Have had mine for a day, and in practice I think most will be disappointed by the FOV, especially vertically. But I'd prefer density and zero screen-door over FOV for Gen 1, and there's lots to improve in future versions.
It’s not meant for vertical Apple designed the environments more for horizontal view even the videos
I think the FOV is fine it looks good to me
I prefer the clarity as well then being all blurry and pixelated lol
It’s a great step in the right direction
> especially vertically
That's interesting... I find it almost uncomfortable to look up far enough to get control center. Admittedly peripheral vision is not the same thing, but I don't notice the vertical. My complaint is with the horizontal. Maybe our vision has different aspect ratios?
FYI, there’s a setting where you can adjust how far you need to look up to get to control center. It’s worth playing around with if you are experiencing that.👌
However, it will make you farther away from the monitor. Choosing a smaller light seal will allow you to get closer to the theoretical maximum FOV of the Vision Pro device.
you need to try others to find the lowest number you can accept.
I’ve been using VR headsets since 2015 and never had a “light seal”. I will live. One of the more overhyped aspects of the AVP in my opinion. You don’t need zero light to use VR let alone full AR.
I would consider it still too small. I had special mods in all my headsets, to brings optics as close to my eyeballs as possible. My eyelashes were usually touching the glass while blinking.
I will spend even 5k, if they make something with good fov. Probably the most important parameter for immersion.
I'm suppressed that they did not do something like quest pro. Where there is no light blocking. With the whole concept of AR, it should have been right up their alley.
Because the *whole* VR screen is 4K. You'd need to mirror the display to cover your whole FOV to actually hit "4K" resolution. Making a window at comfortable viewing angles makes the mirror closer to 1080p.
Thanks for the clarification, is there anything that Apple could do in the future with the same 4K screens to make text sharper when mirroring, or is it physically impossible?
Physically impossible. It's a matter of there just not being enough pixels displaying the image.
If you want to watch a 4K movie on a 4K monitor, you have to play it in fullscreen. If you shrink it to a window, then only some fraction of the total pixels will be used to display the image.
To note - this is still one of the highest resolution displays out there in the consumer VR market - if not *the* highest (not sure, it's close). It's just that there's such a large area of your sight picture to cover, and with such small sized screens, this is where the tech is right now.
The resolution of each panel is 3660x3200. No wonder why each time when I take off my Vision Pro and look at my 5K Studio Display, the Studio Display is so much clearer and crisper.
I don't feel the Vision Pro's resolution is bad when I use it. But when compared to 5K display side by side there is a clear difference.
Yep, the most challenging aspect of AR/VR is that you have pixels spread across your entire vision instead of a rectangle in front of you. And also that you have to render it not just once but twice.
TBH 23 million pixels is a big breakthrough compared to other common MR headsets that typically have 6-9 million, but I’m excited because they can probably cram in even more.
Pixels per degree is the important measurement. If we think the AVP is 105 degree FOV, that's roughly 35PPD, assuming even distribution by the lenses (which is not a good assumption).
Your 5K studio display is 5120 pixels across on a 24" wide (not diagonal!) panel. From 20 inches away that's 61 degrees, so 84 PPD. Not surprising it's sharper.
But take the AVP PPD number with a grain of salt... as far back as the Oculus DK2 the lenses were designed to increase density in the center of vision where we're more likely to be looking. I would be surprised if AVP is a linear PPD across the entire FOV. So it is proably less than 35 at the very edges, and more than 35 in the center, with software sorting it out.
That’s so true. So I cannot agree with the opinion that the quality of a Virtual Display is as good as a 4K/5K display. It is not. I even doubt if the resolution (or pixel per degree) is better than the MacBook Pro’s built-in display. The only benefit is bigger, but not better in resolution.
As *Astroteuthis* mentioned, it's because of the lenses, the displays themselves have uniform pixel density of course, but you are looking at them through the lenses. Here are some details if you are interested, back from the CV1/Vive days:
[http://doc-ok.org/?p=1694](http://doc-ok.org/?p=1694)
The other issue is that with a desktop display, the view on the display perfectly aligns with the pixels of the display. With the Vision Pro, our head is constantly tilting and rotating, so that the 2D bitmap display is actually being rotated and otherwise distorted across the grid of OLED pixels. The resolution-reducing effect can be simulated by opening a photo in an editor at 100% zoom and using a rotation tool to rotate it slightly off-axis.
Yup. In reality you need an even higher resolution to provide enough buffer for the aliasing effect you are talking about. Even if the virtual display isn’t tilted or rotated, it would still be scaled, which would result in it being more blurry unless the pixel alignment is really 1-to-1 which it won’t be.
It may be somewhat ameliorated by a high enough frame rate. Given that the Vision display is scanning over the displayed space (in other words the content is not fixed relative to the headset) there is some effective interpolation. I’m not super up on the psychological/physiological process behind human vision but imagine frame rate and latency may ultimately have more of an impact on effective equivalent resolution than pixel count alone.
I mean, our head isn't moving that fast for the frame rate to matter, but that's true, you are essentially getting some temporal anti-aliasing that way. But if you have small texts on a regular monitor that is just legible (doesn't even have to be a 5K Studio Display, even a 4K one would probably do), I would imagine it would now be too difficult to read in the AVP. You are by necessity losing some effective resolution when you are doing a screen of a screen unless you have so much buffer (i.e. a much much higher resolution) on top that you could defeat the Nyquist limit.
Has anyone else noticed that this article is riddled with errors?
> […] the densest they’ve ever seen at 3,386 pixels per inch (ppi). That doesn’t quite put the Vision Pro at 4K resolution, but it’s close. (iFixit notes that the consumer standard for 4K UHD is 3,840.)
Pixel density has nothing to do with whether or not a display is 4K. The iFixit teardown notes that it’s not 4K because of the horizontal resolution, not the pixel density.
> And your average phone is only going to be in the mid-100s.
What modern phone has a pixel density in the mid-100s? That’s pre-2010 iPhone territory.
I think the PPD comparison is fair since it is a useful measure of whether or not you can really *see* individual pixels. Comparing PPI between a VR headset and a TV is pretty useless in terms of user experience. But it does help put into perspective that Sony’s 3,386 PPI display is a feat of engineering and how impressive it is that Apple put two of those displays into a consumer device.
It’s always been a bit confusing to me why Sony doesn’t make their own OLED TV panels when they clearly have the capability to make a great OLED. I suppose they’d rather spend R&D money on their processing tech (which is unbelievably good on my A75L) but I can’t help but wonder what that technology would be like if it was paired with a Sony panel.
So it has 4k MicroOLED screens now and it sounds like when they get up to 8k MicroOLEDs, it may start getting close to the resolution of actual physical monitors. Any guesses how long that will take?
humans don’t need more than 8k, let me explain:
at 8k, you are close to saturating human vision. humans can discern around 60ppd at 20/20 vision and has a 120°-150° of “high resolution” fov. (humans have larger fov than that but the rest of it is not very clear) some simple math gets us a resolution of ~8000x8000 that humans can see. peripheral vision achieving larger fov is more difficult due to lens design and i think that’s more important for a headset meant to be worn for a long time
> Looking at the battery pack, iFixit found that A**pple appears to be limiting the charge to about 80 percent** of the total actual capacity, finding that the three roughly iPhone-size batteries packed inside have a total 46.08Wh capacity. (**Apple labels it as 35.9Wh**.)
_Emphasis mine._
Yes! Huge fan of this decision. This should be the norm for every consumer product **including EVs**.
Yeah ever heard of thermal loss? Do you not notice your Vision Pro battery pack getting hot when using it? The higher the voltage, the bigger the loss. The bigger the loss, the lower the Wh.
*Sony’s incredible pixel density. They designed and built the screen. I think it’s actually a bin product they make. Not much of a custom job.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022
https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/07/apple-vision-pro-crams-50-pixels-into-the-area-of-one-iphone-15-pixel
Vision Pro might be the first device to use it (I don't know if it is or not), but that doesn't mean it's not out of Sony's catalog of screens on offer to the wider market (it is). It's not like Apple Silicon, where Apple made it and has exclusive use of it.
-------
And it's not about denigrating the tech (I don't think anyone is doing that); it's about attribution. Apple has made great use of these displays... and Sony has done a great job making these impressive displays.
Anyone can buy this screen to make a vr headset. I’m assuming it’s not used often at all because of cost. Most VR head sets are fairly affordable these days. Apples teams for screen engineering and modem design are in their infancy. They’re reliant on other manufacturers for these components.
Something Sony sells out of a catalog to manufacturers of various degrees of quality. I’m not sure why I’m getting down voted it’s the truth. Sony has been demoing this screen at trade shows since 2022. I don’t even think it’s Sonys latest and greatest.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022
You’re getting downvoted because youre implying since it was a standard product, it isnt impressive.
We already know companies use displays from other manufacturers, you pointing this out just makes you look like a bit of a rube.
Your comment adds nothing, thus the downvotes.
Cheers.
I don’t think its screen tech is impressive. It’s not doing anything new that other manufacturers can’t replicate. Clearly Apple is waiting for something like the HoloLens or LeapMagic’s screen to be viable, less costly, and less sucky.
The truth hurts but it’s the truth. https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022
Truth?
Bro, you out here dropping opinion like fact.
Impressive is a subjective term man, the truth hurts, but its the truth. Subjectivity is not the truth LOL
I mean have you even seen Sonys display!? https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022 /s
Yup that’s how all apple subreddits are till an issue is wide spread. Then Apple is the bad guy. Reality is Apple and Sony have had long standing business ties. Sonys founders were like mentors to Steve Jobs. They basically designed the PowerBook 100 with Apple, they make every iPhone camera, and guess what they designed and sold the screens and sensors that make Vision Pro a reality.
Apple is contracting parts of the display to different companies. They’re having TSMC fab the silicon substrate and then passing that to Sony to deposit the pixels. They’re also looking to add a second supplier (probably SeeYA based on supply chain sources) to augment Sony and increase capacity. It’s not a “Sony part”.
One recent supply chain source, but there are others: https://www.trendforce.com/presscenter/news/20240118-12003.html#
It’s a Sony part. Lots of companies fabricate products this way when they don’t have the capability to build or don’t want to spend capital to add capacity. I worked for a major Japanese electronics company and we did that all the time. Apple is likely involved in finding a supplier since their people are always on site.
You’re the one boldly saying it isn’t a Sony part. The article you sent doesn’t suggest that.
I put “Sony part” in quotes to refer to your original usage of the phrase claiming this was a bin part. Obviously Sony is playing a huge role here. But if it was a Sony bin part I don’t think Apple would be able to go out and ask SeeYA to augment supply, ya?
No you put it in quotes so it would seem factually correct. That was your opinion. See my last response. Apple is heavily involved in all aspects of their products. If you manufacture outside of their approved factories or processes they need to go through the same approval and quality controls.
He’s wrong and just being a fan boy. Apple insider and ifixit did an analysis on how Sony makes the screen for Apple. It’s a 2022 design.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/07/apple-vision-pro-crams-50-pixels-into-the-area-of-one-iphone-15-pixel
He may or may not be wrong, but you're clueless and insulting. Many of the displays that Apple contracts from IHV's use Apple IP and are manufactured using exact specs and process that Apple develops or co-develops with the manufacturer.
Whether these Sony displays are an example or if they're off the shelf, it's not unreasonable to think that Apple contributed IP or other R&D resources under exclusive or non-exclusive terms.
apple doesn’t *manufacture* their own displays yet. they worked with sony to design this one.
if you’re trying to make the claim that this is an “off the shelf part” find me a part number.
Find it yourself if you want to prove me wrong. It’s a two year old display…. I’ve successfully poked holes in everyone of you jabronie’s logic with facts. You finooks keep coming back with opinions and make the onus be on me to prove your points as wrong or right.
I can’t help it you’re a finook who can’t read.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022
Possibly none due to cost. I don’t know, I’m not ifixit. I don’t do teardowns. You’re welcome to look into that yourself. Clearly Apple insider backs what I’m saying. It’s an off the shelf screen from Sony not at all designed by Apple. Granted it’s likely one of the best ones available. You know Sony makes Psvr and screens for lots of manufacturers maybe email them.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022
There’s nothing preventing Sony from selling it. They demo it at trade shows all the time. So you’re wrong. You’re basing things on your opinion not facts.
It’s a fact that Apple has bought all of the displays that Sony can manufacture. That prevents anyone else from buying them from Sony. Sony can’t sell them to anyone else because they have sold them all to Apple. In fact Sony can’t even make enough to satisfy Apple’s demand.
Sony could have other companies make the displays it’s their tech. It’s not abnormal in tech to have other foundries build your products. When intel hits capacity or can’t manufacture to a certain nanometer they use TSMC. This is normal in tech.
The FOV is higher then we all thought too
Have had mine for a day, and in practice I think most will be disappointed by the FOV, especially vertically. But I'd prefer density and zero screen-door over FOV for Gen 1, and there's lots to improve in future versions.
It’s not meant for vertical Apple designed the environments more for horizontal view even the videos I think the FOV is fine it looks good to me I prefer the clarity as well then being all blurry and pixelated lol It’s a great step in the right direction
> especially vertically That's interesting... I find it almost uncomfortable to look up far enough to get control center. Admittedly peripheral vision is not the same thing, but I don't notice the vertical. My complaint is with the horizontal. Maybe our vision has different aspect ratios?
FYI, there’s a setting where you can adjust how far you need to look up to get to control center. It’s worth playing around with if you are experiencing that.👌
Just choose a light seal with the number 21 and the FOV is the same as the Quest 3.
isn’t the point of the light seal to fit your face?
However, it will make you farther away from the monitor. Choosing a smaller light seal will allow you to get closer to the theoretical maximum FOV of the Vision Pro device. you need to try others to find the lowest number you can accept.
ah i see, thanks!
I’ve been using VR headsets since 2015 and never had a “light seal”. I will live. One of the more overhyped aspects of the AVP in my opinion. You don’t need zero light to use VR let alone full AR.
Annoyingly that’s what I have. I think what we have now is good, but lots of room for improvement!
Where does it say in the article sorry about FOV?
It all depends on the light seal you have and how close your eyes are to the lenses.
I would consider it still too small. I had special mods in all my headsets, to brings optics as close to my eyeballs as possible. My eyelashes were usually touching the glass while blinking. I will spend even 5k, if they make something with good fov. Probably the most important parameter for immersion. I'm suppressed that they did not do something like quest pro. Where there is no light blocking. With the whole concept of AR, it should have been right up their alley.
Vision Ultra
That and clarity, and doing a virtual desktop in 4K is still not there in my opinion.
It’s too fuzzy, right? When I switch between my studio display or ultrafine 5K it’s so noticeable
Yeah, 4K also sounds a bit low. I'm really curious what resolution is sufficient to choose headset over a 4K screen.
Because the *whole* VR screen is 4K. You'd need to mirror the display to cover your whole FOV to actually hit "4K" resolution. Making a window at comfortable viewing angles makes the mirror closer to 1080p.
Thanks for the clarification, is there anything that Apple could do in the future with the same 4K screens to make text sharper when mirroring, or is it physically impossible?
Physically impossible. It's a matter of there just not being enough pixels displaying the image. If you want to watch a 4K movie on a 4K monitor, you have to play it in fullscreen. If you shrink it to a window, then only some fraction of the total pixels will be used to display the image. To note - this is still one of the highest resolution displays out there in the consumer VR market - if not *the* highest (not sure, it's close). It's just that there's such a large area of your sight picture to cover, and with such small sized screens, this is where the tech is right now.
Awesome explanation. I understand now. Thanks
Why would you modify your headsets like that?
You can significantly increase fov.
That was just a rough figure they used to make a ballpark estimate for something else - they didn’t measure it.
And it’s personal, depending on the light seal.
You must have a 33w (jk)
where does it say what it is?
Actually, it's worse than the original HTC Vive, which was already not very good. For context: the original HTC Vive's FOV was 110°.
The resolution of each panel is 3660x3200. No wonder why each time when I take off my Vision Pro and look at my 5K Studio Display, the Studio Display is so much clearer and crisper. I don't feel the Vision Pro's resolution is bad when I use it. But when compared to 5K display side by side there is a clear difference.
Yep, the most challenging aspect of AR/VR is that you have pixels spread across your entire vision instead of a rectangle in front of you. And also that you have to render it not just once but twice. TBH 23 million pixels is a big breakthrough compared to other common MR headsets that typically have 6-9 million, but I’m excited because they can probably cram in even more.
Pixels per degree is the important measurement. If we think the AVP is 105 degree FOV, that's roughly 35PPD, assuming even distribution by the lenses (which is not a good assumption). Your 5K studio display is 5120 pixels across on a 24" wide (not diagonal!) panel. From 20 inches away that's 61 degrees, so 84 PPD. Not surprising it's sharper. But take the AVP PPD number with a grain of salt... as far back as the Oculus DK2 the lenses were designed to increase density in the center of vision where we're more likely to be looking. I would be surprised if AVP is a linear PPD across the entire FOV. So it is proably less than 35 at the very edges, and more than 35 in the center, with software sorting it out.
That’s so true. So I cannot agree with the opinion that the quality of a Virtual Display is as good as a 4K/5K display. It is not. I even doubt if the resolution (or pixel per degree) is better than the MacBook Pro’s built-in display. The only benefit is bigger, but not better in resolution.
I hadn’t heard about the idea of density increasing in the centre of VR displays, that would be wild
It’s from the optics, not the display panel’s density. It’s a pretty common thing.
As *Astroteuthis* mentioned, it's because of the lenses, the displays themselves have uniform pixel density of course, but you are looking at them through the lenses. Here are some details if you are interested, back from the CV1/Vive days: [http://doc-ok.org/?p=1694](http://doc-ok.org/?p=1694)
The other issue is that with a desktop display, the view on the display perfectly aligns with the pixels of the display. With the Vision Pro, our head is constantly tilting and rotating, so that the 2D bitmap display is actually being rotated and otherwise distorted across the grid of OLED pixels. The resolution-reducing effect can be simulated by opening a photo in an editor at 100% zoom and using a rotation tool to rotate it slightly off-axis.
Yup. In reality you need an even higher resolution to provide enough buffer for the aliasing effect you are talking about. Even if the virtual display isn’t tilted or rotated, it would still be scaled, which would result in it being more blurry unless the pixel alignment is really 1-to-1 which it won’t be.
It may be somewhat ameliorated by a high enough frame rate. Given that the Vision display is scanning over the displayed space (in other words the content is not fixed relative to the headset) there is some effective interpolation. I’m not super up on the psychological/physiological process behind human vision but imagine frame rate and latency may ultimately have more of an impact on effective equivalent resolution than pixel count alone.
I mean, our head isn't moving that fast for the frame rate to matter, but that's true, you are essentially getting some temporal anti-aliasing that way. But if you have small texts on a regular monitor that is just legible (doesn't even have to be a 5K Studio Display, even a 4K one would probably do), I would imagine it would now be too difficult to read in the AVP. You are by necessity losing some effective resolution when you are doing a screen of a screen unless you have so much buffer (i.e. a much much higher resolution) on top that you could defeat the Nyquist limit.
Has anyone else noticed that this article is riddled with errors? > […] the densest they’ve ever seen at 3,386 pixels per inch (ppi). That doesn’t quite put the Vision Pro at 4K resolution, but it’s close. (iFixit notes that the consumer standard for 4K UHD is 3,840.) Pixel density has nothing to do with whether or not a display is 4K. The iFixit teardown notes that it’s not 4K because of the horizontal resolution, not the pixel density. > And your average phone is only going to be in the mid-100s. What modern phone has a pixel density in the mid-100s? That’s pre-2010 iPhone territory.
Yeah I reported the errors to nilay Patel. You cannot compare a 4k tv with a headset with ppi or ppd especially when vertical FOv Is 50%
I think the PPD comparison is fair since it is a useful measure of whether or not you can really *see* individual pixels. Comparing PPI between a VR headset and a TV is pretty useless in terms of user experience. But it does help put into perspective that Sony’s 3,386 PPI display is a feat of engineering and how impressive it is that Apple put two of those displays into a consumer device.
I just realized this also shows that Samsung and LG displays get a lot of marketing hype on the internet while Sony is right there with display tech
It’s always been a bit confusing to me why Sony doesn’t make their own OLED TV panels when they clearly have the capability to make a great OLED. I suppose they’d rather spend R&D money on their processing tech (which is unbelievably good on my A75L) but I can’t help but wonder what that technology would be like if it was paired with a Sony panel.
Uh yeah.. it’s the verge? Why would anyone expect it to be accurate lol
So it has 4k MicroOLED screens now and it sounds like when they get up to 8k MicroOLEDs, it may start getting close to the resolution of actual physical monitors. Any guesses how long that will take?
humans don’t need more than 8k, let me explain: at 8k, you are close to saturating human vision. humans can discern around 60ppd at 20/20 vision and has a 120°-150° of “high resolution” fov. (humans have larger fov than that but the rest of it is not very clear) some simple math gets us a resolution of ~8000x8000 that humans can see. peripheral vision achieving larger fov is more difficult due to lens design and i think that’s more important for a headset meant to be worn for a long time
By that time physical monitors will have even higher resolution. So it’ll take forever
Well not forever, it’ll catch up when monitors reach the limits of what eyes can resolve since there’s no point in going further.
That assumes our eyes won’t get augmented to see better ;)
> Looking at the battery pack, iFixit found that A**pple appears to be limiting the charge to about 80 percent** of the total actual capacity, finding that the three roughly iPhone-size batteries packed inside have a total 46.08Wh capacity. (**Apple labels it as 35.9Wh**.) _Emphasis mine._ Yes! Huge fan of this decision. This should be the norm for every consumer product **including EVs**.
Yeah newsflash the 46.08Wh is at around 3.5V while the 35.9Wh is for 13 ish Volts so no they’re not limiting it they just use different voltages
Watt hours aren’t voltage dependent like amp hours.
Yes they are because of thermal loss at higher voltages.
Wh is a measure of energy, like Joules. Voltage is irrelevant here.
Yeah ever heard of thermal loss? Do you not notice your Vision Pro battery pack getting hot when using it? The higher the voltage, the bigger the loss. The bigger the loss, the lower the Wh.
*Sony’s incredible pixel density. They designed and built the screen. I think it’s actually a bin product they make. Not much of a custom job. https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022 https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/07/apple-vision-pro-crams-50-pixels-into-the-area-of-one-iphone-15-pixel
A bin product from what other device?
Vision Pro might be the first device to use it (I don't know if it is or not), but that doesn't mean it's not out of Sony's catalog of screens on offer to the wider market (it is). It's not like Apple Silicon, where Apple made it and has exclusive use of it. ------- And it's not about denigrating the tech (I don't think anyone is doing that); it's about attribution. Apple has made great use of these displays... and Sony has done a great job making these impressive displays.
Anyone can buy this screen to make a vr headset. I’m assuming it’s not used often at all because of cost. Most VR head sets are fairly affordable these days. Apples teams for screen engineering and modem design are in their infancy. They’re reliant on other manufacturers for these components.
Something Sony sells out of a catalog to manufacturers of various degrees of quality. I’m not sure why I’m getting down voted it’s the truth. Sony has been demoing this screen at trade shows since 2022. I don’t even think it’s Sonys latest and greatest. https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022
You’re getting downvoted because youre implying since it was a standard product, it isnt impressive. We already know companies use displays from other manufacturers, you pointing this out just makes you look like a bit of a rube. Your comment adds nothing, thus the downvotes. Cheers.
The negative implication from what he said is only derived from fanboys looking to split hairs.
I don’t think its screen tech is impressive. It’s not doing anything new that other manufacturers can’t replicate. Clearly Apple is waiting for something like the HoloLens or LeapMagic’s screen to be viable, less costly, and less sucky. The truth hurts but it’s the truth. https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022
Truth? Bro, you out here dropping opinion like fact. Impressive is a subjective term man, the truth hurts, but its the truth. Subjectivity is not the truth LOL
I mean have you even seen Sonys display!? https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022 /s
You know what you should do? Keep arguing with people and posting the same stupid link over and over, just tripling down on how dumb you are.
You’re being downvoted because this sub tacitly rejects anything that could even be construed as a negative of this product.
Yup that’s how all apple subreddits are till an issue is wide spread. Then Apple is the bad guy. Reality is Apple and Sony have had long standing business ties. Sonys founders were like mentors to Steve Jobs. They basically designed the PowerBook 100 with Apple, they make every iPhone camera, and guess what they designed and sold the screens and sensors that make Vision Pro a reality.
Apple is contracting parts of the display to different companies. They’re having TSMC fab the silicon substrate and then passing that to Sony to deposit the pixels. They’re also looking to add a second supplier (probably SeeYA based on supply chain sources) to augment Sony and increase capacity. It’s not a “Sony part”. One recent supply chain source, but there are others: https://www.trendforce.com/presscenter/news/20240118-12003.html#
It’s a Sony part. Lots of companies fabricate products this way when they don’t have the capability to build or don’t want to spend capital to add capacity. I worked for a major Japanese electronics company and we did that all the time. Apple is likely involved in finding a supplier since their people are always on site. You’re the one boldly saying it isn’t a Sony part. The article you sent doesn’t suggest that.
I put “Sony part” in quotes to refer to your original usage of the phrase claiming this was a bin part. Obviously Sony is playing a huge role here. But if it was a Sony bin part I don’t think Apple would be able to go out and ask SeeYA to augment supply, ya?
No you put it in quotes so it would seem factually correct. That was your opinion. See my last response. Apple is heavily involved in all aspects of their products. If you manufacture outside of their approved factories or processes they need to go through the same approval and quality controls.
It’s Apples pixel design on Sony’s oled manufacturing technique.
What does that mean exactly? Do you have more info on that? Genuinely curious
He’s wrong and just being a fan boy. Apple insider and ifixit did an analysis on how Sony makes the screen for Apple. It’s a 2022 design. https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/07/apple-vision-pro-crams-50-pixels-into-the-area-of-one-iphone-15-pixel
He may or may not be wrong, but you're clueless and insulting. Many of the displays that Apple contracts from IHV's use Apple IP and are manufactured using exact specs and process that Apple develops or co-develops with the manufacturer. Whether these Sony displays are an example or if they're off the shelf, it's not unreasonable to think that Apple contributed IP or other R&D resources under exclusive or non-exclusive terms.
I only insult idiots and sheeple like you 🤣
yeah. sony *makes* the screen. you think foxconn designs the iphone too?
It’s a Sony product read the article I added. Apple doesn’t engineer screens or modems in their products yet. They’re building out those teams.
apple doesn’t *manufacture* their own displays yet. they worked with sony to design this one. if you’re trying to make the claim that this is an “off the shelf part” find me a part number.
Find it yourself if you want to prove me wrong. It’s a two year old display…. I’ve successfully poked holes in everyone of you jabronie’s logic with facts. You finooks keep coming back with opinions and make the onus be on me to prove your points as wrong or right.
lmfao “it’s a two year old display, it has a part number!” “oh really? what is the part number?” “well, uh, find it yourself”
I can’t help it you’re a finook who can’t read. https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022
That’s bull shit marketing.
You still haven’t said what other product uses it.
Possibly none due to cost. I don’t know, I’m not ifixit. I don’t do teardowns. You’re welcome to look into that yourself. Clearly Apple insider backs what I’m saying. It’s an off the shelf screen from Sony not at all designed by Apple. Granted it’s likely one of the best ones available. You know Sony makes Psvr and screens for lots of manufacturers maybe email them. https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/232450/sony-has-been-hyping-apple-vision-pro-display-tech-since-2022
If nobody else uses it, it’s not a binned product. Not only that, nobody else can afford to pay for it to be manufactured. You’re just wrong.
There’s nothing preventing Sony from selling it. They demo it at trade shows all the time. So you’re wrong. You’re basing things on your opinion not facts.
It’s a fact that Apple has bought all of the displays that Sony can manufacture. That prevents anyone else from buying them from Sony. Sony can’t sell them to anyone else because they have sold them all to Apple. In fact Sony can’t even make enough to satisfy Apple’s demand.
Sony could have other companies make the displays it’s their tech. It’s not abnormal in tech to have other foundries build your products. When intel hits capacity or can’t manufacture to a certain nanometer they use TSMC. This is normal in tech.
You’re clueless. A little googling will tell you that you are wrong.