Well with my napkin math a $3500 device should provide about 7x the value as a $500 device (quest 3)
I don’t think the AVP is 7x better than a Quest 3.
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Vision Pro is amazing. And I returned it. (MERGED)
- Thread starter WilliamG
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apple vision pro
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t think the AVP is 7x better than a Quest 3.
I had a Stainless Steel Series 0 Apple Watch on day one and wound up swapping it out for a lighter one that I kept and used for years.
I’ve also had a very early iPod, the original Macbook, the first Unibody Macbook Pro, the first Mac Pro, the first iPad, original AirPods, AirPods Pro, AirPods Max, HomePod, HomePod mini, multiple AppleTVs, and nearly every iPhone all on or very near launch day. This is nowhere near the quality of any of those products as far as consumer readiness for the intended & advertised use case. I do think a future version will get closer to it, but it doesn’t make any of this less true.
If you read this site 20+ years ago you may remember that there is an infamous thread about how doomed the iPod was. The key difference here is that there were many owners then who loved it and said so, the negativity was coming from non-owners who couldn’t afford it or weren’t happy it wasn’t compatible with Windows. That is not the case with the Vision Pro.
...
I was onboard with this product, knew it would be too heavy, but as soon as I found out what the FoV was earlier last week I started posting about how bad this was going to turn out. I’m extremely familiar with VR and have owned headsets including early developer kit only releases. I helped work on the first 3d painting in space Application that I’m aware of and it was intended for VR. Exactly because of my experience with VR headsets is why I thought this was going to turn out poorly, because this is mixed reality. I thought it would probably be too heavy to use for long periods and wouldn’t be well weight-distributed but that the FoV was going to be industry leading and that would offset things, and that just isn’t true. It matters a lot, I can’t emphasize how much it does, but you’ll find out when you get one. If it weighed half of what it does the limited FoV might be ok because you could bear the weight better due to needing to physically turn your head more. Future versions will at least reduce the weight if nothing else.
A lot of these first revisions are going to be sitting unused or rarely used in 6 months, and a huge number of them will be returned because people have never experienced VR and once the novelty wears off you’ll start to feel claustrophobic because they didn’t or can’t solve the low FoV problem. I hope they have a solution for the future ready to go in R&D now or this entire category of device is in trouble.
I’m very curious how fast Apple will revise the hardware, I truly think this is the first time their customer sat expectations won’t be met and that will influence them at the highest levels. I wonder if 500k produced is not actually due to a component production issue but rather they knew what they were getting into… time will tell.
Last edited:
Why are you acting surprised that most people haven't interacted with "high quality, hand picked optics"? Why would they?
As others have pointed out, Apple is advertising this product as essentially a top-notch content consumption device. From their website: "The ultimate theater. Wherever you are."
Not sure about you, but my vision of the ultimate theater doesn't include unavoidable streaks of light throughout my field of view when I'm trying to focus on the content on screen. That is misleading advertising at best. Doesn't change the fact that this is still an impressive device and a technical and engineering achievement. But to act like people have no right to feel disappointed about the performance of the lenses is a strange hill to die on.
Thank you for posting my thoughts! Apple massively misrepresented this product. They didn’t misrepresent the original iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch etc. That’s all there is to it. It’s almost sad because on the one hand I’d like the AVP to sell well so Apple keeps working on new generations that will eventually solve issues with this first gen, but at the same time I do feel slighted by the misleading ads and Keynote and I do expect a significant number of returns.
to be fair - apple has been marketing this thing as an AR device.
It's just VR with video pass thru creating these issues.
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
I'm saddened by these reviews, but it is as expected. Current VR tech is just not there, starting with the hardware itself.
Thus, all hope for this thing to be what I wanted have been dashed (for now) with this version.
My 13" M2 MBA, 12.9 IPP, and 85" TV will have to do until then, although I'm running out of decades to wait this out.
Thus, all hope for this thing to be what I wanted have been dashed (for now) with this version.
My 13" M2 MBA, 12.9 IPP, and 85" TV will have to do until then, although I'm running out of decades to wait this out.
I definitely noticed the glare issue for movie watching, but since it's mostly a result of the light/dark contrast, I found it easy to mostly avoid just by picking one of the environments that's slightly more lit in dark mode, like White Sands.
As for the FOV, try taking off the light seal and holding the device up closer to your face. I'm 100% serious! The UI works fine, and it's so much better in terms of FOV that I have to wonder if it was designed with less distance between lens and eye and then they had to increase the gap for some reason. I would bet that there will be third-party light seal replacements that cut down on the inner spacing before long.
As for the FOV, try taking off the light seal and holding the device up closer to your face. I'm 100% serious! The UI works fine, and it's so much better in terms of FOV that I have to wonder if it was designed with less distance between lens and eye and then they had to increase the gap for some reason. I would bet that there will be third-party light seal replacements that cut down on the inner spacing before long.
not at all i was movies all the time with my bud who lives in Ohio and I in massachusetts, we use Bigscreen VR on the quest 3 and sit in a vrtual theater together its fun as hell
Exactly, I am an unapologetic Apple fanboy. Love their products and the way the AVP was presented leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I wanted the AVP mostly as a personal home theater. I knew it would be heavy and maybe a bit uncomfortable to wear for extended periods of time. Never did it occur to me that the displays would have such horrible glare or that the sweet spot (where everything looks sharp) would be so narrow. I expected such shortcommings from lesser headsets.....I hoped Apple had finally cracked VR much like they did with smart phones. That was simply not the case. Apple will no doubt improve on the AVP design for years to come, but I will be waiting for "real people's" reviews before I buy again.
You're completely right
I think people are going to get mad when the return window ends and they haven't returned it. First they'll be a little bit scared but then some of them will realize that it's more comfortable to use their TVs and laptops without a 650 grams device attached on their face, but they were driven just by the fact it was a new thing and everybody (including them) was so excited. But those 4000$... It's cool the first few days but it's not worth it.
This device needs to get cheaper and smaller/lighter to start considering it. And of course, without any drawbacks (it should have same or superior quality than our displays)
But as you've said, most of them will be silent because of the embarrassment to admit they were wrong and they threw a lot of money into a device that are not using anymore. Some days they will grab it from the drawer and try to enjoy it, it'll be cool for some minutes but then realize again that it's not worth it.
Last edited:
Maybe they don't update it next year because if they update it without solving all the problems that it has, which is impossible, then it will be even worse for customers. You can fail customers 1 time and then after some time you can make them trust you again, but if you fail them again then you are ****ed.
And this is not only bad for Apple but also for the industry, I don't wan't people to think XR is trash.
Eventually we will get where Apple wants but the moment is not this year nor next year. I give it at least 7 years for these devices to start to appeal to the avg consumer.
If AVP is everything Apple could do for this year, they're not going to solve any of the pain points soon, unless there is some new technology that we invent
for a first gen product i think it's amazing but plenty of to improve on in the future as tech improves.
Agree.
I would also add that Apple need to maintain the perception that AVP is selling well.
Lots of refurbs will detract from that.
They'll be in a warehouse and drip fed into circulation.
The anxiety I'd have mailing a device that expensive back would be too much.
I seriously doubt an item like this will ever go into the refurbished store. Apple will re-sell them as new.
People in here defending Apple need to understand something. In my view and opinion, owners of the VP who are complaining about some aspects of the VP, mainly FOV, glare, smearing and vingretting, because they were not able to use something that is called 'informed decision'. What this means is Apple neglected to inform buyers of ALL the problems/issues with the VP which meant important and relevant information about the VP was withheld from buyers. This mean buyers were not able to make a proper 'informed decision' if they should purchase the VP or not.
Yes the VP is first generation but Apple should have been expressly clear about the issues of FOV, glare, smearing and vingretting but they weren't and neither was any of the reviewers when they got to try it out for the very first time at Apple's headquarters. Only later when it was a few days before official release day did one video appear to bring attention to the visual issues mentioned and then on official release day out comes all the reviews on the VP, probably held back from early release due to NDA's but if people watch many of the reviews, nearly all of them mention at some point the visual issues that some buyers of the VP are reporting.
Yes there will be bugs and issues because it's a first gen product but Apple should have at least done more extensive reporting on the visual issues of the VP, basically it's FOV, glare, smearing and vingretting and then allowed buyers to make an 'informed decision' on whether to buy it or not. The fact is they didn't and now some buyers are experiencing issues with it that should have been expressly highlighted during first time trials and first time reviews. Those complaining about their VP are right to do so because Apple have mislead them.
Yes the VP is first generation but Apple should have been expressly clear about the issues of FOV, glare, smearing and vingretting but they weren't and neither was any of the reviewers when they got to try it out for the very first time at Apple's headquarters. Only later when it was a few days before official release day did one video appear to bring attention to the visual issues mentioned and then on official release day out comes all the reviews on the VP, probably held back from early release due to NDA's but if people watch many of the reviews, nearly all of them mention at some point the visual issues that some buyers of the VP are reporting.
Yes there will be bugs and issues because it's a first gen product but Apple should have at least done more extensive reporting on the visual issues of the VP, basically it's FOV, glare, smearing and vingretting and then allowed buyers to make an 'informed decision' on whether to buy it or not. The fact is they didn't and now some buyers are experiencing issues with it that should have been expressly highlighted during first time trials and first time reviews. Those complaining about their VP are right to do so because Apple have mislead them.
Basically, you can have all the engineering and science in the world, but if your end product has to be accommodated and overcome in order to enjoy, then it has failed at the first hurdle. No amount of word salad and fancy commercials from Cook can undo what is a borderline betrayal of trust in the brand.
Consumer law prevents Apple from doing that. As soon as the product leaves the warehouse and is in the hands of the customer, the product automatically becomes 'used' regardless if the seals on the product are still intact. If the seal on the packaging is still intact then Apple can advertise it as 'Used, new, sealed still in box' BUT they would still have to use the word 'Used' in the sale description. If the product seal has been broken and the product taken out of the box and handled by the customer but the customer was not happy with the product and decided to return it, if Apple 'service it' meaning they clean it (remove customer finger marks and any other marks) then it comes under the heading of 'refurbished' because the product was cleaned back to factory condition. Even still, the product would have to be identified as 'refurbished' because it was serviced back to factory conditions, put back in the packaging and sealed.
If Apple tried to sell returned VP's as 'new' without using any other wording in the sale description indicating it's previous status they would fall foul of consumer law.
I seriously doubt an item like this will ever go into the refurbished store. Apple will re-sell them as new.
Good to know. I still don't see Apple selling these in their refurbished store. Most likely they'd keep them as replacement stock for ones that get broken.
Real-world optics like your microscope example have a major additional constraint that headset optics do not, though: They are unable to modify the subject.
This isn't true with with a VR headset! You can freely "counter-distort" during the rendering pipeline to attempt to fix optical shortcomings. Maybe some pancake design is great, except it's stretching the peripheral; no worries, just compress those areas before outputting to display. Headsets have been calibrating the specific manufacturing variance of their optics for generations now (if you rendered the exact same frame in two different headsets, you would not get the exact same pixel image out on the display!)
There's another more obvious thing happening here too, and you don't have to reach so far as "these people were suckered into believing Apple's hype":
As the overall rendering quality increases, of course other aspects that fall behind start to stand out more (glare, fov). If the global resolution was much lower, I doubt the glare would bother me as much, because it would no longer be the most conspicuous issue.
I suspect glare in particular gets worse as you end up on the outer thresholds of their design's IPD range. I have a wider IPD, and I probably have more glare than others. Awesome if you don't! Apple's in-store demo carefully avoids any scenes where this would be present. It'd be nice if the demo included more of a torture test so people could also experience the worst-case situations firsthand 🤷♂️
A decade from now, if someone tried a first-gen AVP found lurking in the back of a closet, they'll probably have a chuckle at what a glare-y mess it in inside the headset and how we ever thought that was workable, in the exact same way the 480x320 resolution of the first iPhone display feels absurd now...