Comment by jarek83
3 years ago
Name with "Pro" in it already, might suggest lower-tier versions coming in some future?
Device looks promising, and I wonder if they plan to allow 2 devices to show the same content simultaneously to say watch 3D movies with someone else in the same room.
Some say $3499 is a high price, but being able to carry huge design studio with you is heck of a value to me.
I get the impression this model is intended to introduce the product line to the market and give developers something to build on while Apple fine-tunes the hardware. The thing is way overpriced for the average consumer but the tech inside it is wild. I expect we'll see more consumer-friendly models in 2024-2025.
It's shipping in 2024, surely they won't release a new model in the same year.
It's supposed to ship Q1 2024 according to the keynote. I wouldn't be surprised if a cheaper model becomes available around Christmas 2024
2 replies →
This is exactly what I think is going on as well.
I've never spent even $1500 on a single tech product before, let alone $3500. They might as well have made it $9999. Its pricing puts it in the business buyer / wealthy Apple enthusiast league with Mac Pro, not consumer hardware. This is not priced for the market of middle class consumers worried about a recession.
The Quest 3 is $499. This headset looks GREAT but is it really 7X greater than the Quest 3?
Tech is so cheap now. When the Macintosh II came out in 1987 [1]:
> When introduced, a basic system with monitor and 20 MB hard drive cost US$5,498 (equivalent to $14,160 in 2022). With a 13-inch color monitor and 8-bit display card the price was around US$7,145 (equivalent to $18,400 in 2022).
Even the Commodore 64 was expensive [2]:
> Volume production started in early 1982, marketing in August for US$595 (equivalent to $1,800 in 2022).
If the experience is worth it and there's no cheaper competitor, people have the money for these things.
And honestly, as a big user of the Quest 2 -- the Quest 3 isn't anywhere close to the same ballpark as this. Apple Vision Pro looks absolutely more than 7x better, the only question is whether it's worth it for you.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_II
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64
Absolutely. I’d rather have companies making these type of high quality products even if I can’t afford them to not having products like this in the market at all.
I'm totally getting a quest for fitness. This thing doesn't look like it is designed for fitness at all, although I might get one in the future if (a) I have disposable income for it and (b) the experiences are compelling? $3500 isn't that much these days (unfortunately).
> let alone $3500. They might as well have made it $9999
I’ll buy it at $3,500, but not at $9,999
You don’t own a car?
Cars are hardly 'tech products.'
Just because there's tech in something doesn't make them a tech product. Your microwave oven probably has tech built in, doesn't make it a 'not appliance.'
> Some say $3499 is a high price
As a golfer I can assure you plenty of people will happily spend that amount and more on their hobby.
Yeah, Apple doesn't make products for niche hobbyists though.
This isn't remarkable or xReal.
This will sell like hot cakes for flight sim consumers, if they could somehow show a virtual cockpit. It will be gone in seconds, flight simmers will pay more than that. I consider myself a starter and I already spent 2k+ just on flight sim hardware.
23M pixels across the field of vision of two eyes doesn't meet the requirements of a design studio. A retina display is minimum 60 pixels per degree. This will be around 30.
What about of distance and and field of view? I haven’t seen any metrics to complete the picture.
23 million pixels is 6kx4k (or maybe a slightly different aspect ratio, but whatever). That would be a 100 degree horizontal field of view at 60 pixels per degree. That would be a fairly narrow fov, but not unusually so for an HMD. I suspect they'd go for a much wider field though.
1 reply →
No FOV was included in the announcement. These numbers are fabricated.
Foveated rendering + active optics can make the fovea 2x the peripheral.
Agreed - we don't know what the actual PPD will be, but it will surely fall short of 60 given that the VR display covers more of your field of view than a 4K monitor in front of you.
That said, it'll still be higher than the current VR headsets and I expect many people will find it sufficient for their work.
'Pro' as in 'Prototype' I guess.
use a vision Pro to type!
Do you want to be a Vision Air (TM) instead?
>might suggest lower-tier versions coming in some future?
First it has to not bomb.
That's already making an assumption that this is a valid category that isn't doomed to failure like every other attempt since 1985.
Enter the story of the Nintendo Power Glove.
Did you ever use the power glove? I had one and it was the worst piece of tech I’ve ever had from a major company.
It was quite odd that they branded it Pro but then demonstrated 90% consumer applications for it. Very mixed messaging about who the target market is.
There's SharePlay for that
Sounds like a great use for SharePlay! (: