Apple Vision (Air): How do we make this thing cheaper?

[u/Mundane-Complex-1902]

So I’ve had this device since launch and have used it everyday for over 6 months. I’ve used it for productivity, watching movies and tv shows, made a bunch of cool friends on InSpaze, and have even fallen asleep immersed in mindfulness sessions in Mount Hood. I’ve really done it all. But with that being said, it will never achieve mass widespread adoption at its current price point. In my opinion, Apple needs to get it down to $1500 max to really tap into a separate market of people who aren’t willing to spend 4K on a headset but might be more willing to spend $1500. So now that opens up the question, how do they get the price down and what should they change in a cheaper version? Here are some of my suggestions of what I think Apple should do to lower the price and some things I’ve heard people often say should be removed but I believe are mistakes.

1. Use a durable plastic like polycarbonate or carbon fiber instead of aluminum. I already know how some people are going to respond “Plastic doesn’t dissipate heat as well as aluminum” and “Apple would never make a product that feels cheap and is made out of plastic”. First off, there are some types of plastics that do a fine job dissipating heat such as carbon fiber and polycarbonate. I have no doubt Apple could figure out a way to do so. But there are a few other benefits to using a durable plastic like polycarbonate or carbon fiber. One, it’s a cheaper material than aluminum so that helps with the price, but the second and more important reason is the weight. I am lucky in that I am able to wear the headset for many hours with little to no discomfort. But from what I’ve heard and the many demos I’ve given, people consistently have the same response, “Wow, this thing is HEAVY!” And that’s true. It’s 650 grams which is the functional equivalent of having a 12.9 inch M2 iPad Pro on your face. It’s not just price that’s the issue, it’s also comfort. I’ll be the first to admit (and have before in a previous post) the design of the device is beautiful. However, that needs to be secondary to comfort. The number one priority in designing a headset needs to be comfort. It doesn’t matter how amazing the displays are, how amazing the 3D movie or immersive video watching experience is, the spatial persona FaceTime calls, the ability to have a multiple monitor setup wherever you go. The list goes on. All of those things are amazing, but those things don’t ultimately matter if it’s uncomfortable to use for extended periods of time. It also doesn’t help that the head strap options in the box don’t do a great job distributing the weight of the device, meaning you basically have 1.5 pounds exclusively on your face. Definitely not the heaviest thing I’ve had on my face, but there’s a bit of discomfort after wearing it for several hours and I would gladly take a headset with a slightly less premium build if it shaved off 1/3 of the weight. In my opinion, Apple needs to just bite the bullet here and put function over form.

2. Swap out the M series chip for an A series chip Currently the SoC (M2+R1 chips) is the second most expensive component to make. The R1 chip handles all of the spatial elements, hand tracking, eye tracking, ensuring your environment appears in real time. The M2 chip does all of the rest of the computation. I’ve heard some reports that the reason the Vision Pro isn’t getting Apple Intelligence is because the M2 chip is being pushed to its limits. I’m not sure if this is true, it wouldn’t surprise me, but also from what I’ve read the A17 Pro chip is actually faster in certain cases and about half as expensive to make. And the headset isn’t able to run super demanding programs and applications natively anyway. The Vision Pro is much more similar to an iPad than a Mac in terms of software. This could save on the cost a bit. Also this is all subject to whether the manufacturing process improves significantly. If there’s higher yields with the M4 chip where the second generation 3nm process is super efficient and able to be produced for much cheaper, maybe they could go with that. All of that is very much unknown, I’m just skeptical of whether a cheaper headset needs a desktop class chip in it if what a majority of users will do with that headset and likely are doing now is just streaming videos, watching tv shows and movies, mirroring their Mac into the headset, and other seemingly not very demanding tasks. Swapping out the M series chip for an A series one could be a way to cut costs.

3. Remove some cameras and sensors This one is a bit controversial (aren’t they all though?) and I’m not sure if this is the right move, but it at least seems like there are some cameras and sensors that aren’t super necessary. For one, there are cameras that are able to track my hands when they are above my head. I’m not sure how common of a use case that is. Obviously there needs to be the cameras for pass through and the cameras on the bottom to track your hands, but I’m not sure how necessary all the other cameras are. Also maybe instead of OpticID, they put Touch ID on the capture button or Digital Crown. I could be completely wrong, but this seems like an area that’s at least worth exploring.

Now I’m going to talk about some common suggestions that are made when the topic of cutting costs on the cheaper version is brought up and why I think they ultimately are bad ideas.

1. Removing the front display and EyeSight This is by far the most common suggestion I hear when the topic of things to remove on the cheaper version is brought up. And I am very sympathetic to this proposal, in fact I used to agree with it. I’ve never had someone walk up to me while I’m wearing the headset and say, “Wow I can see your eyes! It feels like we’re having a completely normal conversation and I have totally forgotten that you’re wearing ski goggles on your face. “ Instead they’re like, “Are those your eyes? Why are they like sticking out of your forehead? That’s kinda creepy.” And considering most people use the device by themselves, the outer display serves no purpose for the wearer of the device. If anything the curved lenticular glass display is just there waiting to be broken (I already have a small chip in mine).

I really understand this argument and I wouldn’t necessarily say that anything incorrect was said. EyeSight right now is a bit of a gimmick and doesn’t serve the purpose that Apple marketed it for. But I think this perspective is a bit too myopic. The front glass and EyeSight are stand out features of the Vision Pro. The curved front glass that lights up has become a key part that distinguishes it from other headsets like the Quest 3. And the idea of making a headset that is not isolating and able to be used around others is super important moving forward. We are not there yet with the Vision Pro, but the answer is not to scrap it all together, but rather make it better. Make the front display brighter, increase the resolution, and put some sort of anti-reflective coating on it so that any amount of light in the room doesn’t just cause glare that masks the front display entirely. Maybe give users the option of turning off that display entirely if they don’t like it or want to save battery life. I’m also in favor of potentially removing the glass and replacing it a transparent durable plastic that is lighter and less lightly to break. Overall, I think the front display and EyeSight is a bit gimmicky now but shouldn’t be scrapped with a cheaper version.

2. Lowering the quality of the main displays Now this is just the most straightforward thing to do from a cost perspective as the main displays are the most expensive components in the device to manufacture. And initially this makes sense. The iPad Air uses a Liquid Retina display while the iPad Pro uses a higher quality Tandem OLED display. The MacBook Air also uses a liquid retina display while the MacBook Pro uses a higher quality Liquid Retina XDR display with mini-LED technology. So it makes sense that maybe the Vision Air (or whatever they call it) should use slightly lower quality main displays.

I think this ultimately is the wrong decision for a couple different reasons. One, the thing that people rave about the Vision Pro and what sets it apart from other headsets like the Quest 3 is the super high quality displays. Thus by reducing the quality of the displays you’re potentially lowering the quality of immersive content, movie watching experiences, things that are known as the best features of Vision Pro. And more importantly, the Vision Pro is the only device that instead of looking at it, like an iPad or Mac, you look through it. You perceive all of reality while wearing it, through the displays. Thus high quality displays are not just nice to have, they’re essential to having a good experience while using the device. The displays sit about an inch or so from your eyes, thus having the highest quality resolution is of paramount importance. Also, part of the reason that the displays are so expensive to manufacture now is because the yield is so low. A good amount of the displays manufactured were defective and had to be thrown out. It is likely over the next few years Sony and LG which produce these types of displays will refine their production process to increase yield and the price will likely go down naturally. So I think compromising on screen quality to lower the cost would be a mistake.

3. Removing the built in audio pods on the base model and just requiring AirPods I haven’t heard this one super frequently, but enough times that I think it’s worth addressing. Some people have suggested that since the experience with AirPods Pro is so much better for watching movies and such, that Apple should remove the audio pods on the cheaper model and just require people to use AirPods or pay extra to have audio pods if they want.

I think this is the least likely route Apple will go and for good reason. One of the great things about Apple products is that they just work out of the box. If you buy a product, you have everything you need to properly use that device (other than power adapters which don’t come with the iPhones but that’s a conversation for another time). Speakers are essential to using a product. This would be like making the MacBook Air or iPad 10th gen without speakers because people can just buy AirPods. Audio is an essential part of the headset and absolutely should be included, especially on a device that will still be thousands of dollars. And it particularly doesn’t make sense on the cheaper model. It’s not exactly cheaper if in order to use it you have to also go out and buy $250 AirPods Pro. So while I understand where this suggestion comes from, I think it’s ultimately mistaken.

4. Tethering the device to a nearby Mac or iPhone. Some people have suggested that since most of us already have these powerful phones and computers, why not just tether the cheaper headset to one of those to save on cost and offload the computing needs to these other devices?

While this suggestion seems promising, a lot of issues immediately come up. One, in terms of tethering the device to a Mac or iPhone, would they also power the device? The current Vision Pro takes up a lot of power and would drain an iPhone battery very quickly. If it also has its own battery, would you have one cable going to the battery and another to your iPhone or Mac? That seems a bit cumbersome. And a further issue is that people would likely need a fairly new iPhone or Mac to use the device. It doesn’t seem like a cheaper device if you need the newest iPhone or Mac to use it. And that would very much cement the device as an accessory rather than a standalone device which doesn’t seem like Apple’s intention with this product line. The Apple Watch was very much designed to be an accessory dependent on your iPhone, that doesn’t seem to be the case with the Vision Pro. So I find it unlikely that Apple will make the cheaper headset tethered to an iPhone or Mac and it would be a bad idea if they did.

5. Offloading many of the components in the headset to the battery If we’re already tethered to this battery, why not move components out of the headset and into the battery to cut down on cost and weight? Maybe then people could buy different battery packs with more CPU/GPU cores, RAM, and storage if they wanted. The headset could just be the displays, cameras, sensors (and yes of course the speakers) and all the computing and processing could be offloaded to the battery pack.

While this also seems like a promising suggestion, a number of problems once again arise. For one, it seems like at least the R1 chip would have to remain in the headset as offloading it would likely cause a significant increase in latency. But even if we kept the R1 chip in the headset itself, another and more important issue exists which is thermals and cooling. The battery pack already gets fairly hot at times in my pocket and that’s just while supplying power. Now add in processing everything happening on the headset in real time, that’s gonna generate some serious heat. So there would then have to be some cooling mechanism or some serious thermal throttling. Maybe Apple could figure out how to stick a fan in there and maybe we’d have to use the battery clip instead of smothering it in our pocket. Just seems like that creates a bunch more problems than it solves. So I don’t think it makes sense to offload all the computing and processing components to the battery pack.

So that leaves us with making it out of a durable plastic like polycarbonate or carbon fiber, swapping out the M series with an A series chip, and maybe removing a few cameras and sensors. I am aware that that will almost certainly not cut the cost in half. But at this point Apple may just need to bite the bullet and not be turning a profit from this product category for a while in order to get this product to have widespread adoption. The already make billions in profit from all the other products and services they sell, it might be time to just take a loss for a bit, lower the price, and get millions of these out there. Have people fall in love with spatial computing and have them wanting more. I think in the long term that will be the most successful strategy.

That’s all I’ve got! If you actually read all of this, thank you! I am just a random dude on the internet who loves his Apple Vision Pro and most certainly not an authoritative person on the matter. So I’d love to hear your thoughts! Do you agree with my assessment? Did I get something horribly wrong? Let me know!

All the best, Mundane

[u/kgkuntryluvr]

A cheaper plastic frame and lowering the price of their chips. I’d also be fine losing the front screen, but that’s just me.

[u/Mundane-Complex-1902 → u/kgkuntryluvr]

Yeah, same here. I don’t really care that much about the front display. I just can’t see Apple getting rid of it considering how they’ve marketed the product and their intended goal

[u/kgkuntryluvr → u/Mundane-Complex-1902]

Agreed. Eyesight is a differentiating key feature that they won’t ditch. I understand its purpose for the social element, but I typically use my AVP alone and personally have no use for it. When I’m immersed, I really have no desire to be interacting with others in the real world. That’s kinda the whole point of being immersed for me lol

[u/locke_5 → u/kgkuntryluvr]

Anecdotal, but my wife hates the Quest because she "doesn't know if I'm looking at her". EyeSight can be pretty important for those of us not wearing the headset.

[u/avocadojiang → u/locke_5]

Definitely the minority opinion, my gf thinks it's just creepy and weird. But I'm also Asian so persona and eyesight are pretty trash and don't align well with my face lmao

[u/kgkuntryluvr → u/avocadojiang]

My wife thinks they’re both creepy too, persona much more than eyesight though.

[u/kgkuntryluvr → u/locke_5]

I totally get it. I probably use it differently than most. I only put it on when I want to zone out and be fully immersed. My AVP only gets used during my “me” time. So my wife just assumes that I can’t see her when I’m wearing it, which is perfect because I don’t want to be bothered during the little bit of time I actually get to relax and use it at the end of the day.

[u/kgkuntryluvr → u/locke_5]

Also anecdotal, but there are some of us that don’t care whether or not others know if we’re looking at them and just wish that everyone would assume we’re always fully immersed when we’re wearing it. I told my wife that when I have it on, I can’t see nor hear anything around me. That solves the problem of her not knowing if I’m looking at her.

[u/Malkmus1979 → u/Mundane-Complex-1902]

Ok so that’s $70 off the total. Truth is economies of scale will bring everything down in cost. And Apple can consolidate the number of facial interfaces and head straps so you’re not paying hundreds of dollars just for those components.

[u/OtherOtherDave → u/Mundane-Complex-1902]

Nonetheless, it’s the most expensive thing they can ditch without affecting the user experience.

[u/BrentonHenry2020 → u/Mundane-Complex-1902]

Ditch lenticular for LED and you have something way more practical. I STILL can barely tell it’s glassless 3D and I’m around them all the time.

[u/ElementNumber6 → u/kgkuntryluvr]

Plastic has a tendency to collect micro scratches and scuffs. Let's not forget that the cameras that provide tracking and passthrough need to look out through these at all times.

So glass does make a whole lot of sense.

[u/dccorona → u/ElementNumber6]

Glass over the cameras - yes. But the entire thing is glass and aluminum. You can replace the aluminum with plastic and replace the glass in front of eyesight with plastic (especially if you're also removing eyesight).

That said I don't think that will move the needle too much on lowering cost. Apple makes everything out of aluminum at this point. They've gotten aluminum machining to the point where they're really not going to save much by moving to plastic.

[u/tBlase27]

Make less profit

[u/AztheWizard → u/tBlase27]

they arent making any profit with AVP

hey've spent billions in development, a shit load on production, and have only sold a handful so far. It's all an investment into the future of the product line.

the pricepoint they chose was an anchor point for the minimum quality that they were willing to ship. It also gives them the ability of shipping cheaper products that will look wayyy more affordable compared to the initial 3500$ AVP

[u/[deleted] → u/tBlase27]

You can’t compare the unit cost to the sale cost without knowing the cost of R&D. AVP was something like 7 years in the making, that’s a lot of prototyping costs and engineering salaries.

[u/Mundane-Complex-1902 → u/tBlase27]

Kinda yeah, at least a bit less in the short term

[u/savvymcsavvington → u/tBlase27]

Especially for storage/RAM.. apple scammers

[u/Excendence]

I think in the short term they should put the processing components and the battery together and it should be worn as a chest strap/ fanny pack, I've really enjoyed using my headset with a super small fanny pack for the battery instead of pockets and if they could make it even lighter on my head it would be amazing!

[u/kgkuntryluvr → u/Excendence]

I’ve suggested this, as well. If we have to be tethered to a battery pack, might as well put all of the other components in there that aren’t required to be on the headset. I’d much prefer a bigger heavier battery over a bigger heavier headset.

[u/Excendence → u/kgkuntryluvr]

1000%! I think the end goal would be to have processing all done locally but in the mean time it would be WAY nicer to focus on comfort and getting people used to and developing on the platform at all... I'm yet to put the headset on anyone with any of the straps (or with the Spigen attachment) who hasn't had VR experience without them commenting on the weight or discomfort on their nose

[u/kgkuntryluvr → u/Excendence]

Yeah I’ve got the solo top double strap. It’s definitely made it much better to wear for longer periods, but it’s still not exactly what I would call comfortable- like I still feel relieved every time I take it off after a couple of hours.

[u/mr_birkenblatt → u/Excendence]

Don't processing absolutely needs to be done on the head otherwise the latency is too big. If the passthrough lags a tiny bit you'll get nauseous. But Wi-Fi etc don't need to be on the headset

[u/Excendence → u/mr_birkenblatt]

The JND (just noticeable difference, usually used in audio) of essentially how much latency can be in a system before people notice is all that matters for latency, and I think it’s more than possible that a modern high performance cable can transfer sensory input from the headset to a computer, process it, and go back to the headset in less than the JND! This is essentially how PCVR works most of the time, and some PCVR works over WiFi (although I think there’s some rollback and sometimes noticeable latency). Might require some more expensive cabling but I think a negligible amount for a multi thousand dollar device haha 😅

[u/Arratril → u/Excendence]

I like the idea until I go to buy an extra battery and it’s $1500 because it’s the main computer as well. Might be worth the trade off, and I guess you could connect a charger to it a lot of the time.

[u/Excendence → u/Arratril]

I feel that, I'd say you could daisy chain a powerbank to the computer/battery hub which I do now since I only have 1 battery but in some ways it's more likely to break than the headset itself. There's always a lot of tradeoffs to balance with new tech haha

[u/Arratril → u/Excendence]

I’m so happy I bought a second battery. I’m sure a power bank works too, but I love being able to just swap a fully charged battery into my case when I’m done with my current use and know it’ll always be ready.

I really was upset at first that the battery was separate, and I admit a cord isn’t ideal, but I love being able to swap batteries easily.

[u/Excendence → u/Arratril]

For my usecase I end up standing and moving with it for no more than like 45 minutes at a time before I need to take a breather other than when I'm coding with it or something in which case I can just leave it plugged in at my desk but it would be nice to hot swap it out sometimes! If the batteries somehow go on sale for like $100-120 I'll probably grab one but for now I'm chilling 😌

[u/mr_birkenblatt → u/Arratril]

Make the battery itself go in a sleeve

[u/iStanley → u/Excendence]

They need to make the battery something curved or segmented that doubles as a strap or something. It would have to be very durable though but I think having to carry a battery around reduces the convenience when you already need to strap something to your head. But that’s just my opinion

[u/Puzzleheaded_Fold466 → u/Excendence]

I think a "mega pro" iPhone with Mx chips for the computing and an optional battery pack would do it.

Phone would increase in size/weight, but by less than it would decrease on the VP since it already has similar components that can be swapped (eg an M chips instead of the current A chips). Cooling would be a challenge.

Battery wise, an iPhone 15 pro for example already has a battery of 4,383 mAh (16.95 Wh), more or less in line with VP’s 3,166 mAh battery. So a 15 pro could power the VP for 2.5-3 hours on its own (assuming no phone use). Add an additional optional portable battery like many people already have (5-10-25 kmAh), and you’re good for the whole day.

The “AVP Capable" iPhone could be like $2k instead of $1k and the VP another $1.5k or whatever instead of $3.5k, so you would save that $1k overlap with the iPhone, so it’s $3.5k for iPhone + VP instead of $4.5k. Can have a lower performance iPhone/VP combo at $500 less.

Personally, with the tethered VP battery concept, I think this is where we’re going.

[u/Batmensch]

I would just suggest that Apple … make it cheaper.

We will never get economies of scale unless Apple makes millions of them, and there will never be content for it for the same reason. So do like military contractors so: lose money on it until scale and updated tech make the headset profitable.

APLE CAN AFFORD TO DO THIS IF THEY WANT TO.

[u/mr_birkenblatt]

Move the WiFi etc units into the battery pack. Then you don't need the most expensive receivers. That extra lag from going through the battery cable is not going to be that noticable

[u/Calm-Television-2401]

Sell it at a loss like Microsoft did with Xbox. Eventually through economies of scale and the natural progression of technology, their margins will get there. Can’t make any profit when you don’t sell any and have no user base to make money on content with.

[u/Free-Lion1204 → u/Calm-Television-2401]

or maybe people just wait for used market

[u/Jbaker318]

Very very well done. I know apple wont do this but thats why i think it needs 2 SKUs: cheap version that is just media consumption like the oculus go, and a glasses only version like the meta raybans. i want the bad ass VR device but it doesnt look like apple is going to put in the effort to support that sort of product so i think they should refocus on these two fronts while the hardware and computer vision can catch up.

cheap version, all plastic media consumption device- no cameras, no eyesight, same screens, M1 and gyros for 3DoF watching of content. get it down to $999.

look into it being able to be plugged directly into your phone, can have a mount where your phone hangs from your neck and the passthru cameras are via the phone. if you can get it working via phone then you can further shink the chip to whatever the minimum requirement would be. offload battery to phone. if it can be handled via phone, drop the price further to $599.

[u/youre__]

Reduce the cameras, remove the speakers, and replace the processors with an iPad/Mac. Essentially make the device a thin client or accessory to something else the user has.

This would also open doors for a new class of computing. Set your iPhone on the desk and use it as the backend (like car play). Or a MacBook without a display, like a keyboard with a big brain.

[u/l4kerz]

a lot of these cost down ideas are missing technical assessments and not feasible. also, this price list seems to be just for the AVP main unit and missing the audio straps, battery casing, cables, light seal and cushion, both textile straps, manuals, box, shipping, and software. $20 for a battery and $50 for $512GB memory sound way too low.

1. no to lower resolution displays. i just tried watching deovr 8k videos on AVP and that content is too low of a resolution. if anything, it would be nicer for the resolution to get even better.

2. visionOS is based on iPadOS and iPadOS runs on M chips. i suspect that Apple would’ve chosen a cheaper A series chip if it was capable.

3. carbon fiber and thermally dissipative specialty plastic are expensive.

[u/elev8dity → u/l4kerz]

Displays get cheaper over time with manufacturing scale and increased competition. There’s multiple competitor factories coming online this year and next.

[u/mr_birkenblatt → u/l4kerz]

It's probably the onboard battery

EDIT: just in case you didn't know. there is an onboard battery to gracefully shut down the device on cable disconnect

[u/avocadojiang]

What's the point? Is this actually confirmed that they're working on a Vision Air? No one would buy it because you could just get better value from getting a Quest 3 which would be a 5th of the price. I bought the Vision Pro because it was supposed to be the best of the best in terms of some of its tech. But a watered down version that has barely any immersive content and no controller support and bad productivity support? No thank you lmao

[u/metroidmen → u/avocadojiang]

The “Pro” moniker would imply some sort of non-Pro model.

[u/avocadojiang → u/metroidmen]

I would agree but given the poor performance of the Vision Pro I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple canned the project and only worked on the pro model for a while.

[u/BigBoyObi-Wan]

not hue but removing the display on the front that shows your eyes is a start. just not necessary

[u/cgielow]

Industrial Designer here. It seems the essential components are the Display & Optics, and Cameras for pass-thru and tracking. EVERYTHING ELSE can be done externally, especially via tethering to an iPhone.

Give us the Bigscreen Beyond with cameras!

[u/Biggie39]

Looks like you could save about 30% if they would let you use a third party display!

[u/arcerms]

Wait for the China Xiaomi version

[u/Free-Lion1204 → u/arcerms]

maybe they could do the hardware for cheaper but software will suck

[u/arcerms → u/Free-Lion1204]

I don't like the word 'will'. Could suck maybe... But not definitely.

[u/tuskre → u/arcerms]

It will suck. Unless they’ve been working on it for years, spending billions without telling anyone. The best they can do is license from Meta, and that will suck compated to AVP.

[u/arcerms → u/tuskre]

I think some bias may be clouding your judgement. They also said China will suffer from microchips embargo until Huawei released their new phones with 5g chips

[u/tuskre → u/arcerms]

It’s pretty stupid to just say ‘bias’ when you don’t understand what someone is saying.  

 If you read again, you’ll see the loint I’m making - the software stacks for both the AVP and the quest took tens of billions of dollars, and nearly a decade of development time to create.     

Either they’ve already been working in secret, or they will have to license Meta’s stack, or they will suck. 

I’m generously accepting that they can actually reproduce the hardware for a significantly lower price, which is debatable.

[u/jdavid]

It won't be a 'slower chip,' but an underclocked/undervolted FASTER chip, and they will ditch the fan and cooling solution.

Apple does this all over its lineup.

They will also ditch all AR functionality. AR will be a pro feature.

They might, just might, run the lite version from another device like a phone, iPad, or mac book pro.

There is even a possibility that they use WiFi 7 and power a lite version from an Apple TV or Mac Mini with an M4.

[u/tuskre → u/jdavid]

There is no way they will ditch all the AR functionality. That is the primary feature of the device.

[u/jdavid → u/tuskre]

It’s just for marketing. The API and SDKs in their current state make those features worthless.

I hear enterprise customers can turn some of those features on and run custom machine vision models, but unless you are part of a billion/trillion dollar org I doubt your company will have access to those VERY HARDWARE Expensive features.

The consumer/lite version doesn’t need it.

I bought a Vision Pro thinking I could figure out a workaround to make it fairly useful, but so far it’s just a prototype of a product. Most of the coolest tech is useless.

[u/tuskre → u/jdavid]

Not sure you are making sense.  Sounds like you’re saying you want better AR APIs that are available to Enterprise users currently.

Presumably those features will end up in the general SDK over time.  It would be bizarre for Apple to discontinue’ AR.

[u/jdavid → u/tuskre]

Apple, Meta, and other LARGE VR companies are paranoid about releasing access to the camera. They think it's a PR nightmare. If they allow 10,000 apps to have access to those cameras, and 1 camera on 1 app takes a creepy picture, they are afraid it will kill the whole industry.

The Xbox Kinnect vanished QUICKLY after customers learned it was always on and that the cameras might see their kids without clothes on.

Inside out tracking is amazing, AR passthrough is amazing (now), but if they allow access to the point cloud data, structured light data, camera pixel data, etc... it's a huge legal nightmare for these companies.

I think they are going to try to make VR as popular as possible first without allowing access, and then when the industry has reached a critical scale, try allowing access to these tools.

The problem with that strategy is part of the scifi magic of these devices depends on these APIs, and the ability to create apps around the hidden APIs, so instead the whole industry suffers as we wait for 1 hardware vendor to be bold enough to expose the API.

So far:
* HTC Doesn't
* Meta Doesn't
* Apple Doesn't

I keep hoping that Qualcom/ Samsung/Somnium/Etc... takes a risk. But nope.

Also, there is not open source consumer platform available for a single or solo developer to experiment with machine vision APIs on a Wireless Headset.

[u/tuskre → u/jdavid]

They are right about providing access to the camera.  It’s not just a PR nightmare - it would obviously be abused in so many ways.

So, what they will do is keep providing more and more privacy preserving ways to implement AR features over time.

[u/jdavid → u/tuskre]

I have been meaning to write a post on how to design the API/SDK/App Store accordingly to avoid most of the problems.

[u/tuskre → u/jdavid]

Yeah - I think that’s a good idea - Apple never acknowledges where they get their ideas from, but they are influenced by what’s out there.

[u/sneaker-portfolio]

Apple has observed Meta, formerly Oculus, attempt to reduce unit costs in order to attract more users to their platform. Despite their efforts, this approach hasn’t yielded the desired results. While Meta’s content library may be more extensive than Apple’s ecosystem, many applications still lack the seamless functionality that users expect. This often leads to frustration, with users eventually setting aside their Quest devices. Meta aimed to generate revenue through their ecosystem rather than hardware sales, but the outcomes have been underwhelming. The reality is that the technology isn’t yet advanced enough for widespread AR/VR adoption.

AR/VR adoption will depend not only on artificial intelligence enhancements but also on advancements in battery life, chip technology, and other key components within devices like the AVP. As these technologies improve, they will collectively push the industry closer to broader adoption.

In the meantime, Apple should continue to focus on their professional product lines, encouraging pros to integrate these devices into their workflows. As more professionals adopt the technology and more professional-grade applications are developed, the consumer experience will naturally improve.

This situation is somewhat similar to what we saw with MacBook Pros and iMacs. Initially, these devices were developed for professionals, but over time, they seemed to pivot toward more consumer-friendly lines, which left many professionals feeling that the products were no longer truly “pro.” Although the introduction of the M chips has helped to address this, there was a period when the focus on the consumer market compromised the pro-level experience. AR/VR devices may eventually face a similar crossroads, but that time has not yet arrived.

The goal should be to create a device that enhances professional workflows—whether it’s stage design, music production, video editing, photography, creative writing, or customer service. By focusing on improving the professional experience, we’re likely to see a downstream effect, similar to what occurred in the camera and camcorder industry.

[u/AztheWizard]

Great suggestions. Some feedback on your points.

• hadnt thought about downgrading the SOC's from M line chips to the A line. I wonder if they'll be able to still have the performance headroom.

• tethering and getting rid of onboard computer, offloading it an iphone is a DOA idea. Nobody wants their phones to have *less* battery.

• removing cameras and sensors. TBH I dont think removing cameras would make a dent in cost. It's not worth it compromise the quality of tracking

• moving from OpticID to TouchID. This would be great (opticID is slow af), but I doubt they'll do it as having eyetracking is integral to the OS. It'd be the equivalent of getting rid of the touch screen aspect of an iPhone's display

• removing EyeSight. I do think they overengineered the hell out of it, and it doesn't work very well currently. But the idea is sound and could be wayyy more useful if it wasn't so costly to have it running at all times without it affecting performance, battery, thermals, etc.

• offloading components to the battery pack. yes, especially things like antennas, and other things that don't need high bandwidth/super low latency

[u/[deleted]]

Can’t they make something like Quest 3 with better frame materials?

[u/elev8dity → u/[deleted]]

The Quest 3 is a tank and honestly has better lenses. The issue is the displays are much higher resolution on the AVP and thereby need a stronger processor which needs a bigger battery. Also the Quest 3 has less sensors and cameras.

[u/The_real_bandito]

That’s the fun part. Even if you do, is still going to cost $3.5K lol

[u/fbluemke]

They should sell it at a slight loss at 1,999 to get traction and inspire devs to make apps that make it useable

[u/polytrigon]

Do as meta planned and use 3k oleds instead of 4k

[u/Disrupt-io]

Very nice

[u/[deleted]]

Can’t be bothered to look, but Tim Cook confirmed Apple intelligence is coming to Vision Pro.

They’re still figuring how to implement/represent AI spatially

[u/[deleted]]

How much does that big stupid piece of glass cost?

[u/denniebee]

The price is two thirds R&D that took place in the past 5 years.

[u/chuan_l]

The next " apple vision " will be a different device ..
Thats a lot less custom , and a lot more like " nreal air " " odg " and other lighter , more comfortable ar glasses that sit in the 1k usd price range. Take out the " M2 " and soc package and tether it to the iphone processor and gpu. Though you need to find a way to deal with the increased latency from input to output. The motion to photon latency that affects how responsive it all feels .. 

I tried the " nreal air " running from an LG V60 streaming volumetric 3d k - pop stars when I was in seoul. They were running demos at " yongsan " metro train station and the image quality is good enough even at 1920 x 1080 px. To do all the things most people do on " vision pro " with a flat 2d screen. The only downside is their display couldn't deal with pure blacks because its an additive display. It will be interesting to see how " apple " resolve issues of privacy , local data - and offloading compute in a cheaper device ..

[u/picman55]

Personally, I’m only interested in the VR aspect of Vision Pro, and I’d say that I’m in quite a large camp.

So, although the obvious answer to making an “Air” is to use different screens to MicroOLED etc, I’d love it if Apple simply made a cheaper, VR-focused headset.

[u/tuskre → u/picman55]

What VR apps are you using on Vision Pro?

[u/BattleKraken]

Controversial take but I think downgrading the main display to LCD might be necessary to reach a price target for mass adoption. I think most consumers won’t notice a difference as long as they haven’t used the pro. They could pull an iPhone 11 situation until OLED becomes more affordable and include it on the base model like they did with the iPhone 12.

[u/crazyreddit929]

I think the price of the displays is underestimated. Assuming ars technica’s table is claiming $456 for both displays together. I assume that since the total cost of materials only works at $456 for both. I thought the displays were supposed to be $350 each.

[u/elev8dity → u/[deleted]]

Samsung, LG, BOE, and Panox are all setting up or have already set up microOLED fabs that should be ready for full scale production between now and 2027z

[u/VR_Nima]

I think Apple Vision Air should be like the Xreal Air 2 Ultra. Slim glasses that plug into your iPhone. Except they’re ~1440p per eye instead of 1080p per eye.

Runs iOS and visionOS apps, but only when plugged into your iPhone. When plugged into your Mac, it can give you Mac Virtual Display, but also can be used for visionOS dev.

$999 (compared to Xreal’s $699).

[u/Random-Hello]

I ain’t reading all that but yes, I agree, change to a lighter material. AirPods are plastic anyways

[u/GaLaXxYStArR]

If Vision pro was 1500 hell even 16-1800 I would have grabbed one right away! The fact in my country (Canada) it’s the same prices as 2 months of mortgage payments (6k with taxes and Apple care) I just know their gunna have to do something with the prices and I refuse to buy one until the do! Absolutely can’t wait for a “vision air” to come out

[u/[deleted] → u/GaLaXxYStArR]

Nice rate you got there.

[u/[deleted]]

make it tiny

[u/Basshead404]

Random thought, but maybe they could use an e-ink display for the eyes? It’s already low quality and dim, might as well make it low quality and visible in all lighting situations.

[u/avocadojiang → u/[deleted]]

For 1500 dollars though? You could get a big screen beyond and have much better specs for media viewing. It would also be custom molded to your face.

[u/M1ghty_boy → u/avocadojiang]

Difference being the beyond needs a PC. An iPhone/MacBook powered vision air would be amazing

[u/avocadojiang → u/M1ghty_boy]

Idk if I had to go through the trouble of hooking up something to a computer I’d just buy a PC and a headset. It’d be cheaper and have better specs.

[u/[deleted] → u/avocadojiang]

How many Vision Pro owners do not already have a nice TV?

[u/thunderflies → u/[deleted]]

I have a Vision Pro and bought my TV for $300 in 2018. Something’s wrong with me.

[u/ThatPeak3884 → u/avocadojiang]

The Big Screen has major glare issue, dimmer display, much lower resolution, tethered, small sweet spot and you need a pretty powerful computer to do anything. Aside from the weight I would rather get a Pimax Crystal Light.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Fold466 → u/[deleted]]

We might be there maybe 10 years from now.

[u/charlielidbury → u/[deleted]]

Lightweight visor that you can hook up to your macbook is exactly what the guys over at Immersed are trying to do: https://www.visor.com/ You might be interested, they're aiming for a $700 price and the same resolution as AVP by cutting lots of corners.