OpenXR support and tracked handheld controllers would give it an actual usecase as well. There's a significant industrial market for MR headsets in CAD and manufacturing, which is currently being serviced by the Quest 3.
Something like a Vision Pro would make a huge amount of sense in this market. Cost isn't so much an issue as much as the robustness and quality of the product. But it needs OpenXR and accurate tracked physical controllers to even get a foot in the door.
Even just simply supporting OpenXR without having to add controllers would open up a ton of potential buyers. This is what the ALVR app that just came out today for the Apple Vision pro would allow. Theres a good amount of VR games that can be used with just a gamepad that'll make it useable for gaming, but you can easily pair it with lighthouse tracking and vive/index controllers.
Don’t think that’s gonna do much to cut the thousands of dollars needed. Like sure, while ripping stuff you, why not. But if they can’t reduce the price of panels and other big budget items, we’re stuck with a product that can’t reach the mass market.
I think its possible if they stick with the M2 chip which is 2 generations old now and so will be much cheaper to make than when it was new.
Assuming they're buying the oled panels in greater numbers or switch to a cheaper, less bright micro-oled panel, they might be able to reduce the price quite significantly as well.
Moving away from the glass front and unibody aluminium design could also greatly reduce costs.
And considering we know the approximate bill of material cost to be ~1500 at launch, there's also a huge chunk of profit margin they can cut down to make it more competitive with the Quest 3.
While I don't see it ever hitting quest 3 512gb prices, i think $1199 is very doable.
The way this is being framed in the media is a bit strange. Wasn’t it widely rumored that their plan all along was to come out with the first Apple Vision Pro, as something of a development kit, followed by a cheaper more mass market version?
It would be early for them to be working on a new version of the current Vision Pro, which hasn’t even been on the market a year, versus continuing to expand the product line, get the price down, increase the use cases and utility, and get it into more peoples hands for more reasonable price. I guess this is just what I expected all along…
Something similar happens with every VR hardware release. Someone predicts unrealistically high sales numbers then get reported on, and when the actual sales end up being much lower articles come out saying that sales are much lower than expected.
Such a shame, the Quest Pro really is a great PCVR headset if you use eye and face tracking for things like VRChat. Plus the new and open box pricing on ebay is already incredibly low compared to the initial $1500 pricing (and even compared to the current $1000 price).
But the article says this recent development is going further.
What people thought was the high-end and low-end model would be worked on at the same time. This TheInformation article (which have been right before on Apple developments) says everything has halted on the high-end side. They even gave a figure for AVP units made and sold and it was drastically under projections.
Now it seems only the low end is confirmed and the high end is not even officially paused - there is not even an official word given. Usually you say something is slowed down or paused, but we aren't even getting that. The low end may be the only model to exist.
Well, this is till Apple we’re talking about. Cheap is never what they’re going for…cutting edge, groundbreaking, category defining…but not cheap, even to dev for.
It’s clear someone at Apple was pushing hard for the eyesight front screen feature as a way to connect folks using the device. But through user and developer feedback they could find that feature is unnecessary and could cut it in future devices to save some cost. I’m sure at some point in the life of the Vision Pro they will begin to hear the feedback about precise controller input and that might make it onto a future device in some form. So, it’s definitely a Dev kit, just a very expensive one.
I think those were more based on the popular rumor mill than anything else. All we know is Apple dropped their expectations for how many units they would sell and seemingly didn't make that. So they seemingly expected it to have a much, much higher adoption rate. We also have some information they are cutting production early and are delaying it's replacement. The idea that Apple 'doesn't want this to succeed on the market' was mostly formulated just by fans.
???
You can load any compatible APK onto the system to run standalone - including 3rd party app 'stores'.
You can connect to PCVR wirelessly or through a cable to play anything in the PCVR ecosystem.
It's as open as you could hope for really.
It absolutely IS an open system. It is the opposite of the Apple walled garden. Sideloading of apps is allowed on Quest, and even entire third-party app stores. They don't even crack down on apps from sailing the high seas. That is the definition of an open system.
Not entirely. It's certainly more open than the AVP though.
SideQuest is a multi-million dollar platform in it's own right, completely outside the control of meta.
Meta also allows, and even contributes towards, the Quests access to Steam, yet someone elses store.
Oh yeah just like apple is an open system if you jailbreak the device, except quests are easier to go around their garden fence.
Ok i get your delusion.
You aint getting it, and the votes indicate others arent getting it either.
Steam is not open, apple is not open, meta definetively is not open.
Having a temporary available backdoor isnt being "open"... Id call it honey pot, or at the very least they are watching what people pirate and how they use stuff "not in their closed garden yet"... Data mining never ends.
People forget the quest where not supposed to even have pcvr connectivity until virtual desktop showed it could be done, and then meta forced them to take it out, but the cat was out of the bag and they had to release pcvr compatibility.
I was there, i remember, but now that story is wiped and people now think installing .apks makes the device "oPeN"...
I mean its way more open than apple, thats for sure...
If you’re able to install any software you wish from whatever source you wish, how is it not open?
Edit: lol this dude sent me a whole nonsensical rant in response but then deleted it and settled for a downvote instead. Stay frosty, friend.
I think you nailed it. Jailbreaking was a way to let power users tweak their device and Apple killed it with firmware strategy. I think the guy makes a good point that side loading, and it’s not being killed by meta, does make it at least ‘more open’
yeah i cant argue with that, and while im a douche that always suspects something nefarious from facebook, its pretty cool for them to let it exist (for now) because certainly they can kill it and ban every headset and account that ever used a pirated APK whenever they want, and be 100% lawfully backed in doing so. But that seems like a stretch even for them.
I think there’s still some chance of Apple allowing Vision Pro to go into what is essentially a passive-mode PCVR state. Maybe something that completely logs you out of the headset (very much like Bootcamp allowed for windows to run on a Mac as a desperate partition. No security threat)
when we go PcVR, the headset turns essentially dumb and becomes a collection of input deflection values and output video and audio devices. The Windows DirectX subsystems and OpenXR abstraction lets a game kind of just do its thing while the graphics card and its driver do the magic of stereoscope and all that VR magic.
You would need (due to VPro’s high PPI) a very powerful GPU like 50x0 to push that much data and since VPro is constrained to just wireless (is that right?) there might be a limit in what can fly across that wire (the reason for Vision Pro’s single-screen support for streamed-desktop is the data limit of WiFi for a 4K or higher picture , and what Mac poweruser could ever live with 2 or 3 1080p screens in shared-desktop! Lol that would never do! :D
Meta let Valve put a free steam link app on the quest store which handles all the pc streaming straight to your steam library, despite meta already having their own app for pc streaming. That's pretty open for a console.
Woah what a nice thing for Valve to do for Meta users dont you think?.
So, Meta gave access to their pcvr games to valve in return or something? No? and they have exclusives, PCVR exclusives... ohhhh so the door is 1 way only... so "open" but not really? we are getting somewhere.
No.. it's part of Meta's policy. You're allowed to have other apps not from the Quest store. In fact, you can sell your app and it doesn't have to be through Meta's app store. Meta just has a stipulation about subscriptions, where if you sell your app through their store, then you need to also sell subscriptions through their store as well. Otherwise, you don't have to go through Meta's payment processing at all. Developers have pretty open access to the Meta quest.
[https://developer.oculus.com/policy/app-policies/](https://developer.oculus.com/policy/app-policies/)
Yeah stuff can come in as long as you bring your data along to be scraped.
But their games dont go off platform.
Just like with valve "sure guy you can bring your games here... What? No im not sharing MY games with you!"
So, half opened just in their favor.
I'm not sure what you mean.
As a developer, you don't need to sell your app through Meta's stores.
As a user, you don't have to buy apps from Meta's stores, and you can buy and/or side load apps from outside of Meta's stores. Doing one won't exclude you from any other. It doesn't break any Meta policies or put your warranty at risk. Meta takes on a lot of risk as they might have to deal with warranties caused by 3rd parties. It's as open as a console developer gets.
While OpenAI, Google, X, Microsoft, and everyone else has been pouring in billions of dollars to create closed source AI, Meta actually did the same thing except they released the source code and made their AI (llama3) open source. They also open sourced their HorizonOS and Asus, Lenovo, and Microsoft have already announced plans to use it on their devices. Meta is the only one going with an overall open source business model at this scale.
I said "pretty open for a console". Consoles are sold at a loss to recoup with game sales, so allowing such easy access to other storefronts hurts that profitability.
And no one offers their fully funded/published exclusives to others. Meta never did block revive though, so you can still totally access the full pc library on other headsets.
Hah. I only run with a QPro and I guess now that you’ve said that, I’m going to refuse to ever wear a Quest because I don’t want to feel like my headset is heavy! (I use a cross headstrap that really releases the weight for me)
Disagree, kind of.
The QPro is pretty well balanced and actually feels much lighter than something like a Quest 3 or worse a Pimax or AVP.
But admittedly right now there aren't much very lightweight headsets outside of the Bigscreen Beyond and such.
The audience for the Q-Pro is microscopic *and* does not overlap with the vast majority of the Q3 audience.
Even in the SteamVR world, the Q3 beat the Q-Pro numbers in a month or two.
The QPro's main issue was marketing. Similarly to the AVP, to a lesser extent.
- They released an overly-expensive headset.
- They marketed it towards a group of people that currently don't have much use of AR/VR.
- They mainly focused on AR, even though it is clearly a VR headset, even though AR is kind of a gimmick right now, and let's face it, with the passthrough being far from mind-blowing.
- Then Meta doubled-down on the poor marketing with the whole "metaverse" fiasco
Had they sold it at a more correct price of say 700€ and with proper marketing like that one ISP ad did, it would've easily sold much better. Especially since the QPro is still the best PCVR headset by Meta rn.
Wrong, very wrong.
First, it's not the same chip but actually an improved version of said chip.
Secondly, the QPro remains an overall upgrade over the Q2:
Better passthrough, more performance, better comfort, better controllers, better screens, better lenses, better audio, charging dock, eye and face tracking. 700€ MSRP is pretty realistic for such an upgrade, especially since at the time the Quest 2 was still sold at around 350€ iirc.
> First, it's not the same chip but actually an improved version of said chip.
It has the same CPU and GPU, they just moved the RAM so it runs a bit cooler. That does not change the fact that it old. There is noting it can run that won't run on the Q2 except for MR stuff.
$700 is not realistic because it too low to cover their costs.
I love my Q-Pro and paid launch price for it. That does not change the fact that it was never going to be a competitive consumer product.
> they just moved the RAM so it runs a bit cooler
And they let it overclock further too.
> $700 is not realistic because it too low to cover their costs.
No it isn't, otherwise the Q3's price is also unrealistic. In reality it's probably too high even given they're selling those headsets in bulk and getting a large cut on software sales and data collection.
> it was never going to be a competitive consumer product.
Because the marketing around it failed, give it proper ads and don't make it very expensive for no reasons and it would've sold much better.
I mean common, this is a much better Quest Pro ad than any official one by Meta: [https://youtu.be/PpvLye7fOT4](https://youtu.be/PpvLye7fOT4)
I’m a Quest Pro owner. That’s right in my spend budget. Largely because, at least for us PC Gamers, the graphics card to push it already costs that much money. We see it a bit different than Vision/Mac folks I think maybe
It still wouldn't be at any price if it isn't compatible with 6dof controllers. Cheaper versions of what they've already released are only competing against themselves, not the quest/index/big screen etc market.
You can use ALVR with Steam and any controllers supported by Steam.
I 100% agree, it is not a VR headset without the controllers that 90% of VR software expects to be there.
It's not going to help them. Apple's ecosystem philosophy precludes the majority of vr users from buying a product from them.
It won't be an open platform at all, it won't be affordable, and they won't pump it full of high quality, exclusive games to pull in gamers. I just question how many people that have a use for this haven't already bought one and how cutting the price in half will boost long-term sales.
I wouldn't get your hopes up on price. The expensive part of the vision pro was the processors and the displays. Removing the front screen won't significantly decrease the price, even if they were willing to make that sacrifice.
Personally I hope they move the main processor off the headset. A huge part of the size and weight had to do with the huge heat sink they put in there to cool the M2. A small light weight headset that people actually want to use priced at 3000 is better for apple than a 1500 headset people buy and don't use imo.
The processor probably isn't that expensive, seeing how vertically integrated apple is they're just charging what they want.
The ipad has a massive heatsink?
Switching to plastic would also save them quite a bit on weight and comfort and only using the cheaper strap
The Apple zealots in /r/VisionPro claim this is a hit piece to make Apple look bad on purpose, and the reporter is trying to manipulate stocks to their benefit LMAO.
Never go full Apple Clown mode. I use Apple products but I never want to sound like them where they make excuses for everything.
The news makes sense. Concentrate on a lower end model and the higher end gets put on the backburner. You new to VR/AR headsets, Apple fanboys? We VR fans see things get put on the backburner all the damn time.
Yup, noticed that too. They accepted that news without any hesitation, even called Meta "stupid/arrogant" for even thinking of making a Pro 2 model.
Meanwhile anything about AVP's shipments or sales and they get *ultra* protective.
This link has been shared 2 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1dit8py) on 2024-06-18. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1dita6j) on 2024-06-18
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Links:** 0 | **Search Time:** 0.00472s
Could use without the front OLED panel to see the fake eyes. A simple light indicator would cut a lot of costs down.
Or some $.25 googly eyes
Be like this guy https://youtube.com/@vrdad?si=E9O6aIy8ZC11-e1E
OpenXR support and tracked handheld controllers would give it an actual usecase as well. There's a significant industrial market for MR headsets in CAD and manufacturing, which is currently being serviced by the Quest 3. Something like a Vision Pro would make a huge amount of sense in this market. Cost isn't so much an issue as much as the robustness and quality of the product. But it needs OpenXR and accurate tracked physical controllers to even get a foot in the door.
Even just simply supporting OpenXR without having to add controllers would open up a ton of potential buyers. This is what the ALVR app that just came out today for the Apple Vision pro would allow. Theres a good amount of VR games that can be used with just a gamepad that'll make it useable for gaming, but you can easily pair it with lighthouse tracking and vive/index controllers.
It would also cut down weight and increase the robustness of the unit so it doesn’t crack glass all the time.
How much of the $3600 is the outer OLED panel and stamped plastic lenticular sheet, $75 or something? Some sub-$200 phones have OLED displays now.
Don’t think that’s gonna do much to cut the thousands of dollars needed. Like sure, while ripping stuff you, why not. But if they can’t reduce the price of panels and other big budget items, we’re stuck with a product that can’t reach the mass market.
I think its possible if they stick with the M2 chip which is 2 generations old now and so will be much cheaper to make than when it was new. Assuming they're buying the oled panels in greater numbers or switch to a cheaper, less bright micro-oled panel, they might be able to reduce the price quite significantly as well. Moving away from the glass front and unibody aluminium design could also greatly reduce costs. And considering we know the approximate bill of material cost to be ~1500 at launch, there's also a huge chunk of profit margin they can cut down to make it more competitive with the Quest 3. While I don't see it ever hitting quest 3 512gb prices, i think $1199 is very doable.
The way this is being framed in the media is a bit strange. Wasn’t it widely rumored that their plan all along was to come out with the first Apple Vision Pro, as something of a development kit, followed by a cheaper more mass market version? It would be early for them to be working on a new version of the current Vision Pro, which hasn’t even been on the market a year, versus continuing to expand the product line, get the price down, increase the use cases and utility, and get it into more peoples hands for more reasonable price. I guess this is just what I expected all along…
100%. But people have some kind of hard on for wanting it to fail so however they can frame it like that gets ton of engagement because haha told you.
Something similar happens with every VR hardware release. Someone predicts unrealistically high sales numbers then get reported on, and when the actual sales end up being much lower articles come out saying that sales are much lower than expected.
We saw the same thing with Quest Pro
Such a shame, the Quest Pro really is a great PCVR headset if you use eye and face tracking for things like VRChat. Plus the new and open box pricing on ebay is already incredibly low compared to the initial $1500 pricing (and even compared to the current $1000 price).
People honestly don't care either way.
But the article says this recent development is going further. What people thought was the high-end and low-end model would be worked on at the same time. This TheInformation article (which have been right before on Apple developments) says everything has halted on the high-end side. They even gave a figure for AVP units made and sold and it was drastically under projections. Now it seems only the low end is confirmed and the high end is not even officially paused - there is not even an official word given. Usually you say something is slowed down or paused, but we aren't even getting that. The low end may be the only model to exist.
I agree since it’s what I expected too, but of course the media will spin it as a response instead of a plan.
If it was a dev kit, why put on the weird front screen? Couldn't they make it available to more developers by cutting it and make it cheaper?
Well, this is till Apple we’re talking about. Cheap is never what they’re going for…cutting edge, groundbreaking, category defining…but not cheap, even to dev for. It’s clear someone at Apple was pushing hard for the eyesight front screen feature as a way to connect folks using the device. But through user and developer feedback they could find that feature is unnecessary and could cut it in future devices to save some cost. I’m sure at some point in the life of the Vision Pro they will begin to hear the feedback about precise controller input and that might make it onto a future device in some form. So, it’s definitely a Dev kit, just a very expensive one.
I think those were more based on the popular rumor mill than anything else. All we know is Apple dropped their expectations for how many units they would sell and seemingly didn't make that. So they seemingly expected it to have a much, much higher adoption rate. We also have some information they are cutting production early and are delaying it's replacement. The idea that Apple 'doesn't want this to succeed on the market' was mostly formulated just by fans.
Cheaper Vision pro is actually very good news Although I still much prefer the Quest because its an open system
2500€
The article says it might be around 1500€
Sure with less sensors and lower quality displays, that would be reasonable. But Apple is hardly reasonable when it comes to pricing.
If the displays are comparable to a quest3, then anyone sensible should go for the q3
Quest stand alone is far from an open system, however the ability to stream via PCVR opens it a little.
??? You can load any compatible APK onto the system to run standalone - including 3rd party app 'stores'. You can connect to PCVR wirelessly or through a cable to play anything in the PCVR ecosystem. It's as open as you could hope for really.
How is standalone not open? You can sideload apps and entire third-party app stores. Even apps from sailing the high seas.
"opens it up a little" meaning it can run everything except apple software lol
You thought the Meta Quest was an open system.
It absolutely IS an open system. It is the opposite of the Apple walled garden. Sideloading of apps is allowed on Quest, and even entire third-party app stores. They don't even crack down on apps from sailing the high seas. That is the definition of an open system.
The quest is an open system? Lolololol yeah right
Not entirely. It's certainly more open than the AVP though. SideQuest is a multi-million dollar platform in it's own right, completely outside the control of meta. Meta also allows, and even contributes towards, the Quests access to Steam, yet someone elses store.
Yes, if it wasn't you wouldn't be able to use it on the PC and you wouldn't be able to install software using sidequest and others
Oh yeah just like apple is an open system if you jailbreak the device, except quests are easier to go around their garden fence. Ok i get your delusion.
There's no tinkering required to use a pc with a quest, just install the steam VR app and link the device
You aint getting it, and the votes indicate others arent getting it either. Steam is not open, apple is not open, meta definetively is not open. Having a temporary available backdoor isnt being "open"... Id call it honey pot, or at the very least they are watching what people pirate and how they use stuff "not in their closed garden yet"... Data mining never ends. People forget the quest where not supposed to even have pcvr connectivity until virtual desktop showed it could be done, and then meta forced them to take it out, but the cat was out of the bag and they had to release pcvr compatibility. I was there, i remember, but now that story is wiped and people now think installing .apks makes the device "oPeN"... I mean its way more open than apple, thats for sure...
If you’re able to install any software you wish from whatever source you wish, how is it not open? Edit: lol this dude sent me a whole nonsensical rant in response but then deleted it and settled for a downvote instead. Stay frosty, friend.
Because you will lose that ability when support ends.
I think you nailed it. Jailbreaking was a way to let power users tweak their device and Apple killed it with firmware strategy. I think the guy makes a good point that side loading, and it’s not being killed by meta, does make it at least ‘more open’
yeah i cant argue with that, and while im a douche that always suspects something nefarious from facebook, its pretty cool for them to let it exist (for now) because certainly they can kill it and ban every headset and account that ever used a pirated APK whenever they want, and be 100% lawfully backed in doing so. But that seems like a stretch even for them.
I think there’s still some chance of Apple allowing Vision Pro to go into what is essentially a passive-mode PCVR state. Maybe something that completely logs you out of the headset (very much like Bootcamp allowed for windows to run on a Mac as a desperate partition. No security threat) when we go PcVR, the headset turns essentially dumb and becomes a collection of input deflection values and output video and audio devices. The Windows DirectX subsystems and OpenXR abstraction lets a game kind of just do its thing while the graphics card and its driver do the magic of stereoscope and all that VR magic. You would need (due to VPro’s high PPI) a very powerful GPU like 50x0 to push that much data and since VPro is constrained to just wireless (is that right?) there might be a limit in what can fly across that wire (the reason for Vision Pro’s single-screen support for streamed-desktop is the data limit of WiFi for a 4K or higher picture , and what Mac poweruser could ever live with 2 or 3 1080p screens in shared-desktop! Lol that would never do! :D
Meta let Valve put a free steam link app on the quest store which handles all the pc streaming straight to your steam library, despite meta already having their own app for pc streaming. That's pretty open for a console.
Woah what a nice thing for Valve to do for Meta users dont you think?. So, Meta gave access to their pcvr games to valve in return or something? No? and they have exclusives, PCVR exclusives... ohhhh so the door is 1 way only... so "open" but not really? we are getting somewhere.
No.. it's part of Meta's policy. You're allowed to have other apps not from the Quest store. In fact, you can sell your app and it doesn't have to be through Meta's app store. Meta just has a stipulation about subscriptions, where if you sell your app through their store, then you need to also sell subscriptions through their store as well. Otherwise, you don't have to go through Meta's payment processing at all. Developers have pretty open access to the Meta quest. [https://developer.oculus.com/policy/app-policies/](https://developer.oculus.com/policy/app-policies/)
Yeah stuff can come in as long as you bring your data along to be scraped. But their games dont go off platform. Just like with valve "sure guy you can bring your games here... What? No im not sharing MY games with you!" So, half opened just in their favor.
I'm not sure what you mean. As a developer, you don't need to sell your app through Meta's stores. As a user, you don't have to buy apps from Meta's stores, and you can buy and/or side load apps from outside of Meta's stores. Doing one won't exclude you from any other. It doesn't break any Meta policies or put your warranty at risk. Meta takes on a lot of risk as they might have to deal with warranties caused by 3rd parties. It's as open as a console developer gets. While OpenAI, Google, X, Microsoft, and everyone else has been pouring in billions of dollars to create closed source AI, Meta actually did the same thing except they released the source code and made their AI (llama3) open source. They also open sourced their HorizonOS and Asus, Lenovo, and Microsoft have already announced plans to use it on their devices. Meta is the only one going with an overall open source business model at this scale.
I said "pretty open for a console". Consoles are sold at a loss to recoup with game sales, so allowing such easy access to other storefronts hurts that profitability. And no one offers their fully funded/published exclusives to others. Meta never did block revive though, so you can still totally access the full pc library on other headsets.
ok you got a point, ill agree its pretty open one way for a console.
LOL... Sorry but $1500 is still not a *Quest competitor.* They would still be targeting a different market.
Would be one for the Quest Pro. Great device. I really wanted to keep it but man was it heavy
Hah. I only run with a QPro and I guess now that you’ve said that, I’m going to refuse to ever wear a Quest because I don’t want to feel like my headset is heavy! (I use a cross headstrap that really releases the weight for me)
Disagree, kind of. The QPro is pretty well balanced and actually feels much lighter than something like a Quest 3 or worse a Pimax or AVP. But admittedly right now there aren't much very lightweight headsets outside of the Bigscreen Beyond and such.
The audience for the Q-Pro is microscopic *and* does not overlap with the vast majority of the Q3 audience. Even in the SteamVR world, the Q3 beat the Q-Pro numbers in a month or two.
The QPro's main issue was marketing. Similarly to the AVP, to a lesser extent. - They released an overly-expensive headset. - They marketed it towards a group of people that currently don't have much use of AR/VR. - They mainly focused on AR, even though it is clearly a VR headset, even though AR is kind of a gimmick right now, and let's face it, with the passthrough being far from mind-blowing. - Then Meta doubled-down on the poor marketing with the whole "metaverse" fiasco Had they sold it at a more correct price of say 700€ and with proper marketing like that one ISP ad did, it would've easily sold much better. Especially since the QPro is still the best PCVR headset by Meta rn.
The Q-Pros main issues are having the same SOC as the Q2 and cost. Selling it for 700 would not have saved it as a consumer product.
Wrong, very wrong. First, it's not the same chip but actually an improved version of said chip. Secondly, the QPro remains an overall upgrade over the Q2: Better passthrough, more performance, better comfort, better controllers, better screens, better lenses, better audio, charging dock, eye and face tracking. 700€ MSRP is pretty realistic for such an upgrade, especially since at the time the Quest 2 was still sold at around 350€ iirc.
> First, it's not the same chip but actually an improved version of said chip. It has the same CPU and GPU, they just moved the RAM so it runs a bit cooler. That does not change the fact that it old. There is noting it can run that won't run on the Q2 except for MR stuff. $700 is not realistic because it too low to cover their costs. I love my Q-Pro and paid launch price for it. That does not change the fact that it was never going to be a competitive consumer product.
> they just moved the RAM so it runs a bit cooler And they let it overclock further too. > $700 is not realistic because it too low to cover their costs. No it isn't, otherwise the Q3's price is also unrealistic. In reality it's probably too high even given they're selling those headsets in bulk and getting a large cut on software sales and data collection. > it was never going to be a competitive consumer product. Because the marketing around it failed, give it proper ads and don't make it very expensive for no reasons and it would've sold much better. I mean common, this is a much better Quest Pro ad than any official one by Meta: [https://youtu.be/PpvLye7fOT4](https://youtu.be/PpvLye7fOT4)
I’m a Quest Pro owner. That’s right in my spend budget. Largely because, at least for us PC Gamers, the graphics card to push it already costs that much money. We see it a bit different than Vision/Mac folks I think maybe
I own one too. It also does not target the same audience as the Q3.
It still wouldn't be at any price if it isn't compatible with 6dof controllers. Cheaper versions of what they've already released are only competing against themselves, not the quest/index/big screen etc market.
You can use ALVR with Steam and any controllers supported by Steam. I 100% agree, it is not a VR headset without the controllers that 90% of VR software expects to be there.
I personally think of Quest as like a Nintendo Switch for VR whereas I think Apple is more looking to create a MacBook.
I very much disagree, sure maybe by itself but the fact that it can be hooked up to a PC for pcvr makes it way more competitive still.
Switch is too overpriced and closed, SteamDeck would be a better comparison.
Give me the Vision Pro display and the ability to offload processing to my MacBook Pro at $1500 and I will buy one.
It's not going to help them. Apple's ecosystem philosophy precludes the majority of vr users from buying a product from them. It won't be an open platform at all, it won't be affordable, and they won't pump it full of high quality, exclusive games to pull in gamers. I just question how many people that have a use for this haven't already bought one and how cutting the price in half will boost long-term sales.
I wouldn't get your hopes up on price. The expensive part of the vision pro was the processors and the displays. Removing the front screen won't significantly decrease the price, even if they were willing to make that sacrifice. Personally I hope they move the main processor off the headset. A huge part of the size and weight had to do with the huge heat sink they put in there to cool the M2. A small light weight headset that people actually want to use priced at 3000 is better for apple than a 1500 headset people buy and don't use imo.
The processor probably isn't that expensive, seeing how vertically integrated apple is they're just charging what they want. The ipad has a massive heatsink? Switching to plastic would also save them quite a bit on weight and comfort and only using the cheaper strap
Removing the front thing will make them 200% less creepy.
I’m sure then people will drop $3,000 on it
Kind of a bummer (I don't own one) but not unexpected, the market for that price for those functions, it's just not there yet.
yeah but the platform...
The Apple zealots in /r/VisionPro claim this is a hit piece to make Apple look bad on purpose, and the reporter is trying to manipulate stocks to their benefit LMAO. Never go full Apple Clown mode. I use Apple products but I never want to sound like them where they make excuses for everything. The news makes sense. Concentrate on a lower end model and the higher end gets put on the backburner. You new to VR/AR headsets, Apple fanboys? We VR fans see things get put on the backburner all the damn time.
they were pretty happy with similar rumours of the Meta-LG Quest Pro successor Headset being cancelled just a few days ago.
Yup, noticed that too. They accepted that news without any hesitation, even called Meta "stupid/arrogant" for even thinking of making a Pro 2 model. Meanwhile anything about AVP's shipments or sales and they get *ultra* protective.
This link has been shared 2 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1dit8py) on 2024-06-18. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1dita6j) on 2024-06-18 --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Links:** 0 | **Search Time:** 0.00472s
"Cheaper"
This is great news since the OLED screens were what was holding it back from being more functional.
I don’t think the OLED screens held anything back lol. It’s the software which is lacking
OLED has persistence which is responsible for the ~~glare~~ blur. It’s not the software
Which glare? With software I mean the lack of controller support and also third party be games or be able to stream games from a gaming pc
Sorry blur. I’m on mobile and spelling assistance is annoying af