▲ 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 catculation@lemmy.zip 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
[+] PatFussy@lemm.ee -12 points 2 years ago (6 children) This isn't a VR headset though... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] HobbitFoot -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) The big deal is that this is a mobile VR headset. I don't know of another VR headset you can walk around in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago The Quest range. I'm sure that the passthrough isn't as good quality as Apple's (some glitching at the edges of objects), but it's easily enough to walk around in, especially the Quest 3. permalink fedilink source parent [+] PatFussy@lemm.ee -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 replies: [–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 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 [–] bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world 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
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 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 replies: [+] HobbitFoot -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) The big deal is that this is a mobile VR headset. I don't know of another VR headset you can walk around in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago The Quest range. I'm sure that the passthrough isn't as good quality as Apple's (some glitching at the edges of objects), but it's easily enough to walk around in, especially the Quest 3. permalink fedilink source parent [+] PatFussy@lemm.ee -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 replies: [–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 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 [–] bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world 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
[+] HobbitFoot -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) The big deal is that this is a mobile VR headset. I don't know of another VR headset you can walk around in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago The Quest range. I'm sure that the passthrough isn't as good quality as Apple's (some glitching at the edges of objects), but it's easily enough to walk around in, especially the Quest 3. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago The Quest range. I'm sure that the passthrough isn't as good quality as Apple's (some glitching at the edges of objects), but it's easily enough to walk around in, especially the Quest 3. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] PatFussy@lemm.ee -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 replies: [–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 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 [–] bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world 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
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 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
[–] bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world 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