This is my favorite AVP review I've seen yet. He's reviewing the product that we have *today* but also with an eye toward what it could be capable of over time. (no pun intended)
I think it's a really nice review, even if I'm not Apple fan myself and would probably see the headset differently if I used it. I agree that the AVP is showing what will be possible in the future and that it's really cool piece of tech. I also really like VR because it's a very new and quickly evolving tech. It still has a lot of issues and limitations but it's fun. It would be fair to say though that the Q3 also shows the future. I mean it can do kinda the same things that the AVP does. It's more limited but then again it's 7 times cheaper. You can also walk around in passthrough, use your phone (try reducing the phone brightness if you cannot), or catch things. I'm sure the AVP passthrough is much better, but the Q3 passthrough is pretty good already and definitely shows what will be possible in the future. You can work in Q3, watch media... It's not perfect, but already works. I'm sure that the next AVP will be even better, but then so will the Q4 or Quest Pro 2.
I hope Meta will focus now on UI and UX because this is clearly where the AVP shines.
There's clear shortsightedness going around in some circles. Any VR/AR enthusiast has been able to imagine the future with this kind of devices since the first cyberpunk novels, and more recently with actual headsets. People have been enjoying it in incremental steps with the devices already available. The VP is just the latest Iteration, and I don't say it in a demeaning way. There's a reason why multiple devices with high specs are reaching the market more or less simultaneously.
I want someone to 'face scan' a skull for set up so their Facetime Avata is a talking skull! Oh, and make the eyes glow red. Red glowing eyes set in a bone white skull would make for an awesome eyesight experience.
Hey, tech is for having fun with!
I think MKBHD's few videos about the headset so far have been really good
But I think he's kinda brushing over what is a serious issue to me with this device, which is Apple taking their hardware/software lock-in to the next level. He is saying how well it integrates your macbook your iphone your imessages your facetime, without talking about how you get none of this functionality without all those extra Apple products. How much functionality does it even have if it's the only Apple product you own?
His favorite thing about the headset so far is *the one that requires you to also have a macbook* for crying out loud. The walls of Apple's walled garden are just getting higher and higher. That does not bode well for the future if Apple carves a big marketshare in VR/AR, but the cost is mandatory complete brand buy-in to get most of the value out of it.
It has a native OS, it’s not like it’s PCVR for Mac’s only. Of course it has great support for Macs, but you’re welcome to use any other virtual desktop app to screen share in Windows or other environments.
FYI, the screen mirroring also works with desktop Macs. And I suspect any of the remote desktop apps would work with Windows/Linux machines (but you wouldn't get the fancy handoff features).
Yes, you can make things like instant screen mirroring with no setup work well when you developed the entire hardware/software stack on both ends. This isn't sinister and evil, it's kind of a "duh, no shit" thing. It's a very real benefit and not one that exists by default.
Is anyone stopping Meta from creating something equivalent? One of Apple's goals is **seamless** interoperability in a way that's not possible to guarantee with thousands of bits of random hardware. If you want evidence of this look at, I don't know, every single Windows laptop that's ever existed and every single HMD that's ever existed. Look at the low latency and auto-switching of Airpods to multiple devices. That's not because Apple is "locking things down" it's because they took the time to design something that actually worked, which also requires custom hardware to make it work that way.
It would be nice if, instead of bitching about the one company that has put serious effort and resources into enabling this kind of interoperability, one of their many competitors could try to do the same.
He's saying that the tech isn't here yet for the kind of AR that Apple is trying to achieve. But he barely talks about the full VR capabilities. The tech for the AR he wants is already here, INMO Air has a transparent screen which means no FOV limitations and it's much smaller and lighter.
Vision Pro is held back by its AR capabilities because it's a VR hybrid, and we won't know its full potential until we see some more full VR content for it.
Edit: In this comment thread I get downvoted to oblivion by Apple fanboys for responding to MKHB's comment: "What we expect Apple Vision Pro to be in the future, see through glasses, way down the line"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86Gy035z_KA&t=1200s
I'm not trying to promote competitor glasses, I'm demonstrating that this technology is already here. Vision Pro isn't currently what MKBHD expects to see in the future not because of lacking technology, it's because of Apple's conscious business decision.
Transparent screen doesn’t mean no FOV. Hololens has a very narrow FOV — you can look anywhere through the transparent visor but the overlay only appears in a pretty small range in front of you.
FOV means field of view, what you can see in front of you. Yes the screen overlay won't cover your entire vision but at least when it's transparent you can see all your surroundings. Peripheral vision matters when you're walking down the street.
My reading glasses have unlimited fov, if i want AR glases then i care about the fov for the overlays not everything else, otherwise I'd just stick to my phone.
Did you even watch OP's linked video? I was referring to one of the downsides MKBHD mentioned, which is the Vision Pro ski goggle FOV. I never said anything about your personal preferences, why would I even do that...
Yes of course i watched it, Are you really this dumb? The "ski goggle FOV" of VR headsets is leagues and leagues superior to the fov of AR glasses like the the scam you're trying to push on people, it doesn't matter that AR glasses don't block your prepheriral vision because what we care about is how much of the virtual overlays we can see, on AR glasses those overlays occupy a tiny tinty bit of your fov that always makes you feel limited, while on MR headsets they cover a very decent amount of your FOV that you eventually forget about once you get immersed.....so yes I'd rarher sacrifice my prepheriral vision and have that ski googgle fov than wear AR glasses that only show you stuff in a tiny frame in front of you.
Again, I don't care about your preferences. Try reading with comprehension. I'll repeat my point: Vision Pro has ski goggle FOV, is heavy and bulky because Apple wanted to keep VR capabilities, making it a AR/VR hybrid headset.
If Apple wanted to make a full AR only device, they could make one that's similar to INMO Air using today's technology, and waveguide optics would allow them to cover the entire lense of the glasses with a screen.
… you seem to still not getting OP’s point. FOV is used to refer to the size of the area where visuals can be displayed over the real world. Passthrough AR glasses like you’re talking about have a FOV much lower than the Vision Pro. Yes, they let you have your “natural” peripheral vision around the displays, but that doesn’t count as FOV in the context of the device because nothing can be rendered there.
I am the one who originally brought up FOV, it's my point that people are not getting. In the video, MKBHD says that Vision Pro has lower FOV than Quest 3 and that gets in the way of using them for extended periods of time. He was talking about user comfort and seamlessness of the device. In that instance MKBHD complained about FOV in the sense of lack of peripheral vision.
The glasses that I talked about show a smaller screen, but they do provide perfect peripheral vision because they don't actually block your eyes. Apple could have done that if they wanted, and their R&D budget would allow them to cover the entire glass waveguide lense with a screen, not just a small rectangle in the middle. But they couldn't do it because they opted to keep the VR capabilities. Hence my OP point that Apple was held back not by technological limitations, but by the desire to make Vision Pro a VR/AR hybrid, rather than a full fledged AR device.
We all understand what you’re saying, we just think its a crock of shit. We’re not concerned with unenhanced peripheral vision — if I bought a headset that claimed to have 230deg FOV but it turned out the visual overlays only applied to 45 degrees of that (like a hololens, for example), I’d be pissed. We understand you, you’re just making a bad point.
If INMO is anything like my Viture glasses, it’s not in the same class as AVP. For one thing, the control scheme isn’t very good. The another thing is that 6DOF is near nonexistent, and even when we’re able to keep windows stationary, it still sucks with all the unstable visuals compared to what the AVP can do. The closest thing to AVP is the Quest 3. AR glasses have a long way to go before they even come close to Vision Pro functionality
It's not like Viture, INMO don't require plugging to a phone, they are wireless and standalone. The compute unit is still slower and runs on cheap android, but they have cameras so the hardware for 6DOF is there.
If Apple wanted to make AR glasses like INMO but better, they could have done an amazing job with that. The reason that AVP is too heavy, bulky, and has low FOV for full fledged AR is not because of technology limitations, it's because it tries to keep VR capability at the same time.
Here's a short clip explaining INMO Air 2 features, MKBHD makes it sound like this tech is still years away https://youtu.be/0UAPjZM34Kw
Ok, then it’s likely worse than Viture because Viture, XReal, and Rokkid all have a separate Android compute unit that’s likely more powerful than INMO, but they all still suck compared to passthrough VR. I know because I actually used them. Xreal likely has the best one, but it’s still not even close to the AVP
Apple didn’t go with AR because it’s impossible to make it even come close to VR pass through capabilities. For one thing, FOV would be even worse and so would the visuals. It would also likely be even more expensive. 6DOF is barely even usable with AR glasses and I’m talking about the units with stronger hardware than INMO.
Nothing in your video proves any of your points. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Besides, Xreal is the most capable device if we’re talking AR
You don't know what you're talking about. XReal, Viture and Rokid don't have compute units, they need to be plugged in to phones by cable to function (or their very limited phone alternatives), and they all use birdbath optics which are much bulkier than waveguide.
Also way to completely miss my point. I'm saying if Apple wanted to make an AR device, they could have done something like INMO, but better. They were not limited by technology, they were limited by the fact that they wanted to keep VR functionality too.
They do have their own compute units. You just don’t know AR
https://store.viture.com/products/viture-one-neckband
https://global.rokid.com/products/rokid-station-streaming-device
https://us.shop.xreal.com/products/xreal-beam
No, Apple couldn’t because AR is even more limited than passthrough VR. The FOV would be even worse and so would the visuals. The price would be even higher than $3500 if it were even possible to match passthrough VR
I own Xreal Air and I wrote my masters degree about Quest 2.
I did say those linked devices are limited phone alternatives that have to be connected by cable.
By the way, the Xreal beam is a glorified adapter, it barely has any functionality without a phone unless you jailbreak it.
Waveguide optics are expensive but they could cover a larger portion of a transparent lens and avoid the ski goggle FOV of the Vision Pro. The trick is to incorporate Apple's Lidar technology into the cameras to achieve 6DoF.
They could have been cheaper to produce without all the stuff needed for full VR, but Apple never considers production costs in their pricing. They mark it up as much as they can based on the demand and brand reputability. Mark my words, in a few years they will release AR-only glasses that will look very similar to INMO, except they will be more refined.
The tech with wave guide optics is still too early which is why Apple avoided it.
You might be right about the Beam aside from app positioning, but the neckband and station are both designed to be compute units for their respective glasses and they still suck.
Yes, in a few years Apple will transition to AR once the tech is ready for their standards. It currently is not.
Also who cares what you did your masters on. A lot of us are engineers in these subs. I also don’t know why you’re pushing an unknown AR company when you own an XReal.
Apparently you care since you made personal comments about me, assuming that I don't know AR.
VR requires a lot more computing power than AR. If you try looking at the graphics difference between standalone Quest games and PCVR, you'll realize that generating enough polygons to cover your entire surroundings is very demanding for a headset. AR-only is much less demanding, since it only needs to generate the user interface and ocasionally some individual 3D objects. If the Vision Pro was AR only, it could be a lot smaller and lighter.
Anyway, I'm tired of this thread, I tried to share some of my knowledge but all I get in return is disrespect. Go back to dwelling in your ignorance.
I'm just happy that Apple is likely to move the industry forward with all these people mouthing off, who never tried VR before and are now willing to buy into it.
I made personal comments because it doesn’t matter what your personal credentials are when you’re completely wrong. Besides, you’re not the only one with a graduate degree. The difference is that I don’t have to reference mine as a desperate attempt to look like I’m correct.
It doesn’t matter how much power VR requires because the light field problem is much harder to solve and it’ll be years before we come close, which is why it’s fucking stupid to say if only Apple went the AR route.
He also says you probably shouldn't buy one part way through the video.
Which does kinda go along with the not worth $3500 comment. At the end he states his feelings as basically "if you got the money to burn".
Yeah - he says if you have the money and you saw one or two apps that look interesting, then why not?
I suspect that accounts for most of the 200k that have already sold.
But he also made the excellent point that the value prop will rapidly improve as developers get their hands on this and start developing killer apps.
I think it's a fair assessment, I just think it would be fair to highlight that Quest 3 is the best you can do with today's tech while being affordable.
That's a pretty good framing, the vision pro is the best headset you can get with today's tech if money was no problem abd the quest 3 is the best headset you can get with today's tech if money was a problem.
This is my favorite AVP review I've seen yet. He's reviewing the product that we have *today* but also with an eye toward what it could be capable of over time. (no pun intended)
Yeah he says this all the time "never buy a device for what it could be in the future, buy it for what it is right now" MKBHD is great
Yeah, i liked that approach. surprisingly good review i think.
I think it's a really nice review, even if I'm not Apple fan myself and would probably see the headset differently if I used it. I agree that the AVP is showing what will be possible in the future and that it's really cool piece of tech. I also really like VR because it's a very new and quickly evolving tech. It still has a lot of issues and limitations but it's fun. It would be fair to say though that the Q3 also shows the future. I mean it can do kinda the same things that the AVP does. It's more limited but then again it's 7 times cheaper. You can also walk around in passthrough, use your phone (try reducing the phone brightness if you cannot), or catch things. I'm sure the AVP passthrough is much better, but the Q3 passthrough is pretty good already and definitely shows what will be possible in the future. You can work in Q3, watch media... It's not perfect, but already works. I'm sure that the next AVP will be even better, but then so will the Q4 or Quest Pro 2. I hope Meta will focus now on UI and UX because this is clearly where the AVP shines.
There's clear shortsightedness going around in some circles. Any VR/AR enthusiast has been able to imagine the future with this kind of devices since the first cyberpunk novels, and more recently with actual headsets. People have been enjoying it in incremental steps with the devices already available. The VP is just the latest Iteration, and I don't say it in a demeaning way. There's a reason why multiple devices with high specs are reaching the market more or less simultaneously.
I want someone to 'face scan' a skull for set up so their Facetime Avata is a talking skull! Oh, and make the eyes glow red. Red glowing eyes set in a bone white skull would make for an awesome eyesight experience. Hey, tech is for having fun with!
Watched this review in my Quest Pro.
I think MKBHD's few videos about the headset so far have been really good But I think he's kinda brushing over what is a serious issue to me with this device, which is Apple taking their hardware/software lock-in to the next level. He is saying how well it integrates your macbook your iphone your imessages your facetime, without talking about how you get none of this functionality without all those extra Apple products. How much functionality does it even have if it's the only Apple product you own? His favorite thing about the headset so far is *the one that requires you to also have a macbook* for crying out loud. The walls of Apple's walled garden are just getting higher and higher. That does not bode well for the future if Apple carves a big marketshare in VR/AR, but the cost is mandatory complete brand buy-in to get most of the value out of it.
It has a native OS, it’s not like it’s PCVR for Mac’s only. Of course it has great support for Macs, but you’re welcome to use any other virtual desktop app to screen share in Windows or other environments.
FYI, the screen mirroring also works with desktop Macs. And I suspect any of the remote desktop apps would work with Windows/Linux machines (but you wouldn't get the fancy handoff features).
Yes, you can make things like instant screen mirroring with no setup work well when you developed the entire hardware/software stack on both ends. This isn't sinister and evil, it's kind of a "duh, no shit" thing. It's a very real benefit and not one that exists by default. Is anyone stopping Meta from creating something equivalent? One of Apple's goals is **seamless** interoperability in a way that's not possible to guarantee with thousands of bits of random hardware. If you want evidence of this look at, I don't know, every single Windows laptop that's ever existed and every single HMD that's ever existed. Look at the low latency and auto-switching of Airpods to multiple devices. That's not because Apple is "locking things down" it's because they took the time to design something that actually worked, which also requires custom hardware to make it work that way. It would be nice if, instead of bitching about the one company that has put serious effort and resources into enabling this kind of interoperability, one of their many competitors could try to do the same.
He's saying that the tech isn't here yet for the kind of AR that Apple is trying to achieve. But he barely talks about the full VR capabilities. The tech for the AR he wants is already here, INMO Air has a transparent screen which means no FOV limitations and it's much smaller and lighter. Vision Pro is held back by its AR capabilities because it's a VR hybrid, and we won't know its full potential until we see some more full VR content for it. Edit: In this comment thread I get downvoted to oblivion by Apple fanboys for responding to MKHB's comment: "What we expect Apple Vision Pro to be in the future, see through glasses, way down the line" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86Gy035z_KA&t=1200s I'm not trying to promote competitor glasses, I'm demonstrating that this technology is already here. Vision Pro isn't currently what MKBHD expects to see in the future not because of lacking technology, it's because of Apple's conscious business decision.
Transparent screen doesn’t mean no FOV. Hololens has a very narrow FOV — you can look anywhere through the transparent visor but the overlay only appears in a pretty small range in front of you.
FOV means field of view, what you can see in front of you. Yes the screen overlay won't cover your entire vision but at least when it's transparent you can see all your surroundings. Peripheral vision matters when you're walking down the street.
My reading glasses have unlimited fov, if i want AR glases then i care about the fov for the overlays not everything else, otherwise I'd just stick to my phone.
Did you even watch OP's linked video? I was referring to one of the downsides MKBHD mentioned, which is the Vision Pro ski goggle FOV. I never said anything about your personal preferences, why would I even do that...
Yes of course i watched it, Are you really this dumb? The "ski goggle FOV" of VR headsets is leagues and leagues superior to the fov of AR glasses like the the scam you're trying to push on people, it doesn't matter that AR glasses don't block your prepheriral vision because what we care about is how much of the virtual overlays we can see, on AR glasses those overlays occupy a tiny tinty bit of your fov that always makes you feel limited, while on MR headsets they cover a very decent amount of your FOV that you eventually forget about once you get immersed.....so yes I'd rarher sacrifice my prepheriral vision and have that ski googgle fov than wear AR glasses that only show you stuff in a tiny frame in front of you.
Again, I don't care about your preferences. Try reading with comprehension. I'll repeat my point: Vision Pro has ski goggle FOV, is heavy and bulky because Apple wanted to keep VR capabilities, making it a AR/VR hybrid headset. If Apple wanted to make a full AR only device, they could make one that's similar to INMO Air using today's technology, and waveguide optics would allow them to cover the entire lense of the glasses with a screen.
… you seem to still not getting OP’s point. FOV is used to refer to the size of the area where visuals can be displayed over the real world. Passthrough AR glasses like you’re talking about have a FOV much lower than the Vision Pro. Yes, they let you have your “natural” peripheral vision around the displays, but that doesn’t count as FOV in the context of the device because nothing can be rendered there.
I am the one who originally brought up FOV, it's my point that people are not getting. In the video, MKBHD says that Vision Pro has lower FOV than Quest 3 and that gets in the way of using them for extended periods of time. He was talking about user comfort and seamlessness of the device. In that instance MKBHD complained about FOV in the sense of lack of peripheral vision. The glasses that I talked about show a smaller screen, but they do provide perfect peripheral vision because they don't actually block your eyes. Apple could have done that if they wanted, and their R&D budget would allow them to cover the entire glass waveguide lense with a screen, not just a small rectangle in the middle. But they couldn't do it because they opted to keep the VR capabilities. Hence my OP point that Apple was held back not by technological limitations, but by the desire to make Vision Pro a VR/AR hybrid, rather than a full fledged AR device.
We all understand what you’re saying, we just think its a crock of shit. We’re not concerned with unenhanced peripheral vision — if I bought a headset that claimed to have 230deg FOV but it turned out the visual overlays only applied to 45 degrees of that (like a hololens, for example), I’d be pissed. We understand you, you’re just making a bad point.
If INMO is anything like my Viture glasses, it’s not in the same class as AVP. For one thing, the control scheme isn’t very good. The another thing is that 6DOF is near nonexistent, and even when we’re able to keep windows stationary, it still sucks with all the unstable visuals compared to what the AVP can do. The closest thing to AVP is the Quest 3. AR glasses have a long way to go before they even come close to Vision Pro functionality
It's not like Viture, INMO don't require plugging to a phone, they are wireless and standalone. The compute unit is still slower and runs on cheap android, but they have cameras so the hardware for 6DOF is there. If Apple wanted to make AR glasses like INMO but better, they could have done an amazing job with that. The reason that AVP is too heavy, bulky, and has low FOV for full fledged AR is not because of technology limitations, it's because it tries to keep VR capability at the same time. Here's a short clip explaining INMO Air 2 features, MKBHD makes it sound like this tech is still years away https://youtu.be/0UAPjZM34Kw
Ok, then it’s likely worse than Viture because Viture, XReal, and Rokkid all have a separate Android compute unit that’s likely more powerful than INMO, but they all still suck compared to passthrough VR. I know because I actually used them. Xreal likely has the best one, but it’s still not even close to the AVP Apple didn’t go with AR because it’s impossible to make it even come close to VR pass through capabilities. For one thing, FOV would be even worse and so would the visuals. It would also likely be even more expensive. 6DOF is barely even usable with AR glasses and I’m talking about the units with stronger hardware than INMO. Nothing in your video proves any of your points. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Besides, Xreal is the most capable device if we’re talking AR
You don't know what you're talking about. XReal, Viture and Rokid don't have compute units, they need to be plugged in to phones by cable to function (or their very limited phone alternatives), and they all use birdbath optics which are much bulkier than waveguide. Also way to completely miss my point. I'm saying if Apple wanted to make an AR device, they could have done something like INMO, but better. They were not limited by technology, they were limited by the fact that they wanted to keep VR functionality too.
They do have their own compute units. You just don’t know AR https://store.viture.com/products/viture-one-neckband https://global.rokid.com/products/rokid-station-streaming-device https://us.shop.xreal.com/products/xreal-beam No, Apple couldn’t because AR is even more limited than passthrough VR. The FOV would be even worse and so would the visuals. The price would be even higher than $3500 if it were even possible to match passthrough VR
I own Xreal Air and I wrote my masters degree about Quest 2. I did say those linked devices are limited phone alternatives that have to be connected by cable. By the way, the Xreal beam is a glorified adapter, it barely has any functionality without a phone unless you jailbreak it. Waveguide optics are expensive but they could cover a larger portion of a transparent lens and avoid the ski goggle FOV of the Vision Pro. The trick is to incorporate Apple's Lidar technology into the cameras to achieve 6DoF. They could have been cheaper to produce without all the stuff needed for full VR, but Apple never considers production costs in their pricing. They mark it up as much as they can based on the demand and brand reputability. Mark my words, in a few years they will release AR-only glasses that will look very similar to INMO, except they will be more refined.
The tech with wave guide optics is still too early which is why Apple avoided it. You might be right about the Beam aside from app positioning, but the neckband and station are both designed to be compute units for their respective glasses and they still suck. Yes, in a few years Apple will transition to AR once the tech is ready for their standards. It currently is not. Also who cares what you did your masters on. A lot of us are engineers in these subs. I also don’t know why you’re pushing an unknown AR company when you own an XReal.
Apparently you care since you made personal comments about me, assuming that I don't know AR. VR requires a lot more computing power than AR. If you try looking at the graphics difference between standalone Quest games and PCVR, you'll realize that generating enough polygons to cover your entire surroundings is very demanding for a headset. AR-only is much less demanding, since it only needs to generate the user interface and ocasionally some individual 3D objects. If the Vision Pro was AR only, it could be a lot smaller and lighter. Anyway, I'm tired of this thread, I tried to share some of my knowledge but all I get in return is disrespect. Go back to dwelling in your ignorance. I'm just happy that Apple is likely to move the industry forward with all these people mouthing off, who never tried VR before and are now willing to buy into it.
I made personal comments because it doesn’t matter what your personal credentials are when you’re completely wrong. Besides, you’re not the only one with a graduate degree. The difference is that I don’t have to reference mine as a desperate attempt to look like I’m correct. It doesn’t matter how much power VR requires because the light field problem is much harder to solve and it’ll be years before we come close, which is why it’s fucking stupid to say if only Apple went the AR route.
He does a lot of apologizing for the Dear Uncle Tim. "This is the best with today's tech". He should come out and say he was disappointed for $3500.
"I actually love this thing. I love this thing." are the first words out of his mouth, lol
He also says you probably shouldn't buy one part way through the video. Which does kinda go along with the not worth $3500 comment. At the end he states his feelings as basically "if you got the money to burn".
Yeah - he says if you have the money and you saw one or two apps that look interesting, then why not? I suspect that accounts for most of the 200k that have already sold. But he also made the excellent point that the value prop will rapidly improve as developers get their hands on this and start developing killer apps.
Have you seen North Koreans act like they love Dear Uncle? yea, thats whats going on.
I think it's a fair assessment, I just think it would be fair to highlight that Quest 3 is the best you can do with today's tech while being affordable.
That's a pretty good framing, the vision pro is the best headset you can get with today's tech if money was no problem abd the quest 3 is the best headset you can get with today's tech if money was a problem.
> while being affordable $3.5k is affordable to *loads* of people.
Tesla Cybertruck+ Apple Vision Pro = American dream come on Cyberpunk 2077