The Apple Vision Pro goes on sale in the US on February 2 for $3,499

P

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
25,859
The company says the hotly anticipated device will arrive in the US on February 2nd...Pre-orders for the mixed reality headset, which starts at $3,499 for 256GB of storage, will open on January 19th...the device will be available at all US Apple Store locations as well as through the company's web store

Those who require vision correction will need to snap up Zeiss optical inserts and attach them to the headset magnetically (Vision Pro doesn't work with glasses)...Readers will cost $99, while prescription lenses will set you back $149...the inserts will only be available for purchase online, so don't expect to be able to wander into an Apple Store to pick them up...

https://www.engadget.com/the-apple-...-the-us-on-february-2-for-3499-142006153.html

Vision Pro.png
 
Twisted Kidney said:
$3500 Freedom Bucks for digital googly eyes... That's a master-class in the early adopter tax...
Click to expand...
Not even early adopters, interior design, drafting, engineering, cad studios, and many 3D design studios spend just as much or more for the Microsoft HoloLens sets, they start at $3500 and work up from there.
Apple is 2 years late to this party.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy
 
Lakados said:
Not even early adopters, interior design, drafting, engineering, cad studios, and many 3D design studios spend just as much or more for the Microsoft HoloLens sets, they start at $3500 and work up from there.
Apple is 2 years late to this party.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah yakkety schmakkety.

It's all about them digital googly eyes.

Innovation.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
$3500 Freedom Bucks for digital googly eyes... That's a master-class in the early adopter tax...
Click to expand...
It's not for early adopters, it's for devs. Sure some early adopters will buy them, but they aren't the intended target.

Edit: in fact all of this info has been known for years. We knew that these were going to come in at $2k+ and targeting devs. And even at that time I knew people were going to complain about the pricing when it’s not even for them.
 
Last edited:
Had Apple been smart, they would have priced it at something like $899 instead, taking a fairly large loss per sale, but making up for this by generating instant and massive market share gains in the VR/AR space in a very short amount of time. They’d also be able to lower their sales losses over time with economy of scale improvements as well as generating/driving large software sales. Apple has very deep pockets and could have done this. At $3500, it is destined to flop rather hard.
 
Supercharged_Z06 said:
Had Apple been smart, they would have priced it at something like $899 instead, taking a fairly large loss per sale, but making up for this by generating instant and massive market share gains in the VR/AR space in a very short amount of time. They’d also be able to lower their sales losses over time with economy of scale improvements as well as generating/driving large software sales. Apple has very deep pockets and could have done this. At $3500, it is destined to flop rather hard.
Click to expand...
That's completely dependent on their sales expectations (currently <150k for 2024 IIRC). Apple knows it's going to be low volume for devs. This convo about Apple and VR has been going on for at least 3 years at this point. Apple's strategy is very long on VR and they plan to grind it out for a long time. They see VR as being in its infancy, which it is, as it's still only in the realm of the hyper enthusiast. Even PSVR isn't particularly successful. They eventually want to have the "next" product that every person will own after iPhone and that will only happen if there is a mature platform for all those consumers to buy into. And that only happens if they have a strong dev work backbone.

They have also already stated that they plan to launch a consumer facing VR device several years after this Pro device. Your miscalculation here is that you think they're trying to make the Vision Pro their consumer facing device and they absolutely aren't. When that device does drop after Pro in a few years and they've "harvested" multiple killer apps and actual use cases for VR for regular people to use, that's when they'll strike. Not before.
 
Last edited:
Supercharged_Z06 said:
Had Apple been smart, they would have priced it at something like $899 instead, taking a fairly large loss per sale, but making up for this by generating instant and massive market share gains in the VR/AR space in a very short amount of time. They’d also be able to lower their sales losses over time with economy of scale improvements as well as generating/driving large software sales. Apple has very deep pockets and could have done this. At $3500, it is destined to flop rather hard.
Click to expand...
This is Apples counter to the $3500-$5200 hololense. Apple needed this out a year or two ago but it’s still a growth market and really they only recently got their hardware to a place where the software apps that use these can run well.

VR and hardware acceleration for the UE5 tools studios are using for the virtual stages is a potent combo and it lets set designers do virtual walk throughs of their sets while giving far better ideas of how things come together.

There are plenty of real world cases where professional firms are putting in Windows PC’s in otherwise all Mac environments just to run the Hololense because it’s that much of a time saver. So Apple is working to win them back and honestly the specs it has at $3500 USD is already disruptive, when compared to the other professional AR offerings.
 
All right Valve, now's the time to announce both Deckard and some extremely high end Deckard Pro, as compared to Apple's pricing Valve can throw in the kitchen sink and it will still be a value. its obvious that this is going to inspire a new wave of VR focus and I'd rather have something from one company that prefers FOSS, supports Linux, and isn't just strapping a new advertising and data mining operation to your head or pointing you toward a walled garden.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
It's not for early adopters, it's for devs. Sure some early adopters will buy them, but they aren't the intended target.

Edit: in fact all of this info has been known for years. We knew that these were going to come in at $2k+ and targeting devs. And even at that time I knew people were going to complain about the pricing when it’s not even for them.
Click to expand...

I think they'll make a lot more money off of the "new maxed out iPhone every single year" set than they will developers, that's why they've made it so public and available.

Apple has had some great products, god knows I own a bunch of them. There's a certain subset of Apple customers that are every bit as obsessive as some PC gamers are and they spend like it.
 
Supercharged_Z06 said:
Had Apple been smart, they would have priced it at something like $899 instead, taking a fairly large loss per sale, but making up for this by generating instant and massive market share gains in the VR/AR space in a very short amount of time. They’d also be able to lower their sales losses over time with economy of scale improvements as well as generating/driving large software sales. Apple has very deep pockets and could have done this. At $3500, it is destined to flop rather hard.
Click to expand...
It's not going to flop — it's reasonable to assume Apple will sell every Vision Pro it can make this year. It's just that this is a low-volume product. The real challenge is scaling the business to reach a wider audience. Going all-out on specs, regardless of cost, is relatively easy. Making something that's far less expensive but still maintains the core experience? That's the tricky part.

My guess is that the regular Apple Vision costs about $1,499. It loses the clever external screens, probably a bit of resolution and a few minor things, but it's more than enough for everyday use. That may still be expensive compared to a Meta Quest, but I could see people snapping that up as a desktop/laptop replacement if they don't mind wearing a headset.
 
Would love to try it. Still sporting a OG htc vive so i havent even touched AR or even VR with a better screen. Always liked the idea of a VR work space where i can have more screens and/or even a fake environment to make me think im not sitting in a dark office lol.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
They eventually want to have the "next" product that every person will own after iPhone and that will only happen if there is a mature platform for all those consumers to buy into. And that only happens if they have a strong dev work backbone
Click to expand...

I don't think Apple believes this will ever be as successful as the iPhone
 
I'm not going to spend that kind of money for something like this, but I appreciate what they're doing. As long as we have major players pushing the tech forward, we'll see hopefully see improvements across the board.
 
Apple will sell a lot of them no matter the price. I dozens and dozens of people that will buy even if they have to borrow the money!
 
UnknownSouljer said:
That's completely dependent on their sales expectations (currently <150k for 2024 IIRC). Apple knows it's going to be low volume for devs. This convo about Apple and VR has been going on for at least 3 years at this point. Apple's strategy is very long on VR and they plan to grind it out for a long time. They see VR as being in its infancy, which it is, as it's still only in the realm of the hyper enthusiast. Even PSVR isn't particularly successful. They eventually want to have the "next" product that every person will own after iPhone and that will only happen if there is a mature platform for all those consumers to buy into. And that only happens if they have a strong dev work backbone.

They have also already stated that they plan to launch a consumer facing VR device several years after this Pro device. Your miscalculation here is that you think they're trying to make the Vision Pro their consumer facing device and they absolutely aren't. When that device does drop after Pro in a few years and they've "harvested" multiple killer apps and actual use cases for VR for regular people to use, that's when they'll strike. Not before.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty big risk to take for a potential product. If the AppleVR is designed to be working with the Apple ecosystem, then this all makes sense. But there is no Apple ecosystem for VR, and may never be one. Would Apple invest heavily in a system that is used to develop products that will not be used on Apple devices? Are companies ready to shell out thousands of dollars for something that is designed for end products that may never be released? Something in this strategy isn't adding up here for me, and I can only imagine there is a lot of stuff hidden behind NDAs that hasn't been reported on.
 
RanceJustice said:
All right Valve, now's the time to announce both Deckard and some extremely high end Deckard Pro, as compared to Apple's pricing Valve can throw in the kitchen sink and it will still be a value. its obvious that this is going to inspire a new wave of VR focus and I'd rather have something from one company that prefers FOSS, supports Linux, and isn't just strapping a new advertising and data mining operation to your head or pointing you toward a walled garden.
Click to expand...
This isn't a VR device and it isn't aimed Valve's target market (gaming).
 
Airbrushkid said:
Apple will sell a lot of them no matter the price. I dozens and dozens of people that will buy even if they have to borrow the money!
Click to expand...
As I already noted, Apple think it will sell <150k units this year. Which is Meta Vision Pro numbers. That is to say, very low considering the size of Apple (or Meta).

People think that everyone just buys Apple's stuff. But that hasn't been true literally of every market that they've entered into for around the first 3-5 years they entered it.

jardows said:
That's a pretty big risk to take for a potential product. If the AppleVR is designed to be working with the Apple ecosystem, then this all makes sense. But there is no Apple ecosystem for VR, and may never be one. Would Apple invest heavily in a system that is used to develop products that will not be used on Apple devices? Are companies ready to shell out thousands of dollars for something that is designed for end products that may never be released? Something in this strategy isn't adding up here for me, and I can only imagine there is a lot of stuff hidden behind NDAs that hasn't been reported on.
Click to expand...
I think you can only think/feel that way about it if you don't have an understanding of how Apple does things.

Back in 2006/07 the iPhone was a "big risk". As was the iPad back in 2009. And Watch in 2013.

Each of those products did not sell well initially but Apple 'saw' the market. VR is not selling well for anyone (Quest Pro is <400k total. The highest selling is regular Quest 1/2/3 and I think it's like 40 million units total?) and Apple is smart enough to know it will continue to be a small niche until there is something developed there that "normal people" will actually be interested in buying. They have a vested interest in not being like the companies they built themselves on top of. Companies like Xerox that sat on UI interfaces for OS'. Or have an unwillingness to cannibalize their own product. They see VR/AR as potentially being the next technology that will supplant cellphones. However they obviously also see that that future though coming is distant. A lot has to be worked out. They know consumers don't want bulky HMD's, they want a "reasonable cost", it can't look stupid (subjective yes, but the Vision Pro definitely doesn't meet soccer mom levels of universality certainly), and it has to have such killer features that it's "irreplaceable". And none of those things exist yet.

Apple's investment in VR goes far beyond this HMD. Unlike all of their competitors, perhaps save Meta, Apple has already developed an entire software stack to develop for VR. Including libraries, programming languages, Swift, Metal, etc. Apple's lifeblood is the dev. And whatever you think of Apple, their hidden strength (at least to the layperson) is that they have built every resource, made it robust and easy to use for developers. Apple is likely easier to develop for than nVidia platforms. I say all that to say, Apple operates in their hardware space a lot differently than say, Microsoft. Microsoft which can't be bothered to pick a direction and stick with it or take losses on anything and is pushed around by corporate interests that aren't their own. And if you don't know what I'm talking about you can look at the camel that is Windows vs macOS or Windows Mobile vs iPhone/Android just to name but two examples. Apple makes a specific product with a specific direction (the "Apple way") and because they hone it becomes very good at what they intend it to do. Microsoft can't pick a direction and their vision is scattered by enterprise, their own board, and technologists. They don't have a good visionary to push a specific vision.

Apple strategically plans years in advance, it assesses the market, picks a direction, and then commits for years if not decades. VR is not something that they have only spent the last year investing into. It's likely been at least a 5 year process, 3 of which we have some information about. And those other couple of years were them assessing what the potential of the market is/was and planning and developing their library/software stack for VR. Vision Pro may have "appeared" in 2023, but a ton of other development took place. It's not just hardware. This one HMD and this VR "experiment" if you want to call it that has already had billions spent on it from Apple. They are more than comfortable riding out another 5 years easily. This is similar to their strategies that they've done before with iPhone, iPad, and Watch. Each of those devices had at least 3 years of development before launch.

I'll also note that all the information I'm telling you has more or less been known about Apple in terms of the VR space for 3 years; if you've been paying attention. WWDC keynotes have come and gone. There have been tons of investor reports. Dozens of insider leaks. None of this is surprising if you've been following it.

Finally, I personally also think that the future for regular people will be AR and not VR. Which is also why Apple invested into the certain aspects of Vision Pro that it did. That is to say, having the best video "pass through" mode of any HMD, and although people are making fun of its external display showing the person's eyes that is designed to humanize the HMD, it has a purpose in integrating the digital space into the outside world. I see logically that a lot of apps that will be developed for Vision Pro and future VR devices being things that integrate the digital space into the physical world. And I think that's more or less what Apple sees as well. VR really just maybe the necessary step into creating a true AR device.

Basically creating something that "Google Glass" always wanted to be, but the tech didn't exist for. A lot of work will have to be done with display tech, battery life, camera, AI, tracking, let alone massive amounts of software. And the software is the key to why Apple wins.
 
Last edited:
Armenius said:
This isn't a VR device and it isn't aimed Valve's target market (gaming).
Click to expand...
Darunion said:
I think too many people are confused thinking this is a consumer entertainment device.
Click to expand...

I know it isn't. Its obviously Apple's plan for pro-level VR, early adopter, developer platform and to get a lot of oohs and ahhhs over Apple' magic "Inventing" VR, with a more consumer focused cheaper option down the line. If it follows like many other Apple products, rightly or wrongly (and I lean towards the latter; I can remember the reality distortion field of the Jobs era), the launch of something like this will lead to a greater focus on the tech or platform , in this case VR. All the usual blogs and social media will talk about how it differs from earlier generation (much of it simply just the evolution of the tech and willingness to price it at that level) and how if Apple is onboard then "VR has finally arrived/is coming into its own" and the like. This leads to other hardware and software manufacturers often trying to make their own products to compete favorably with Apple's - we've seen it with phones and watches for instance - sometimes with better tech/specs or value, other times a pale imitation or also ran, but the phenomena seems to be pretty consistent; invoked especially dramatically when Apple launches a new type of device. Especially one that, as jardows mentions only makes sense alongside an attempt to cultivate an entirely new market - Apple hasn't done VR/AR before, so it portends an attempt to grow a whole new ecosystem.

In the flurry of coverage for this new Apple device, other current or aspiring players in the VR space will know their next generation of devices will be compared to Apple's one way or another - some may try to have some similar features but be a lot cheaper, others may try to offer improved tech specs at a similar price tier, others may try to pick up something Apple lacks or doesn't do well. etc. So with this renewed focus and, given how most in the VR/AR sphere including Apple are the sort of proprietary walled garden cultivting platforms, I'd like to see Valve use the momentum of this new VR/AR interest to announce the long awaited Index follow up(s) codenamed Deckard, which is likely to be the reference device(s) for a far more open VR future in gaming and otherwise. The price of Apple's device along with other "Professional-but-maybe-prosumer/dev" entries like Meta's Quest Pro , gives Valve the chance to create its own top of the line hardware platform to cater to developing next gen VR/AR standardized and open features to be incorporated into SteamVR/OpenVR such as FOViated rendering, eye tracking and perhaps more advanced tech previously only seen in the Hololens/Varjo XR-series and similiar professional tier. A Deckard device for consumers to be as far ahead of others as the Index platform was at its launch and/or a "Deckard Pro" to act as the reference platform for open support of advanced developer/hardware features (and also used by more than a few enthusiasts/prosumers) will help to make these technologies accessible in an open manner in the same way SteamVR/OpenVR integration has done so in the past.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
VR is not selling well for anyone (Quest Pro is <400k total. The highest selling is regular Quest 1/2/3 and I think it's like 40 million units total?) and Apple is smart enough to know it will continue to be a small niche until there is something developed there that "normal people" will actually be interested in buying...
Click to expand...

exactly...VR is not a big seller anywhere so the people saying Apple should have released this Vision Pro a few years back are wrong...Apple is smart to have waited
 
Supercharged_Z06 said:
Had Apple been smart, they would have priced it at something like $899 instead, taking a fairly large loss per sale, but making up for this by generating instant and massive market share gains in the VR/AR space in a very short amount of time. They’d also be able to lower their sales losses over time with economy of scale improvements as well as generating/driving large software sales. Apple has very deep pockets and could have done this. At $3500, it is destined to flop rather hard.
Click to expand...
Nah, because they don't have anything to do with it yet. The problem with these VR goggles is, outside of games (which are niche for various reasons) there isn't anything to do with them. I don't mean literally nothing, but I mean nothing you can't already do. Look at all their marketing of it: It is shit like "watch movies on a virtual big screen" or "do a facetime call with someone" and so on. It is all shit you can do with other devices. The problem with that is, lacking a killer app, people won't use it. They'll buy it to try and play with it, then set it aside. They'll just turn on their TV or grab their phone, rather than go and put on the clunky goggles. Humans are big on convenience so if something new is less convenient, it has to offer us something we couldn't do before, or at least couldn't do near as well, or we'll just default to using what we already have and is more convenient.

It's why someone will write an e-mail on their cellphone on the couch, despite their computer being 30 feet away and having a much nicer keyboard: Cellphone is convenient. Goggles are going to have this issue to an even greater degree because it is more of a pain and is not comfortable to wear long term. People will just not use them regularly until there's some killer app.

Given they don't have that, no reason to do it as a loss-leader. Let people with more money than sense, which there are plenty of, fund the R&D of these things and get them out there for devs to play with. Then either you or someone else DO figure out a killer app and they start selling a lot more goggles because now there's a reason to own them, or they kinda languish, but Apple didn't lose money because rich nerds subsidized the cost by paying an exhorbitant amount.

Darunion said:
I think too many people are confused thinking this is a consumer entertainment device.
Click to expand...
To be fair, that is how Apple marketed it. If you look at their videos it is all about people doing shit like watching movies, doing face time, cooking dinner with an AR recipe, that kind of shit. Given that is what Apple seems to be pushing, you can see how people would think that is the target market. To be fair, I also think it IS the initial target market. I think Apple wants the fanboys with too much money to go and buy a shiny new gadget to sell a ton and make them a shit ton of money up front.
 
Sycraft said:
Nah, because they don't have anything to do with it yet. The problem with these VR goggles is, outside of games (which are niche for various reasons) there isn't anything to do with them. I don't mean literally nothing, but I mean nothing you can't already do. Look at all their marketing of it: It is shit like "watch movies on a virtual big screen" or "do a facetime call with someone" and so on. It is all shit you can do with other devices. The problem with that is, lacking a killer app, people won't use it. They'll buy it to try and play with it, then set it aside. They'll just turn on their TV or grab their phone, rather than go and put on the clunky goggles. Humans are big on convenience so if something new is less convenient, it has to offer us something we couldn't do before, or at least couldn't do near as well, or we'll just default to using what we already have and is more convenient.

It's why someone will write an e-mail on their cellphone on the couch, despite their computer being 30 feet away and having a much nicer keyboard: Cellphone is convenient. Goggles are going to have this issue to an even greater degree because it is more of a pain and is not comfortable to wear long term. People will just not use them regularly until there's some killer app.

Given they don't have that, no reason to do it as a loss-leader. Let people with more money than sense, which there are plenty of, fund the R&D of these things and get them out there for devs to play with. Then either you or someone else DO figure out a killer app and they start selling a lot more goggles because now there's a reason to own them, or they kinda languish, but Apple didn't lose money because rich nerds subsidized the cost by paying an exhorbitant amount.


To be fair, that is how Apple marketed it. If you look at their videos it is all about people doing shit like watching movies, doing face time, cooking dinner with an AR recipe, that kind of shit. Given that is what Apple seems to be pushing, you can see how people would think that is the target market. To be fair, I also think it IS the initial target market. I think Apple wants the fanboys with too much money to go and buy a shiny new gadget to sell a ton and make them a shit ton of money up front.
Click to expand...
I think the plan is they put it out there with an appstore before killer apps emerge. Things that are awesome and you can't do on a phone, or it just works much better with the headset. If apple knew what that was they would build it themselves, but they're hoping someone builds it and they have the hardware and appstore to capitalize on it. Before Meta or someone else does.

Also apple has banned all the journalists they've shown it to from using the term "VR".
 
First apple product I have the slightest desire to purchase. Can't imagine what applehards think. You're crazy if you think these things don't sell out.
 
Come on, Apple new Appleverse will be ushered in where you can buy land, build (for a cost), sell, trade, transact (for a small Apple fee) and so on. 😊

I think more inline with huge movie productions, artist, architects, design and engineering oriented. Remote avatar, for example doing a remote operation, training, meeting.
 
Apple Store App Will Use Face Scan to Determine Apple Vision Pro Size

If you plan to spend upwards of $3,499 for the Vision Pro, you should know that the pre-order process differs from your standard iPhone order...the Apple Store app will take a facial scan to measure the required size of the Light Seal and the Head Band...if the Light Seal and the Head Band size are incorrect, the Vision Pro will wobble around and not work as intended...

https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/11/vision-pro-apple-store-app-face-scan/
 
polonyc2 said:
Apple Store App Will Use Face Scan to Determine Apple Vision Pro Size

If you plan to spend upwards of $3,499 for the Vision Pro, you should know that the pre-order process differs from your standard iPhone order...the Apple Store app will take a facial scan to measure the required size of the Light Seal and the Head Band...if the Light Seal and the Head Band size are incorrect, the Vision Pro will wobble around and not work as intended...

https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/11/vision-pro-apple-store-app-face-scan/
Click to expand...
In one regard it doesn't seem like a bad idea, until you realize when you buy one, nobody else will be able to use it comfortably.
 
polonyc2 said:
Apple Store App Will Use Face Scan to Determine Apple Vision Pro Size

If you plan to spend upwards of $3,499 for the Vision Pro, you should know that the pre-order process differs from your standard iPhone order...the Apple Store app will take a facial scan to measure the required size of the Light Seal and the Head Band...if the Light Seal and the Head Band size are incorrect, the Vision Pro will wobble around and not work as intended...

https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/11/vision-pro-apple-store-app-face-scan/
Click to expand...
Even aside from it coming as an "app" , I have no problem with this. There should be some manual version, the ability to send in your prescription ahead of time etc... but I can't see an issue with this for the cost. You should get at least something close to the proper size, especially given that if Apple history is correct, you'll have to buy other sizes a la carte if you get it wrong.
 
polonyc2 said:
everything Apple touches is gold...so this will probably be another hit...I own Apple stock so I'm hoping this does well :D
Click to expand...

+1 on this. I’ll wager Apple crushes it on this product. They’ll introduce an App Store section specifically for this and lead the way on development. This will be an early adopter tax situation, I suspect they’ll launch the next one at a much lower price point once they’ve created another eco system.

I’ll point out that “analysts” and various tech pundits said the iPhone will never displace BlackBerry as a work tool. People didn’t think AirPods were a big deal. Apple sold $14.5 billion of AirPods in 2022 alone, which is more than the entire revenue stream of most companies….in just headphones. This company redefines product categories, and I’ll happily sit back and collect the benefits as a shareholder while people across the internet try to explain to me about how stupid they look and “$3500 lmao”.
 
From what I can see so far, this product does not accomplish what my dream would be for Apple's AR/VR headset - but the SECOND one does I am in even if it's $5-10k (and it will happen eventually). And I promise you, millions of other people will be too.

In the last year I have spent more than $15k on monitors. They are huge, power hungry, require expensive arms (and Ergotron doesn't even make one yet for my 57in), and I CAN'T TAKE THEM WITH ME WHEN I TRAVEL.

If I could have a device that was comfortable to wear and allowed me to have the equivalent of multiple high PPI virtual displays anywhere, that would be worth many thousands of dollars to millions of people. And if it could double as a quality movie viewing experience, that is again worth $10k+ easily to me. I don't think this device will pull it off - to really hit my goals, the device needs to have no performance drawbacks compared to high end projectors/TVs/monitors. But man, the second one does I'm in regardless of the price. Unlimited high PPI monitor real estate? Equivalent of a 140in high res OLED display? Immediately in literally regardless of price. I have been keeping an eye on the CES announcements with some of the new 110+in TCL panels at the $12k price point, and while I really want one there are huge drawbacks like mini LED blooming and the sheer hassle of getting it into my apartment and mounting it.
 
paradoxical said:
From what I can see so far, this product does not accomplish what my dream would be for Apple's AR/VR headset - but the SECOND one does I am in even if it's $5-10k (and it will happen eventually). And I promise you, millions of other people will be too.

In the last year I have spent more than $15k on monitors. They are huge, power hungry, require expensive arms (and Ergotron doesn't even make one yet for my 57in), and I CAN'T TAKE THEM WITH ME WHEN I TRAVEL.

If I could have a device that was comfortable to wear and allowed me to have the equivalent of multiple high PPI virtual displays anywhere, that would be worth many thousands of dollars to millions of people. And if it could double as a quality movie viewing experience, that is again worth $10k+ easily to me. I don't think this device will pull it off - to really hit my goals, the device needs to have no performance drawbacks compared to high end projectors/TVs/monitors. But man, the second one does I'm in regardless of the price. Unlimited high PPI monitor real estate? Equivalent of a 140in high res OLED display? Immediately in literally regardless of price. I have been keeping an eye on the CES announcements with some of the new 110+in TCL panels at the $12k price point, and while I really want one there are huge drawbacks like mini LED blooming and the sheer hassle of getting it into my apartment and mounting it.
Click to expand...
Hololense 3 might tick most of that wish list and it is coming sometime in 2024.
 
Lakados said:
Not even early adopters, interior design, drafting, engineering, cad studios, and many 3D design studios spend just as much or more for the Microsoft HoloLens sets, they start at $3500 and work up from there.
Apple is 2 years late to this party.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy
Click to expand...
We have a hololens in our office for a medical engineering project we're doing the software for, it's really not a very good piece of hardware, especially for the cost. It's incumbent upon apple to make good documentation and make this available for people to use it for such projects though. They're so tight nit with what they do I'm not sure they're interested in cultivating the engineering crowd which would require them opening up a bit. I still build an deploy software for iOS and it's still a nightmare.
 
Decko87 said:
We have a hololens in our office for a medical engineering project we're doing the software for, it's really not a very good piece of hardware, especially for the cost. It's incumbent upon apple to make good documentation and make this available for people to use it for such projects though. They're so tight nit with what they do I'm not sure they're interested in cultivating the engineering crowd which would require them opening up a bit. I still build an deploy software for iOS and it's still a nightmare.
Click to expand...
That's kind of my point though, The HoloLense is sub-par and still more expensive than the Apple offering, but it is at least out in the wild, companies are doing stuff with it.
If that is the best of the competition out there Apple doesn't exactly have a high bar set for them to succeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top