158
Here's why the $3,500 Apple Vision Pro headset is so expensive (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The $3499 Apple Vision Pro reportedly costs $1542 to make.

Edit: Archive link https://archive.ph/u4BCi

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 83 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (22 children)

Yeah there's no way it doesn't cost an absolute fortune to make a Vision Pro. The display is nuts, and if reports are to be believed, extremely difficult to make and with a very low yield. Then there's a bunch of other high tech stuff in there.

It's pretty much a polished prototype for Apple to simultaneously explore possible design avenues in the VR space, gather data on and overcome unforeseen obstacles in new VR tech and its development process, and get the ball rolling on VR software development on the Apple side.

The one perplexing thing is that right now VR has two main usecases: gaming and wanking. Apple takes a dim view of both. I think that's something they'll have to re-evaluate as they work to bring out more consumer-focused, sub $1k VR devices.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 43 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    Yeah if you watch the iFixit tear down it’s obvious these things are just packed to the gills with tech. I’m not mega surprised they ended up costing so much. It’s really bleeding edge.

    That said it’s way too expensive for me to get on board and I think they made some poor choices. Especially the outer display. The amount of weight, battery drain, fragility, and (presumably) expense that display alone added is just plain dumb. And it looks a lot worse IRL than in their videos.

    I also think the aluminum looks great but I wonder how much lighter the headset would be if it were plastic without the outer display and glass.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wearing a display on your head just seems like an awful experience to me. I always wondered as a kid what my "old people just don't get tech" thing would be and I think this is definitely over that line. I just got no desire for this shit. It's frustrating to see people chase it cause I know I'm going to have to deal with it eventually if they do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    Totally disagree with you. VR even in its currently pretty early stages is an absolute blast. Some of the most fun I've had gaming any time recently has been on a Quest 2. And I grew up on 8 and 16 bit consoles so I've been through the gamut of gaming experiences.

    When the technology does another 5-10 years of advancing it's going to be absolutely huge.

    And to your point about old people not getting tech, my grandmother and mom both love VR and play games and do workouts on Quest together. They actually use them more than I do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago

    gather data on

    Yes. I make digital products for a living and our process is continuously informed by usage statistics from our customers. We also do focus group testing, and it has its place, but live data feedback gives us statistically meaningful readings of how people use our products and this tells us what to focus on to make them better.

    Apple has been in pure focus group testing for a decade+ on this product and they absolutely just need to get into the field and accelerate their development with usage statistics. It doesn’t have to sell in the tens of millions. Remember focus group participants number in the dozens or hundreds, and a secretive company like Apple can’t afford to have too many of them.

    The Vision Pro marks the end of prototyping and the beginning of actual product development. This is why I don’t care at all about the v1 product. It’s a starting point. Everything interesting happens from here on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    Gaming at least I feel like they’ve been trying to support more as a company for several years. It hasn’t necessarily translated to results, but it seems like they’re trying a lot more than they did a decade ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    For wanking; it still has Safari, and Pornhub still exists 👍🏽

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Good luck streaming a 30 to 60gb video.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It works great with my DLNA server and can play in stereoscopic 3D with the moon viewer app

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Spoken as someone who clearly has never used a VR headset for any sort of video content. To get even passable framerates at resolutions that don't look atrocious, you're looking at multiple GB for scant minutes of VR video content.

    Unless you just want to watch the same crap you already do, but on an effectively building sized flatscreen, bandwidth and even local data storage and transfer rates become an issue fast.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    This isn't a VR headset though...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    They can call it whatever they want, but as far as I'm concerned a VR headset with very good video passthrough is still a VR headset.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Would you call Google glass or hololense a VR machine? No you wouldn't. Apple fits right in there with them

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Glass were glasses with a small HUD.

    Vision Pro are goggles with a full opaque display and video passthrough. Like an Oculus/Meta device. Just higher quality passthrough.

    It's a VR headset, despite how much apple insists on it actually being a "spacial computer", and some people saying it's an AR device.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    Glass was just a heads-up display in the corner of vision, nothing like any sort of vr/ar/xr system. I don't know why you would consider that comparable to any of the headsets. Hololens and Magic Leap were augmented reality, but by not using camera passthrough they were limited filed-of view and could not do opacity. Quest 3 is much more similar to the Vision Pro in terms of what it can do (aside from the outer display). For instance, it's possible to place large browser windows around your room, and replace your monitor with a larger virtual version.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent