3 ms·

Also the FoV is narrower on the AVP than the Quest. Granted, all current headsets suck at this, as in it's less AR/VR and more like looking through a pair of bi

Also the FoV is narrower on the AVP than the Quest. Granted, all current headsets suck at this, as in it's less AR/VR and more like looking through a pair of binoculars which absolutely sucks for immersion, but it's crazy the AVP has a worse Fov than a Quest that's 7 times cheaper. Only Apple can get people to pay 3.5K to be beta testers of a devkit/prototype. > The AVP image is much worse than a cheap monitor displaying high-resolution, high-contrast content. Effectively, what the AVP supports is multiple low angular resolution monitors. Waiting for the early adopters and apologists to say again how the AVP is so magic and revolutionary it's gonna replace their 5k monitors for daily work. Maybe that "daily work" they were talking about is reading emails for 15 minutes/day and watching a 30 minute episode on Netflix on the couch after wich the headset gathers dust.

audunw 3y ago
Arguably, if they have a limited production rate on this “prototype” - which it seems they do - pricing it so only the ones who are extremely enthusiastic, or ones that will actually develop apps for it and thus consider it an investment, is absolutely the right thing to do. Meanwhile they also get that halo effect where they establish it as a premium product. If they later drop the price or let inflation slowly reduce the difference, that effect will remain.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  But why would you release a "limited production prototype" to the public for purchase as a finished product? It's very non-Apple. The iPod, iPhone, iPad etc were not released as limited edition prototypes. I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state. Same how Appel hasn't yet released a folding phone even though Android OEMs have been doing it for 5 years already. The tech is just not yet mature for a flawless implementation that Apple is know to deliver even if it arrives later to the market than the competition.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Once again revisionist history in effect. The Vision Pro is on par with the level of quality as the original iPhone or Apple Watch. And has sold better than both.
    - jwells89 3y ago
      Arguably the original iPod fits in alongside the original iPhone and Watch. It was significantly less of a finished, polished product than the commercially successful 3/4th gen models onward that people tend to think of when iPods are mentioned.
    - asadotzler 3y ago
      Only because the connected market is many times larger did it sell better. It's not fit for purpose and the audience will take a decade or more to reach numbers that make it worth it for app developers and even then it'll be a dorkbox for your face and not used much at all by the "productivity" half of the office that care about hair and makeup.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state. Even assuming that, what does it matter? He’s not around and times change.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >Even assuming that, what does it matter? He’s not around and times change. Because they can also change for the worst. This product is less Apple iPad and more Apple Newton. Both were great innovative technical achievements of tablet computers in their eras, but only one was a smash hit with the mainstream public. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton
pfannkuchen 3y ago
I strongly suspect the narrow FOV is an intentional trade off for increased pixel density, probably to enable practically readable text. If the FOV was much wider with the same pixel count I don’t think text would be really usable.
al_borland 3y ago
I don't have either, as I expect after the novelty wears off I won't want to bother putting on a headset for most things. That said, if I had to buy a headset today, I'd go with the Vision Pro. All the technical stuff aside... I simply don't trust Meta enough to buy a piece of hardware from them. I will pay 7x to buy from a company where I'm less worried about their intentions.

audunw 3y ago

Arguably, if they have a limited production rate on this “prototype” - which it seems they do - pricing it so only the ones who are extremely enthusiastic, or ones that will actually develop apps for it and thus consider it an investment, is absolutely the right thing to do. Meanwhile they also get that halo effect where they establish it as a premium product. If they later drop the price or let inflation slowly reduce the difference, that effect will remain.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
But why would you release a "limited production prototype" to the public for purchase as a finished product? It's very non-Apple. The iPod, iPhone, iPad etc were not released as limited edition prototypes. I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state. Same how Appel hasn't yet released a folding phone even though Android OEMs have been doing it for 5 years already. The tech is just not yet mature for a flawless implementation that Apple is know to deliver even if it arrives later to the market than the competition.
- threeseed 3y ago
  Once again revisionist history in effect. The Vision Pro is on par with the level of quality as the original iPhone or Apple Watch. And has sold better than both.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    Arguably the original iPod fits in alongside the original iPhone and Watch. It was significantly less of a finished, polished product than the commercially successful 3/4th gen models onward that people tend to think of when iPods are mentioned.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    Only because the connected market is many times larger did it sell better. It's not fit for purpose and the audience will take a decade or more to reach numbers that make it worth it for app developers and even then it'll be a dorkbox for your face and not used much at all by the "productivity" half of the office that care about hair and makeup.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state. Even assuming that, what does it matter? He’s not around and times change.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >Even assuming that, what does it matter? He’s not around and times change. Because they can also change for the worst. This product is less Apple iPad and more Apple Newton. Both were great innovative technical achievements of tablet computers in their eras, but only one was a smash hit with the mainstream public. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton

pfannkuchen 3y ago

I strongly suspect the narrow FOV is an intentional trade off for increased pixel density, probably to enable practically readable text. If the FOV was much wider with the same pixel count I don’t think text would be really usable.

al_borland 3y ago

I don't have either, as I expect after the novelty wears off I won't want to bother putting on a headset for most things. That said, if I had to buy a headset today, I'd go with the Vision Pro. All the technical stuff aside... I simply don't trust Meta enough to buy a piece of hardware from them. I will pay 7x to buy from a company where I'm less worried about their intentions.