Yeah, the high density displays are a big thing for me too. Also, the possibility of polished software that’s properly designed for the form factor (most AR/VR software that isn’t a game has felt kinda duct-tapey up until now).

I also think that compared to say the Quest Pro/3 it has more potential to be host to the first few apps that kick off the “iPhone moment” for AR. The capable hardware is certainly a factor here, but the bigger one is that it has a massive, enthusiastic dev base who can write apps for it on day one. Furthermore, those with iOS apps already can dip their toes in the platform by getting an AR-optimized app by doing little more than checking a tickbox in Xcode.

There is no iPhone moment possible. The iPhone replaced at least 2 existing devices at a digestible price. Indeed, if you bought an iPad Nano plus a good feature phone or one of the early smartphones you would be close to the iPhone price.

In France, it was launched at 600€ (8GB version) with a contract; but just the year prior I had bought a Windows mobile smartphone that completely sucked for 250€ (LG, under contract as well), plus a 210€ iPhone Nano. All in all, you are not that far from the price for a device that was truly something else and had all the functionality of the previous combo and much more.

The iPhone worked because it was priced pretty cheap considering everything it brought to the table. In fact, I am absolutely certain that people started buying iPhones because they intuitively understood that they would save money by staying ahead of the curve while bringing a lot of usefulness into their lives. It is extremely doubtful that something like that will happen with the Vision Pro, firstly because it doesn't really replace any existing device and its pricing is completely disconnected from ordinary people's reality.

The iPhone was 5 years ahead of anything on the market, yet it did not cost 3 to 7 times the equivalent technology. Actually, as I said I'm pretty sure it worked because people figured out that while it lacked some features or had "not as good" specs on paper for certain things, it was a far more usable and useful device. If you looked at its competitors at that time a Nokia N95 8GB would go for 300€ under contract (700€ naked) and the most popular Samsung/LG big feature phones/smartphone were around that price.

The iPhone was not expensive. This is a mythology created by Apple fanboys under Tim Cook that gaslighted everyone with "clever" diversification and an insane pricing ladder where he keeps selling old technology for twice the price of its competitors just because he benefits from the Apple brand halo. When you look at it the first iPhone was what is now called a "Pro" iPhone; it was the best Apple could sell, but it was also the best in the market overall, there wasn't any alternative with a better integrated package. Even if we make a charitable comparison and take for example the most expensive iPhone 3G at 700€ (16Go version) and ignore the Pro Max iPhone (which is an extreme outlier) and go for the "base" Pro iPhone at 1230€ ; you go from 68% of monthly minimum salary to 90%; a rather substantial 22% increase. For what is essentially the same thing relative to the overall market. If you were to just consider inflation, 700€ in 2009 would be around 890€ today. This is already 80€ more money than the "base" iPhone 15. This base iPhone is technologically underwhelming, its only redeeming quality is the fast silicon but it is largely unnecessary and as to make up for the lower amount of RAM (that nowadays is way more relevant to what you can do with your phones that pure benchmark speed). It is basically the same thing as a Samsung S23, expect sold at a 300€ premium.

This is the reality that the Vision Pro is launching with, and as a "new" technology it was already bound to be expensive, but under the Tim Cook "leadership" it is bound to be a meme device considering the pricing placement. It is better technology than the competition, but not 3 times better and its potential use cases are not 3 times better than what exists. In fact, we already know from very similar existing devices that such things are uncomfortable enough that they could not be considered as a primary device. So even if someone finds a use for them, it's going to be very niche and time bound. Nothing that could warrant its asking price.

But I find it very fitting to the Tim Cook era, it represents exactly what Apple has become with him: overpriced, overengineered, luxury show-off technology. Lots of posturing, enormous potential to display wealth; very little substance.

> What's interesting to me is that it seems to fully get rid of the screen door effect,

I heard that the Quest 3 already solved this too?

People use "screen door effect" and "overly low resolution" interchangeably even though they aren't the same thing. The screen door effect--visible gaps between pixels--in the Quest 3 is minimal, but the resolution is still low enough individual pixels are obvious. It's not usable for a lot of the work-related cases Meta promotes.

I don’t understand the huge screens thing. The Vision Pro has 4k resolution (if I remember correctly). Most decent monitors have the same. Isn’t this basically the same as moving your existing monitor closer to your head to make it a huge monitor?

With a real monitor, a 4K screen on your desk covers maybe 45 degrees of your horizontal field of view. And it's pixel perfect.

In VR, that 4K needs to cover over 100 degrees FOV. And any 'virtual monitor' content is being resampled and filtered, inevitably blurring/softening things.

I suspect that we're going to need a lot more than 4K resolution before you can comfortably work with small text (e.g. coding, web browsing) in VR.

> Apple Vision Pro features ultra-high-resolution displays that deliver more pixels than a 4K TV for each eye.

That is likely some clever wording, but according to the announcement, a non-pessimistic interpretation does seem like each eye is getting more than 4K.

If we'd be getting 5K, they'd say 5K. So it's between 4 and 5. Not that great.

If "all" this thing does is replace a 4K monitor for existing MacOS stuff, I would consider saving up to buy one.

It would be nice to work in various locations with the equivalent of a big 4K screen.

I am unfortunately one of those people who really cannot work on a laptop screen, I need lots of real estate. (And laptops are ergonomically bad even if you don't mind the small screen)

I actually currently have 3 4K monitor + keyboard workstations in various rooms in my house. (Office, living room, garage) because I like to work in various places depending on the weather, who else is home, etc.

Same. I use 4x 4k monitors and I’m not really interested in learning new ways to work on less real estate.

If the Apple Vision Pro could replace my 4 monitors, I’d be delighted

Curious what is your go to 4k monitor?

Maybe a little. If the existing monitor could also use your entire visual field for workspace and easily be used anywhere.

I travel often and I’m looking forward to always having the ability to have a large high resolution display to work on. Also seems cool for entertainment. It’s returnable like anything else.

Yeah, like maybe instead of a desk with huge screens, you could just strap on the vision pro and work on that.

Maybe the biggest difference is that you can place virtual screens and windows arbitrarily as needed, rather than being restricted to parts of your desk where a stand or VESA mount can fit.

So one could for example have the benefits of multiple screens while lounging or in the middle of a flight. Even at a desk, window/screen placement would be more flexible than otherwise possible.

Because a monitor only displays what's on it. A vision headset can show you different content depending on where you're looking.

It's kind of like comparing a monitor that's locked to a single app with a monitor that has multiple spaces you can switch between. They both have the same resolution, but one of them can display much more stuff.

Any chance you could share a snap of your setup ideally with windows distributed around as you prefer? I’m always interested in other peoples’ approach in this area.

I’m a laptop only person. I never understood how a single monitor would be better. But quantity has a quality all its own and 4 monitors seems like it could enable novel approaches.

I think it may have something to do with less strain on your eyes when focusing on distant screen than one up close. I have Quest 2, I really enjoy watching flat 2d videos on it. Even with screen-door effect, sometimes, I prefer to watch shows on it.

I'm largely an ignoramus about how eyeballs function. But this sounds... suspicious. When a screen is inches away from your eyeball, isn't your eye focusing on that? I'd expect a VR headset to cause more eye strain than almost any alternative. Am I misunderstanding something?

My understanding of it is that the eye-strain that people tend to get isn't from your eyes focusing on the glass, but rather due to the Vergence-Accommodation Conflict (VAC)[0]. Essentially, there's a mismatch between the vergence (a movement of both eyes in opposite directions simultaneously for a binocular-style effect), and the accommodation of the eye (the way your eyes change focus based on distance).

When those two things aren't in alignment, you can get a feeling of eye-strain. The way the lenses bend the light make it so the focal length that you're focusing on is further than the screen in front of you, so that isn't what is causing the eye strain.

Mind you, this is just my layman's understanding of the subject, so definitely take it with a grain of salt.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflic...

Focal depth is fixed to ~1.3m (for quest 3, don’t think we know the value for AVP yet).[1]

So you’re not focusing on the glass, but on the image at that virtual depth.

The strain comes from looking at things rendered further or closer than 1.3m.

1 - https://x.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1371485209603022853

This occurred to me. I think I might actually just shell out for a nice monitor instead. The reviews are going to have to be pretty unbelievably positive for me to actually get a vision pro.

Screen door effect hasn't been a problem in VR for years.

You are right, but wrong.

For 99% of the price point people will pay for VR, it is still there.

...and will be for Apple Vision (non-pro) and Apple VisionSE.

The Quest 2 does not have screen door, which came out two years ago and was/is the majority of the VR market, so I am not sure what you mean.

Uhh, Quest 2 has very obvious screen door effect. My vision is good, but it’s not even fantastic.

quest2 have it, AND it is not what 99% of the market will pay. You live in a bubble where $1200 for a phone is "normal".

How do you know that it doesn't have the screen door effect?

>Those displays enable the Vision Pro to eliminate something called the "screen-door effect."

https://www.businessinsider.com/less-expensive-apple-vision-...

Have you checked BigScreen?

https://www.bigscreenvr.com/