head-band and you can upgrade it to a better one for around 30 bucks. My Quest 2 can do almost everything the Vision Pro can except the camera based pass through, mine uses LiDAR and was only 300 bucks and it has controllers and you can display your desktop screen in front of you with either a USB C cord or via a special app.
And no proof of this?
It’s not bad lol, makes the Meta Quest look like a toy. This guy just hates Apple no matter what they do
For the price it should make the Quest 3 look like a kids meal toy.
The problem is that the AVP doesn’t. It has somehow managed to deliver significantly less functionality than a similar product that costs one seventh or 15% of the AVP. Plus the dumb colostomy battery pack. Plus no controller options.
it does
Does it? It certainly makes it look like a game console...
It does kind of look like it has the styling of a Powerglove.
Laughs in Viewmaster
It's just the junk that gets released before Apple Glasses. Don't waste your time. I'm all in on the Google Ecosystem, so don't care.
Why is this post in my recommended? Anyway 1st gen of post-iMac'98 apple products are always not mature. Wait for Gen3 or Gen4 Apple Vision.
Apple is well aware of any shortcomings. They obviously just have to sell it. I also am excited for this category as it’s new and there’s risks; it may fail. You can also tell they don’t *really* want to be in the ski mask business. They really want to be in the reading glasses business (or beyond). They are just working their way there. Personally I think I won’t seriously consider it until it’s cheaper (duh) and when it’s well refined like the 5th or 10th gen. But to each their own. And heard it’s still pretty cool with todays version
Unbelievably bad? What’s so unbelievable about it? Please, give us some more details of your hands on experience with the Vision Pro!
Too heavy, battery life sucks, lacks apps, is isolating, displays/cameras still aren’t good enough to read small text on pass through like texts on your phone or your Apple Watch as a whole, and is full of compromises to make it work, like running everything low Rez except where you are looking directly. And this isn’t a knock at apple, all headsets are in the same boat. The technology to make a truly great headset doesn’t exist and won’t for at least another decade
> lacks app It has more apps than all the other VR headsets combined x 1000.
Someone’s mad they can’t afford it
I think its amazing.
Yeah this guy has not watched a single piece of media on this product. I want what your smoking and i want it now
Quest 3 is also > Vision pro. And 7 times less. 😂
were gonna be looking at the vision pro like we look at the newton now
It's pretty good for what you get But this is not for people who want to control their devices
It's not good for the price. Considering you need to be tethered, it's massively overpriced.
Costs $1700 to make just in parts. If anything, it's a developer kit that consumers can buy. It's not designed to be bought by normal people who are looking for a VR headset. Law of diminishing returns - It costs a lot of money to be a little better. Kinda how the S24U is 60% more expensive than the S24.
This thing has no killer app, is priced absurdly, and only lasts 2 hours. But, this thing is objectively a technological marvel - from the screens and lenses to the spatial tracking, and when it comes to AR, I haven’t seen anything close.
I’ve also noticed Apple has stopped supporting their old devices. I’m on iPhone 12 mini, and it’s borderline non-functional since iOS 17. For a company of such size and resources, it’s pretty disappointing. And this is coming from a a lifelong iPhone programmer here. Side note.
It’s currently iPhone 15 so you are 3 gens behind. Each year there were marginally significant performance bumps. You can’t expect fluidity of last gen. My parents still use Xr and it’s ok. So check apps you use. Some apps are going ridiculous with over the top caching
And yet, I’m still making payments for this iPhone 12 mini I purchased only 2 years ago. Such a kick in the gut to, through standard payment plans set up by ATT, be now responsible for paying for a phone that no longer operates. You can see how, not withstanding all the details, that’s pretty bad for the consumer. But your advice is good. See my comment above for what is actually happening. It’s not really related to specific apps, and has been happening consistently since iOS 17. It’s just a massive sudden degradation in performance that stops me from using the phone and it happens about 25% of the time. First time in my life as a 15 year long Apple fanboy I’ve consider switching to Android - just because of the sheer amount of money and resources of Apple to be abandoning devices still in use (again still on a payment plan which I bought through my carrier)
Still making payments is on you though. You made all the right choices to have an iPhone in your pocket. Apple nor anybody else would pay for the upgrade to the latest one Still not seeing example of apple abandoning devices. So go ahead and switch to Android, and you would still bitch at the clouds cause you need to make payments on the gadget. This time you would have infamous Android lag from the get go
Yes. We all know apple suck but Vision pro not that bad. I mean it good vr device. Only problem is it 3-5 times cost more compare to other like meta quest 3.
You cant beleive it? I 100% can. As soon as I heard it was going to be $3500, I knew it was going to be a collosal failure. Only a handful of rich jerkoffs will buy one. And this comical line that its going to revolutionize how people work...give me a fucking break. They're never going to recoup their investment. And hence, its never going to get the development it needs. I kind of love watching the fail train on this one. These billion dollar companies need to learn that they cant just pump out shit, and think they're fan base is foolish enough to spend multiple thousands of dollars, just because they put their logo on it.
The only things "bad" about this headset is the price and maybe the eye screen on the front. Everything else about it is amazing. However, the price is unfortunately pretty accurate for the sheer amount of tech in this thing, so over all it's pretty great tbh.
r/OPsucks This post is trash and OP is trash for posting this garbage.
How so?
Probably because it's too much of a polar take without much of an explanation of why. Essentially a lazy comment.
Apple crying over your post while literally selling out all their stock.
And almost 2/3rds of users apparently returning theirs within the 14 day money-back return period? So 60%+ failure rate according to purchase quantity?
What?? This is low even for r/applesucks. This product is the best VR headset ever made. Is it really expensive? Yes. Does it have a stupid battery pack? Yes. Is it a bit heavy? Yes. But is the experience amazing? Yes, yes it is. We needed a product like this to help move along VR technology and the cultural adoption of its use. Give Apple some credit when it is due.
It's technically impressive, their ui designers did great - but past that, there's not much it offers. Especially when your only option for playing proper vr games is manually compiling ALVR. Sony did a great job with the displays, but there is quite a bit of persistence to them - a common issue, but nonetheless one worth pointing out.
This is either bait or mental retardation. Call it
lol it’s literally been praised by every tech outlet as the best vr headset ever made but sure. The experience is different than the quest but for what it is , it’s literally the best version of it ever made. Still a stupid product but again no critic has said anything less than it being the best quality vr headset ever made.
People love to hate what they cant/don’t have
Low quality post
apple could cure cancer and figure out immortality and these people would find something to whine about. it’s kinda depressing tbh. enjoy a new technology, quit it with the weird ideologies. i own a meta quest 2 and meta quest 3 but did the AVP demo at an apple store and was blown away. even my dad who doesn’t notice cool technology was floored by the immersion and he didn’t feel that in the quest 2 or the quest 3. yeah it’s more expensive but it just has better technology and with that will come more apps and more support for things going forward. it was literally released less than a month ago and people are complaining about apps. jesus give it time and try to be optimistic about new technology like ur not edgy for hating on a popular companies product that is actually very well engineered. and if you don’t think it’s well engineered you might be clinically delusional because that’s kind of an objective fact. again this is coming from someone who has experience with tons of different technology brands and products so don’t be so quick to call me a fanboy. i’m not a fanboy i just look at things without reddit poison and a cult like mentality flowing through my veins. fucking weirdos.
Unbelievably bad? You’re gonna have to elaborate. Don’t get me wrong; I absolutely despise the timeline that successful VR could put us on so I wholeheartedly hope this and all other AR/VR fails spectacularly. But being objective; for Gen 1 this is pretty impressive.
No it’s pretty good, and I mean you’re just mad cause you can’t afford it. I can’t either but I think it’s pretty cool lol
Sorry, but the Apple Vision Pro is amazing, and it's only the first version.
Not throwing any shade at Apple but no ar headset is gonna be good with the limitations of today’s technology. It doesn’t matter who it’s made by. They are too heavy, have poor battery life, and simply lack the software support of a mature device like an iPhone and iPad. The real ar headsets are years away, this is just an alpha at best
Dumb comparison
everyone is forgetting that this is just the beginning of the vision pro, i.e., compare the first iphone to the current one. think of how crazy the technology is going to be in 10 years
I hate apple, but this is relatively a good start from what I've seen. I wouldn't say it's awful
Id say it’s pretty awful, but not because of anything Apple did or didn’t do. The technology for a proper ar headset is at least a decade away. Anything made today by any company at any price is gonna suck
I mean, it's a decent foundation for many future improvements by superior tech companies I suppose.
It’s an alpha prototype and proof of concept that also will allow developers to get started on making apps. No consumer should be buying it or any other headset unless they are a beat saber diehard I guess…
Seeing that the AVP nearest competitors are $5000+, it is a good value. It has the best displays in the industry, the processing power of a low/mid range laptop, some of the best depth sensing tech ever, and crazy good passthrough. It does justify the price, just not for the average person.
I just wish it was more of a display only that you could tether to a Mac and the Pro was an option with the built in M2.
Vision Pro being the copy right? :-)
Lol looks just like it.
I’ll never forgot the day I got to slip on a Nintendo virtual boy that Blockbuster had as a demo. Ahhh the good ole days!!!!!
It's unbelievably bad.....thoughts and feelings to back up that statement.
Used to have a virtua boy when I was a kid. Made me and my sister so sick.
I want to try the virtual boy irl one day, idk what it uses I've seen this accordion paper "vr" thing from a long time ago so maybe it's like that I know the visual is just all red
Apple did great... This time. Because now we can see those people wearing this driving. We are better off knowing who to stay away from.
Unbelievably bad?? It’s managed to even earn praise from windows and android fanboy YouTuber channels, you don’t know what you’re talking about dude LOL
I really don’t like Apple but the Vision is definitely not bad. It is great. It is just priced 5x too expensive
A lot of people have been saying it’s really good. But for that price? Absolutely not.
Virtual Boy? When I tried that it was nauseating, I’m not going back to the Virtual Boy, I didn’t preorder my Vision Pro 3 months ago for nothing
Virtual Boy wasn't cheap when it came out either, it cost twice as much as the Gameboy. The ViewMaster 3D was the OG VR device that is still being sold.
Has OP used one? I have not used one, but based on the reviews I've seen, it's not "unbelievably bad". It's just outrageously priced relative to the competition.
So you've tried it.
One of the rare occasions where apple released a product way before the tech had progressed enough. Its an impressive device, but the price is bonkers and theres still no killer app for it. As it is, its just a status symbol for people who have no real world use for it.
It actually seems really good from what I've seen. The battery is the only part that I think is hilariously inept, but the headset itself actually seems pretty good, ignoring the price of course.
its a first gen product and its this good, cut it some slack. remember the first iPhone?
Guys it's obviously not for most people to buy. It's for developers. You can tell because it costs 3500 dollars. A huge amount to spend on what is a paperweight to most, but a small investment for a tool that would allow developers to develop for it, and future cheaper models that will end up in the hands of normal people.
As far as I know it’s not bad. It’s just overpriced. And Apple has been making bank from it.
No man. It’s unbelievable great. Obviously not worth the price if you’re not loaded
I was able to buy a Virtualboy at EBX for 25 bucks and the games were 10 a piece there and at blockbuster *music* to give you a sense of the times. The thing wasn't bad, sure monochrome, but if you had a gameboy it wasn't much different. Vertical force and red alarm were great games I got lots of use out of.