What's new

Apple Vision Pro (VR/AR) announced at WWDC 23

Seems like the release is close and preorders have started. I've read that Apple claims to have made about 700 million revenue with it already. Anyone getting one for themselves? For me it's waaay out of my price range.
I think that you may have read what somebody else was guessing or estimated, but Apple hasn't released any official numbers to my knowledge. They're usually pretty tight lipped about such stuff.

If Apple says anything at all, it'll be on Thursday most likely, because that's Apple's earnings date. I have a couple of shares of Apple stock, so that's how I know.

I don't think that Apple really cares too much about the early sales figures and certainly not any profit at this point, as they have invested a lot of time and money into R&D. I believe that they're thinking more long term and where the Vision Pro will be in the future.

I didn't get a first gen iPhone and I didn't get a first gen iPad or Apple Watch, but it didn't take many gens before I ended up with all of them.

I could see the same thing happening with the Vision Pro. I'm not going to jump on the first gen, but future gens will surely be coming down in price and I could see myself buying one in a few years time, if it's truly great, I haven't tried one out for myself yet.
 
I think that you may have read what somebody else was guessing or estimated, but Apple hasn't released any official numbers to my knowledge. They're usually pretty tight lipped about such stuff.
here's my source (it's a German PC hardware magazine):


I don't think that Apple really cares too much about the early sales figures and certainly not any profit at this point, as they have invested a lot of time and money into R&D. I believe that they're thinking more long term and where the Vision Pro will be in the future.
For sure, all VR hardware will be an almost guaranteed loss in the short term.


I could see the same thing happening with the Vision Pro. I'm not going to jump on the first gen, but future gens will surely be coming down in price and I could see myself buying one in a few years time, if it's truly great, I haven't tried one out for myself yet.
Would you buy it because it's an apple device or would you buy it because it's a highend VR headset? Not trying to be snarky, I'm just genuinely interested whether the apple logo alone could make people interested in VR tech when the Oculus Quest or Valve Index could not.
 
here's my source (it's a German PC hardware magazine):

For sure, all VR hardware will be an almost guaranteed loss in the short term.

Would you buy it because it's an apple device or would you buy it because it's a highend VR headset? Not trying to be snarky, I'm just genuinely interested whether the apple logo alone could make people interested in VR tech when the Oculus Quest or Valve Index could not.
I don't read German, but a quick Google translate solved that issue.

Your source cites a MacRumors article which cites an unnamed source, so while the figures and estimates may be somewhat accurate or close, nothing official has been said by Apple on the matter.

As to your question, I can only speak for myself, but having the Apple logo carries a great deal of weight for me at least.

I don't know much about VR headsets and I've never even tried one before, but the other ones that exist on the market are primarily for gaming I believe. That's not the kind of headset I would be interested in. They're cheap and the specs and the displays are subpar, according to many things I've read.

If I ever got a Vision Pro, I would get it to have a huge screen to watch movies on and also use it as a display for my Mac. I would of course have to test one out in real life to experience it for myself to see if I really wanted one. And having the Apple logo on it means that it would work well with everything else that I have that is Apple, so yes, the logo is certainly a factor for me.
 
I have one arriving tomorrow, but I'm fully expecting to be disappointed with it. From what I've read, rather than surrounding yourself with an array of huge virtual monitors for your existing desktop (which is what I'd really value), you can only have one 4k screen, which is actually a downgrade from my 6k screen. And apparently it only works with Apple Silicon, so my extremely expensive 2019 Mac Pro is left out in the cold already.

I'm still curious enough to not cancel my order and I'll give it a few days, but if I'm not absolutely blown away, I will be returning it.
 
I have one arriving tomorrow, but I'm fully expecting to be disappointed with it. From what I've read, rather than surrounding yourself with an array of huge virtual monitors for your existing desktop (which is what I'd really value), you can only have one 4k screen, which is actually a downgrade from my 6k screen. And apparently it only works with Apple Silicon, so my extremely expensive 2019 Mac Pro is left out in the cold already.

I'm still curious enough to not cancel my order and I'll give it a few days, but if I'm not absolutely blown away, I will be returning it.
Yes, you can only have one 4k screen from your Mac, at least on this first gen version.

However, I'm not the least bit surprised that it's only for Apple silicon.

No matter how expensive your 2019 Mac Pro was, Intel Macs are basically obsolete going forward.
 
How is it?
A LOT better than I was expecting. I was 95% sure I'd be returning it. Now, after about 18 hours of solid use, I'm about 50%. For context, I've had (and hated) several VR headsets from the Oculus to the PSVR2 to the Hololens and I'm nearing the end of a 30 year career in film and video.

The Good...

For a 1st Gen product, it's very slick and polished. Adjusting to a totally new way of interfacing feels considered and natural. The basic principle is look to select and pinch to click/drag/scale, which quickly becomes second nature. It's nice for prolonged use that you don't have to hold your hands out in front of you - the cameras work perfectly well when your hands are just resting on your lap or a desktop. The eye tracking is astonishingly good for Native VisionOS apps, but see below for so-called 'compatible apps'. Within VisionOS, text is surprisingly sharp (unlike all the other VR headsets I've used) and visual quality is generally very good, with a few major caveats which I'll come to below. It's fairly comfortable, but I really can't see anyone wanting to wear one for a whole working day due to the weight and bulk. The battery cord is a nuisance, but I don't really see a viable alternative until they can find a much lighter way of powering things.

The environments (where you replace your living space with a virtual rendered space) are amazing - probably the best thing about the Vision Pro. Being up above the clouds at the summit of Haleakala (the Maui volcano) looking into the crater at night and gazing up at the stars is remarkably peaceful. The sense of immersion is extraordinary, even down to the spacial wind sound effects. You can then summon up a massive movie screen and settle in for what is honestly a fantastic experience. If you have Disney+ you can sit in the driving seat of Luke's Landspeeder in front of the setting twin suns on Tatooine, on the deck of the Marvel Avengers HQ in front of a New York skyline marveling (ha!) at the Easter eggs in the animated environment, or summon up some porn in the Disney Theatre and go full PeeWee Herman!

The sound from the built in speakers is surprisingly good, although of course it's far from full-range. It's very well executed and really adds to the sense of immersion. I'll try the Airpods Pro over the weekend which I expect will be much better still.

The Bad...

Battery life and weight are inter-related in a way. Unless you're plugged into the wall charger, you won't be using it for more than 3 hours or so at a time, but then after 90 mins you really do start to feel the weight of it on your brow, so it's good to take a break to recharge!

Pass-through video quality (ie the ability to see the space around you which is beamed into the internal screens via the external cameras) is surprisingly poor, even in optimum daylight conditions. Fuzzy, a little laggy, with very obvious motion blur and video noise. I imagine this will be one of the things they prioritize to improve in future hardware revisions.

3D movie content - it takes a lot of horsepower to render an immersive 3D environment and then stream a 4k 3D movie into it. 2D films play very smoothly and look great, but 3D films need double the frame rate to get the same smoothness and it looks like the hardware isn't up to it - 3D movies look noticeably more juddery. For launch, Apple has produced some fully immersive 3D content available through AppleTV+ which I've seen touted as 8k, but in reality it looks more like 480p with a ton of fringing and artifacts. It's certainly impressive, but the video quality isn't that great.

The thing that really got my interest when I watched the Keynote a few months ago was the potential to use the Vision Pro for multiple virtual monitors on your existing Mac setup. In practice however, this is severely limited. It does work with Intel Macs, but the virtual screen can only be up to 3k resolution. With Apple Silicon Macs it will go up to 4k. You can only have a single screen, and the screen on your laptop/desktop will go black while you're using the virtual screen, so you can't really use it as a desktop extender - just a replacement within the VisionOS environment. Unlike apps running natively, the quality is not great - it looks like an over-compressed jpeg - fuzzy and somewhat laggy. I really wouldn't want to use this for work. Also, for some strange reason, it doesn't work with a Bluetooth mouse, but a Trackpad works fine.

The eye tracking, which works superbly on Native VisionOS apps, doesn't work nearly as well on so-called 'Compatible Apps', which are basically pre-existing iPad apps. I couldn't even get past the login screen on a couple of these as I couldn't select the 'Next' button. I'm sure this will be a priority for OS revisions.

I really don't see the need at all for the front screens, which are just adding cost, weight and power draw to the device. The ability for someone else to be able to see representations of your eyes seems like a nonsense feature.

It doesn't work in the dark as it can't track your hands, so you won't be using it in bed while your partner is sleeping for example...

...which brings me to the worst aspect of the Vision Pro. Like the iPad, it only supports ONE SINGLE USER. This is ridiculous. If you live in a household, everyone will want to use it of course, but the only way to do that is for the main user to enable a temporary Guest user who will have to set the device up (ie go through the initial eye and hand scanning procedure) every single time they want to use it. This is a new Operating System - it could have been designed from the outset with multiple user functionality, but Apple have chosen not to do that. Do they really think people are going to just buy 4 of them?!

TLDR: Great Cinema Experience! The rest, not so much.
 
Seriously. No one will want to be using these as fulltime monitor replacement.

Unlike apps running natively, the quality is not great - it looks like an over-compressed jpeg - fuzzy and somewhat laggy. I really wouldn't want to use this for work.
Great review, thanks a lot! I feel vindicated in my prediction.

There are two things you didn't mention that I'm curious about: On the Quest 2 I feel like the depth perception hits a wall after around 50 virtual meters or so, meaning if you watch outdoor VR camera footage it always lacks depth and after that threshold everything seems about the same distance away. My prediction is that with a higher pixel density display that is still a thing but the threshold should be farther away. Does that match your observations?
And second, how is the video quality for filming with the integrated cameras? Is it as bad as pass-through and how does it compare to footage filmed with typical vr camera setups?
 
On the Quest 2 I feel like the depth perception hits a wall after around 50 virtual meters or so, meaning if you watch outdoor VR camera footage it always lacks depth and after that threshold everything seems about the same distance away. My prediction is that with a higher pixel density display that is still a thing but the threshold should be farther away. Does that match your observations?
And second, how is the video quality for filming with the integrated cameras? Is it as bad as pass-through and how does it compare to footage filmed with typical vr camera setups?
On the first point, that is somewhat down to something called 'foveated rendering', which is a way of saving processing power by only rendering in full resolution things that you are looking directly at. That can lead to peripheral things, either in the distance or to the sides, seeming to lack resolution/detail/sharpness. That is definitely the case with the Vision Pro.

On the second point - I just shot some short footage with my cat as a test. It's night, so lighting conditions weren't ideal. The footage looks quite jerky - movement is not smooth, and the quality is quite grainy, but I expect that's mostly down to the lighting. Surprisingly, the headset also warned me that I had moved too much, so the footage may cause nausea! I just took a couple of steps in my lounge while trying to keep the cat in frame, so it's not like I was ziplining through the Andes! I'll try again tomorrow in better light conditions.
 
On the first point, that is somewhat down to something called 'foveated rendering', which is a way of saving processing power by only rendering in full resolution things that you are looking directly at. That can lead to peripheral things, either in the distance or to the sides, seeming to lack resolution/detail/sharpness. That is definitely the case with the Vision Pro.
I know what (eye-tracked) foveated rendering is, but that's not what I'm talking about. If something in the distance that you're looking at has that lack of resolution and detail, it must be either because of display resolution or rendering resolution. The lower rendering resolution in the peripheral vision should ideally be unobtrusive. I remember an A/B test for the PSVR2 where testers couldn't even tell whether it was on or not.


On the second point - I just shot some short footage with my cat as a test. It's night, so lighting conditions weren't ideal. The footage looks quite jerky - movement is not smooth, and the quality is quite grainy, but I expect that's mostly down to the lighting. Surprisingly, the headset also warned me that I had moved too much, so the footage may cause nausea! I just took a couple of steps in my lounge while trying to keep the cat in frame, so it's not like I was ziplining through the Andes! I'll try again tomorrow in better light conditions.
That's a shame but pretty much what I expected. I'm quite prone to nausea from shaky VR footage, so I expect I wouldn't get much out of people starting to film with these devices anyway. But in general I think it would be an important push towards VR if people had better access to filming high quality VR videos themselves.


Edit:

Brave new world...

 
Last edited:
Brave new world...


I'm glad you posted this video, it's the best one I've seen so far for showing what the AVP actually will be in the future. Obviously it's somewhat ridiculous to wear it out in public like that but he knew what he was doing!

As for the eyes on the front of the AVP being a waste; I think Apple was prepared to make that sacrifice to a) make it seem less like someone is "removing themselves from reality" - even if it's just something that looks much better in marketing photos than it actually works in real life, and b) I suppose future revisions of this product will eventually have transparent displays that allow a person's real eyes to show through, so they're setting the tone for that from Gen1, albeit artifically for now.
 
I know what (eye-tracked) foveated rendering is, but that's not what I'm talking about. If something in the distance that you're looking at has that lack of resolution and detail, it must be either because of display resolution or rendering resolution. The lower rendering resolution in the peripheral vision should ideally be unobtrusive. I remember an A/B test for the PSVR2 where testers couldn't even tell whether it was on or not.



That's a shame but pretty much what I expected. I'm quite prone to nausea from shaky VR footage, so I expect I wouldn't get much out of people starting to film with these devices anyway. But in general I think it would be an important push towards VR if people had better access to filming high quality VR videos themselves.


Edit:

Brave new world...


This video shows what can be at some point in the near future.

Replace the vision pro with a pair of standard glasses and see what the potential for real world interactivity would look like.

I remember seeing a you tube video where somebody actually simulated this and showed what it would look like when getting on the bus, shopping in the grocery store, etc. Essentially interactive advertising hovering above or next to everything. Was actually a bit disturbing.
 
This video shows what can be at some point in the near future.

Replace the vision pro with a pair of standard glasses and see what the potential for real world interactivity would look like.

I remember seeing a you tube video where somebody actually simulated this and showed what it would look like when getting on the bus, shopping in the grocery store, etc. Essentially interactive advertising hovering above or next to everything. Was actually a bit disturbing.
I really hope that's not the future we're headed towards...
 
remember seeing a you tube video where somebody actually simulated this and showed what it would look like when getting on the bus, shopping in the grocery store, etc. Essentially interactive advertising hovering above or next to everything. Was actually a bit disturbing.
Presumably this:

and yes, it's horrific
 
Maybe it depends where somebody lives, but I wouldn't want to walk outside with a $500 Airpods Max on my head, as it is likely to be ripped off your head. I don't see myself walking outside with a $3500+ Vision Pro either. I wouldn't want to be wearing a scuba like mask outside anyway.

I wouldn't mind wearing one at home though.

This short video that I came across is the best video so far that I've seen that quickly and effectively shows the potential of the Vision Pro for a home set up. This looks pretty impressive, in my opinion.

 
I did an Apple Store demo last night, just to experience it for myself.

I honestly didn't notice the weight at all, which surprised me in hindsight - I kept reading that it's heavy, but realized afterward that I never thought about the weight at all.

Immersive environments and video and spatial video are astonishing. Even though the store wasn't busy (it was close to closing), it probably wasn't the ideal environment for the immersive environments, as I couldn't really hear the sounds that go along with the visuals. Spatial videos are really hard to put into words - you really do feel like you are right there, thought they do also have a slightly shimmery quality to them; once you experience it, you'll want to capture immersive video with all of the important people in your life, just to have memories that vivid. Immersive video takes things up a notch, since it's 180-degree video capture of something that most people won't experience (tightrope walking over a canyon, swimming with sharks, having Alicia Keys sing directly at you, etc).

As you'd expect, movies/TV are pretty amazing - if you choose the Cinema environment, you can pick floor or balcony seats (this determines whether you're at the bottom of the screen or more in the middle), at the front, middle, or back of the room - balcony and front felt the best to me. 3D movies are very impressive, though I only got to see clips from "Super Mario Brothers" and "Avatar: The Way of Water" - I didn't experience any noticeable issues with 3D movies, though it's possible the actual media was stored locally on the device to avoid issues with wifi bandwidth in the store.

I found the interface pretty intuitive, but I already knew what to expect from articles and podcasts. There were a couple times when it didn't acknowledge taps from my right hand, but was fine with my left - the only explanation I could come up with was that my jacket might have been blocking view of my hand, which is hard to notice with the Vision Pro on your face. Like many have noted, I had some light leaks around the bridge of my nose, but nowhere else.

Much like the people who got to try it briefly at WWDC last year, my overwhelming sense was that I really wanted to try it again. The first experience is frankly overwhelming - they had me bring up Safari and the virtual keyboard, and I literally couldn't think of anything to search for; my mind was a blank, as I wasn't expecting to have to make any decisions during the demo (it was mostly on rails). Debating making another appointment to see if they'll let me try different things.

Overall, I think it's worthwhile to try it if you have an Apple Store nearby.

(Edited to clarify that Immersive Video is 180-degrees, not 360, though it is both side-to-side and up-and-down.)
 
Last edited:
Maybe it depends where somebody lives, but I wouldn't want to walk outside with a $500 Airpods Max on my head, as it is likely to be ripped off your head. I don't see myself walking outside with a $3500+ Vision Pro either. I wouldn't want to be wearing a scuba like mask outside anyway.

I wouldn't mind wearing one at home though.

This short video that I came across is the best video so far that I've seen that quickly and effectively shows the potential of the Vision Pro for a home set up. This looks pretty impressive, in my opinion.


Some of that seems interesting, though not for me as someone who prefers less devices surrounding me (none of it really seems like it will improve one's quality of life or productivity, since for the most part all of that already exists as a possibility - you can have a TV in your living room, a TV or laptop in your kitchen, post-it notes on your fridge, and if you're in a family they can all see this together). The computer setup seems perhaps most unique. It's too young to tell but I wonder if the computer setup will create health issues down the line – seems like quite a lot of craning one's neck about in extreme ways to see all those different screens. Doing that several hours a day I wonder if that will do a number on one's neck and also eyes...

As you'd expect, movies/TV are pretty amazing - if you choose the Cinema environment, you can pick floor or balcony seats (this determines whether you're at the bottom of the screen or more in the middle), at the front, middle, or back of the room - balcony and front felt the best to me.
Thanks for sharing your review. But I'm curious, what is the point of this movie theater thing specifically? I tried an Oculus years ago and you could watch a movie as if you're in a theater, and looking away from the "screen" you could see seats, shadowy audience members, popcorn in your lap. I suppose I never understood this since you can go to a theater if you really want, but as a filmmaker I'd think the focus should really be on the screen and story, not looking at seats around you - why wouldn't one just watch on a TV in their home?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom