Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Technology

Apple Suspends Work on Next High-End Headset (theinformation.com) 79

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The Information: Apple has told at least one supplier that it has suspended work on its next high-end Vision headset, an employee at a manufacturer that makes key components for the Vision Pro said. The pullback comes as analysts and supply chain partners have flagged slowing sales of the $3,500 device. The company is still working on releasing a more affordable Vision product with fewer features before the end of 2025, the person involved in its supply chain and a person involved in the manufacturing of the headsets said.

Apple originally planned to divide its Vision line into two models, similar to the standard and Pro versions of the iPhone, according to people involved in its supply chain and former Apple employees who worked on the devices. Apple's decision to halt work on the next version of its high-end headset is the latest example of the company reshuffling priorities. Apple has ramped up work on AI-powered features while paring back money-losing projects like its self-driving car, which it canceled earlier this year after spending nearly a decade on development. Augmented reality is one of Apple's biggest bets. The company aims to eventually replace the iPhone with lightweight glasses, and the Vision Pro is the first step in building consumer and developer interest in that effort.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Suspends Work on Next High-End Headset More

Apple Suspends Work on Next High-End Headset

Comments Filter:

  • People don't want... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jddj ( 1085169 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @10:45AM (#64558027) Journal

    ...to wear shit on their face. Even nice, expensive shit.

    If Google Glass didn't teach them that lesson, what will?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Targon ( 17348 )

      There's a big difference between shit and stuff. A headset that isn't too heavy, but will also go for assisted reality instead of VR as the focus, then bring it down under $1000, you have a product that will do ok. The problem is, like AI for a lot of people, is that people ask the question, "what will this do for me?". If there is a great application that by itself will make an augmented reality headset useful, then it will sell. If it's all about the potential, then Wall Street will love it, but t

      • 1. That WAS Google Glass. They even had Ray-Ban on board.

        2. LASIK: people who can afford to wear expensive shit on their face are ABLATING THEIR CORNEAS so they don't have to wear shit on their face.

        3. It's an animal thing: just like in an MRI your body doesn't like to have its hands and arms constrained, neither does your brain want not to be able to see what's in front of you (for headsets like Quest, which obscure that)

        4. Headsets are the Kinetoscope of the VR/AR world. Wanna look down a tube to watch a

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Targon ( 17348 )

          Wasn't Google Glass closer to $2500, or did that come down before Google killed it?

          • The aspiration was certainly for it to come down. Outside of corporate, Google simply doesn't play in those waters.

          • Wasn't Google Glass closer to $2500, or did that come down before Google killed it?

            My employer bought one for $1200 just before it was canceled.

            The idea was for it to be much cheaper with mass production, but there was never a killer app and a lot of blowback, so mass production never happened.

            But the Apple Vision Pro is a totally different product (I've used both). It has way more resolution and way more apps and isn't something a normal person would wear in public.

            I'd buy an Apple Vision Pro if the price was below $1500 and they trimmed some weight.

        • Nonsense, everybody knows that every apple fan wants everybody else to know that they're apple's biggest fan. That's why ArchieBunker has "think different" tattooed on his left cheek and nomoreacs got an 8" apple logo tattooed just above his ass crack.

          That, and they've always wanted to look like Tracer from overwatch. They can't wait for the "cheaper" version to come out that is less functional than an Oculus but goes for the low, low price of $3,000. See, they get to save $500! Who wouldn't want to save $5

          • Nonsense, everybody knows that every apple fan wants everybody else to know that they're apple's biggest fan. That's why ArchieBunker has "think different" tattooed on his left cheek and nomoreacs got an 8" apple logo tattooed just above his ass crack.

            That, and they've always wanted to look like Tracer from overwatch. They can't wait for the "cheaper" version to come out that is less functional than an Oculus but goes for the low, low price of $3,000. See, they get to save $500! Who wouldn't want to save $500?

            Watch the Libel, Buddy!

            IMHO, Apple's Target for the "Air" Model will be $1500 to Start, and $2000 for the Spec-Bump Variant.

            The VP is a Dev. Platform, and to build interest (like from BlackMagic and Canon) and also to shake out the OS and Hardware; while they figure out how to Cost-Reduce the Design...

            I haven't heard one person that has actually tried one say it sucks. Not bad for a first try. . .

            • I haven't heard one person that has actually tried one say it sucks. Not bad for a first try. . .

              There's more people than just you and archiebunker.

              • I haven't heard one person that has actually tried one say it sucks. Not bad for a first try. . .

                There's more people than just you and archiebunker.

                Yep. And none of them has a single thing negative to say about the Vision Pro's Performance. The Only complaints be are weight (which is almost identical to every other self-contained VR Goggle, and actually lighter than some), and price; and Apple is working on both.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pr0nbot ( 313417 )

      I'd wear expensive AR sunglasses or contacts if I had control of the software and they weren't streaming data to evil corporations.

      So ultimately I don't think I ever will, but not necessarily because of the hardware, which I think will definitely get there in my lifetime.

      The main practical use I can think of for a lightweight VR headset (like the xreal glasses) is multiple virtual monitors for a digital nomad lifestyle.

    • The problem with Google Glass wasn't Google Glass. Aside from the total reliance on the paired phone, it was actually pretty neat and quite comfortable to wear kit. The problem was the hipper-than-thou lets-hate-on-the-nerd-herd assholes who would harass, intimidate, and sometimes outright assault, people wearing them. If Google had built the tech into something more like a normal eyeglass frame... which they would have had to do eventually anyway to accommodate people who need prescription lenses... it m

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        The Vision Pro, OTOH really is several steps past Google Glass. You can get a demo at the Apple Store, and I highly recommend it. But as cool as it is, version 1.0 is *really* not ready for prime time. It's too heavy and has too little battery life for anything resembling a full workday. And $3500 is way too much for a neat toy that would get only occasional use. The sweet spot will likely be the third release; similar to how the iPhone 3GS and Apple Watch Series 3 were when those products really hit their stride.

        I think you're being optimistic. I own one, and things have improved recently, there's basically nothing you can do with it unless you subscribe to Apple Arcade. There's a free virtual pool game that I have yet to figure out how to play. There's a to-scale dinosaur you can look at. There's I think one free game that's just the iOS version of Jetpack Joyride, but 99% of iOS games and apps, sadly, are *not* enabled (unlike the expectation, where most iOS apps would be able to run on the thing).

        It's a dece

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Gah. Lost a word. What I meant to say was:

          I think you're being optimistic. I own one, and unless things have improved recently, there's basically nothing you can do with it unless you subscribe to Apple Arcade.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I think I'd prefer Google Glass for its reduced functionality. I don't really want AR, I just want some useful information displayed occasionally. Like directions when I'm travelling, some instructions while I'm working on something, or real-time translation.

        I wouldn't want stuff that can block large parts of my vision, or where it's not always 100% clear what is real and what is only AR.

        Limited functionality is also going to be lighter and have better battery life.

      • The problem was the hipper-than-thou lets-hate-on-the-nerd-herd assholes who would harass, intimidate, and sometimes outright assault, people wearing them.

        My recollection of the news stories from the time is that it was less "hate on the nerd" and more "hate on the person who's pointing a camera and microphone at me". Walk around in public pointing an old school camcorder at people and you'll have similar contentious interactions.

    • ...to wear shit on their face. Even nice, expensive shit.

      Shhhhh!
      Apple (and other tech companies) needs to persuade their shareholders (or VC investors, respectively) that they can find way to push ads to users' eyeball more often even when they are not taking their phone out of their pocket...

    • ...to wear shit on their face. Even nice, expensive shit.

      If Google Glass didn't teach them that lesson, what will?

      Actually quite the opposite. People are happy to wear shit on their face, just *not* expensive shit or useless shit. Meta taught everyone that. And if you're using a VR headset the way people used Google Glass then you're not a glasshole, you're outright deranged.

  • I can't figure out what Apple was thinking with this device. It's way too expensive for all but the absolute biggest fanboys, or for those who just have money to burn.

    You have to have mass-market penetration for a device like this to work. That means it needs to be at least comparable in price to iPhone.

    • I can't figure out what Apple was thinking with this device. It's way too expensive for all but the absolute biggest fanboys, or for those who just have money to burn.

      You have to have mass-market penetration for a device like this to work. That means it needs to be at least comparable in price to iPhone.

      This is a Dev. Platform; both for Apple, and for Third Parties. It sure got BlackMagic and Canon Interested!

      Apple will continue to Develop VisionOS, Select Devs. will start Rolling out Apps, and Conten-Creators will start Creating Immersive Video Content.

      Meanwhile, Apple will be frantically trying to Cost-Reduce (and Weight-Reduce!) the Design for the :"Vision Air".

  • The company aims to eventually replace the iPhone with lightweight glasses, and the Vision Pro is the first step in building consumer and developer interest in that effort.

    So apple will end up where Google Glass was years ago in the next 10 years?

  • Expensive gadgets (Score:5, Funny)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @10:54AM (#64558057) Homepage Journal

    $3500 can buy a pretty nice guitar. And it might actually be worth more than zero in 10 years.

    If you want to look nice and impress people. Then $3500 gets you a tailored suit that will last you for years if not decades.

    If you want to have an exciting visual experience. $3500 gets you a new dirt bike or a used motorcycle. It may or may not be worth anything to your widow in 10 years.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Guspaz ( 556486 )

      The problem is that the Quest is the dominant headset in the market, and the current iteration of that costs $499. The Apple Vision is better than the Quest 3 in most respects, but it costs seven times the price and you're not going to have a seven times better experience. A lot of it is unnecessary too. The whole outer-screen thing adds nothing to the experience of the person using it, but drove up the BoM a ton.

      • The problem is that the Quest is the dominant headset in the market, and the current iteration of that costs $499. The Apple Vision is better than the Quest 3 in most respects, but it costs seven times the price and you're not going to have a seven times better experience.

        I'd argue the real problem is what you spelled out, layered on top of the fact that the total market for such products is fairly miniscule.

        A huge market - such as the smartphone market - can support such disparity in product pricing.

    • $3500 can buy a pretty nice guitar. And it might actually be worth more than zero in 10 years.

      That might even get you laid, which is the opposite effect of wearing that headset in public

    • Anyone spending $3500 on tech is not at all interested in you talking to them about depreciation. Anyone buying an early adopter technology is not at all interested in you talking to them about depreciation.

      Wait, how did you post this? Do you not know how little your phone / computer / tablet will be worth in 10 years? WHY ARE YOU WASTING MONEY!

      • Do you not know how little your phone / computer / tablet will be worth in 10 years?

        Yes. And I factor that in my purchase decision.

        When I mentioned a guitar, I wanted full disclosure that it's not quite the same total cost, as in not an apples to apples comparison, because a guitar can be sold, effectively making it cheaper.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      $3500 can buy a pretty nice guitar. And it might actually be worth more than zero in 10 years.

      If you want to look nice and impress people. Then $3500 gets you a tailored suit that will last you for years if not decades.

      If you want to have an exciting visual experience. $3500 gets you a new dirt bike or a used motorcycle. It may or may not be worth anything to your widow in 10 years.

      The difference is, when you buy a $3,500 guitar, there is usually a reason it's worth $3,500, otherwise a $350 guitar will do (you can get good guitars for $500 mind you).

      When you buy a "high end headset" from Apple, what you're really doing is paying $3,500 for $1,000 hardware with a $2,500 logo on it.

      So the correct comparison is you can spend $3,500 on a designer bag, but it's not going to be better than the bag you spent $350 on (I.E. Louis Vutton vs Osprey).

      Apple's first foray into VR was so mu

  • $3500 for a niche product in an economy where folks are having issues affording rent and groceries.

  • It's a gamble. (Score:3)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @11:04AM (#64558089)

    Apple will figure out how to curtail the losses while not abandoning the idea. Not every idea comes to success as initially proposed - this is appropriate. Contrast that with the Metaverse.

    • Not every idea comes to success as initially proposed - this is appropriate.

      Yup, this is just Apple's latest "Newton" moment.
      It took Palm to show Apple how to properly do pocket computers.
      (And more precisely Handspring to start the idea of smartphones).

      • Not every idea comes to success as initially proposed - this is appropriate.

        Yup, this is just Apple's latest "Newton" moment.
        It took Palm to show Apple how to properly do pocket computers.
        (And more precisely Handspring to start the idea of smartphones).

        No Newton; No ARM.

        Think about THAT Time-Fork!

        • No Newton; No ARM.

          Think about THAT Time-Fork!

          More realistically:
          No Newton; Somebody else would have invested.

          ARM was insanely power-efficient, had very good performance, and was very simple to integrate and very versatile.
          Some company is bound to notice, get interested and invest.

          We're just in that leg of the trousers of time when Apple happens to be the one investing early into ARM.

          Though given the cost to develop new CPUs, most likely company to invest is going to be selling relatively premium devices (so probably no portable console yet in the earl

          • No Newton; No ARM.

            Think about THAT Time-Fork!

            More realistically:
            No Newton; Somebody else would have invested.

            ARM was insanely power-efficient, had very good performance, and was very simple to integrate and very versatile.
            Some company is bound to notice, get interested and invest.

            We're just in that leg of the trousers of time when Apple happens to be the one investing early into ARM.

            Though given the cost to develop new CPUs, most likely company to invest is going to be selling relatively premium devices (so probably no portable console yet in the early 90s, as it would be still hard to keep them within the cheaper price range targeted by Game Box, Game Gear, etc.), would probably - but not necessarily - be a portable device (battery life is where the insane power efficiency of ARM shines) and almost definitely not a platform where PC and MS-DOS compatibility is expected (so definitely not a laptop).
            So most likely yet another different high-end PDA or pocket computer.
            Or perhaps as the embed controller in some expensive peripheral (and where a more classical peripheral would be overtaxing the power budget of the device and the usually Z80-/8085- family derivatives would be under performing).

            Sounds like Apple was the perfect Investor. They make several battery-powered Embedded Products, including a Watch, a Luggage Tracker, and some Earbuds, where Power Efficiency is Critical, plus some Line-Powered Embedded Products. This Expertise allowed Apple to jump into the barely-chartered waters of daring to take that same Power-Efficient RISC Microcontroller and turn it into a full-fledged Desktop/Laptop CPU (and associated pieces-parts) that even caused the Once-Mighty Intel to shake in their shoes an

    • Apple will figure out how to curtail the losses while not abandoning the idea. Not every idea comes to success as initially proposed - this is appropriate. Contrast that with the Metaverse.

      It's easy to contrast this with the Metaverse, but not in the way you think. Meta's problem is unfocused spending, not being all in on VR. They are very much positioning themselves as a content platform in a space they can't get into (the mobile market is saturated as Amazon and Microsoft have found out). Their strategy of creating hardware to push a new content platform in a space without competitors is actually quite good providing they stick with that.

      The correct contrast with the Vision Pro is the conte

    • Apple will figure out how to curtail the losses while not abandoning the idea. Not every idea comes to success as initially proposed - this is appropriate. Contrast that with the Metaverse.

      This.

      This is the Start of Something; not the End. Apple has been messing around in AR and LIDAR and Sticking CGI Things to Tables for quite some time now, and now the Output System has to catch up. . .

  • Years ago, I worked on a well funded VR project for a major corporation. We made a tiny bit of progress, but discovered more problems than we solved
    I predict that it will eventually be perfected, but the hype has vastly overpromised for years and people become so addicted to the fantasy that they ignore the reality
    It's hard, really hard, even if you think it's hard, you will be surprised at how much harder it is

  • Not enough funcitonality for the price (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @11:05AM (#64558099)

    It either needed to be cheaper or offer way more in terms of functionality. For $3500 it needs to be able to plug directly into a PC to be used for gaming and other applications that can't run directly on the headset.

    It has screen mirroring, but that's pretty limited and can't be used for applications that need low latency such as gaming.

    It seems the main selling point was to be able to use it for productivity. Set up a bunch of windows and work with them in virtual space. But for $3500 you could just get a bunch of monitors and some arms and have a much better experience.

    You couldn't even take the headset off without all your windows disappearing and having to go through the entire process of setting everything up again, which could be annoying if you have a lot of applications open. Sure it has pass through so you can just continue to wear it, but sometimes you just need a break and want to take it off your head. Having everything reset when you take it off is just unbearable.

  • Why didn't they put the CPU and fan and all that junk with the battery? It already has a tether. 100% guaranteed they tried to put the battery in the headset too but realized it was heavy and that forced them to add the tether last minute. Now they will keep things that way to double down on it after having to justify doing so.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by garote ( 682822 )

      Latency. There is still, as yet, no processor on Earth that can receive input, do meaningful work, and then round-trip encode, transmit, decode, and display two eyes' worth of digital information fast enough to keep up with your own sense of balance and movement. Not even over three feet of tethered wire from your head to your waist.

      Every existing product with that design is still slow enough to make 2/3 of the human population motion-sick.

      • You really think 3 feet of distance matters? Electricity travels that in a copper wire in .3 of a nanosecond. That’s nano not micro, not milli.

        • And light moves thousands of miles per second, yet for some reason movies only manage 24 frames! Preposterous!

          • huh? What does that have to do with anything ... your claim was that distance matters to latency .. how does 3 feet make a difference it adds less than a nanosecond to the latency? the headset operates at 80 frames per second .. that's about 12 milliseconds or 12,000,000 nanoseconds per frame .. tell me how adding 1 nanosecond to that makes a difference.

    • Why didn't they put the CPU and fan and all that junk with the battery? It already has a tether. 100% guaranteed they tried to put the battery in the headset too but realized it was heavy and that forced them to add the tether last minute. Now they will keep things that way to double down on it after having to justify doing so.

      You think they didn't try that?

      How thick do you want the cable to run multiple Thunderbolt-Type Bonded Channels to get the Required Bandwidth?!?

      Think!

  • Guess what! I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more AI

  • Evolution, not revolution (Score:3)

    by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @11:23AM (#64558163)

    Look around right now and count the gizmos and widgets and things you see that were a radical break with the past when they were introduced as consumer products. You might count a few.

    Now count up the things that had been around in some form since forever and were the culminating for gradual improvements when they were introduced as consumer products. You will count a lot more.

    The home computer and the cell phone are the big ones for revolutionary products. But the car in your driveway, your bike and roller skates, your fridge, oven, microwace, dishwasher, and even your TV have been around in some form for close to a century or more.

    Your chairs and tables and mattress have been around almost unchanged (functionally) for thousands of years.

    It's really really hard to invent something new. It's hard to improve on something time-tested, but not as hard.

    The computer revolution made novelty look easy with its spectacular success and magnitude of penetration. But it's still fucking hard to wrest novelty from the mind of God.

    • Well said - too bad I'm fresh out of mod points.

    • Actually, if you'd visited the Carousel of Progress at Disney World, you might've known that modern 3D headsets are actually just an evolution of the Stereoscope [wikipedia.org], a device which is also over a century old.

      They've always pretty much been a novelty, because it's simply more convenient to consume entertainment without something strapped to your face.
       

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      That's a good point, but I think the idea about wearable computers is the same as the idea behind cars. Cars shrink the world for you by extending your mobility. Wearable computers shrink the world for you by extending your cognition.

      Fundamentals are solid. The problem is that execution right now is on the level of steam powered cars. Can be made to work, but really not worth the effort.

      • Fundamentals are solid. The problem is that execution right now is on the level of steam powered cars. Can be made to work, but really not worth the effort.

        Exactly this. Vision Pro is the Apple Newton. It was too early in the technology lifecycle. Give it another 15 years and try again.

      • Not to put too fine a point on it, but pencil and paper extend your cognition, as do printed books, organized libraries, and the computer on your desk, in the cloud, or in your pocket.

        What do floating symbols in the space in front of you do for you that the screen in your head can't?

        Outside a few niche applications (most people aren't flying around trying to shoot down enemy aircraft), it does nothing of value.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          Invention of pencil and paper was one of the biggest breakthroughs in human history, as it made full literacy relevant for everyone. We overhauled our entire society on the back of those inventions.

          Same for printed books. They overhauled much of political system to accommodate them.

          Same for computers. They're recent enough that I probably don't need to explain the details.

          Same for smartphones that are fundamentally computers that are always with you and always connected to other computers. Basically a fusio

      • Do they offer that killer leap over what we already get with the phone we carry around with us already?

        I've already seen visions of a future with the tech in movies and TV shows where ads are blasted at people. Yet the people without the digital sight can't see them.

        Many people are also leery about a camera recording them or where they are going 24/7.

        Until the scifi personal wrist mounted holographic projectors happen, smaller glasses like the XReal could provide the bridge that's need for phone information

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          No, just like steam powered cars didn't offer a killer leap over horses.

          But gasoline powered cars did half a century later.

          >Many people are also leery about a camera recording them or where they are going 24/7.

          Many people were leery of cars. Many people were leery of internet. Many people including myself are leery of social media. Generations change, and with them things that people are leery of.

  • You shouldn't have spent all that fortitude on eliminating the audio jack Timmy - maybe you'd have some left over now to help you with continuing to flog this latest dead horse that you're tying to drag and shove past the finish line.

  • They released way too soon. Sure it seemed to an outsider like the VR market was maturing a bit since Meta was lighting cash on fire in it, but VR quality is still junk level. GPUs need a 10x in performance before VR gets to a quality that doesn't feel cheap. Resolution needs to be at least 8K per eye with a 300 hz refresh rate. You can't even do that plugged into a full PC right now with even a minecraft looking game world. Besides the first use that makes you go 'wow' it gets old in about a day at curre

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      Resolution needs to be at least 8K per eye with a 300 hz refresh rate.

      8K is nowhere near enough if you actually want to hit eye resolution levels. You'd need almost 20 times that many pixels. Think 32K. But on the other hand, you only need probably 720p resolution at the fringes, so you'd only be doing extremely high resolution computation for a small part of the image. But the screen would still need that level of resolution.

      Also, 300 Hz is nowhere near enough if you truly want to be indistinguishable from reality. The human eye can perceive flicker at 500 Hz under some [nature.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Entrope ( 68843 )

        "Normal" vision acuity for human is about 60 pixels per degree, so 8K is enough to cover 7680/60=128 horizontal degrees of vision and 72 vertical degrees. Each eye can see just about 180 degrees horizontally and up to 135 degrees vertically, so we only need about 2.5x as many pixels (as 8K) for full field of view at "normal" acuity. 32K would only be needed to match unusually sharp vision, which is about twice the "normal" level.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          "Normal" vision acuity for human is about 60 pixels per degree, so 8K is enough to cover 7680/60=128 horizontal degrees of vision and 72 vertical degrees. Each eye can see just about 180 degrees horizontally and up to 135 degrees vertically, so we only need about 2.5x as many pixels (as 8K) for full field of view at "normal" acuity. 32K would only be needed to match unusually sharp vision, which is about twice the "normal" level.

          Yes, technically speaking, only about 1 to 2 percent of people can see 120 pixels per degree, and the theoretical acuity limit is somewhere between 120 and 150 pixels per degree. However, the average adult has about 20/15 [phrogz.net] version, which is the equivalent of about 80 pixels per degree, rather than 60, so at 60 ppd, most people will be able to perceive the reduction in resolution.

          Also, there's more than just resolving power involved. If you've ever studied superresolution in video, you know that you can oft

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by garote ( 682822 )

            Right. So, "at least 8K per eye with a 300 hz refresh rate", as the original poster said, is more than good enough, and you just went on a very long tangent.

            My ability to perceive positioning of sounds in space by analyzing the delay and spectral distortion of sounds in my left versus right ear is way beyond what 44.1khz at 16 bits can deliver. But double that, and add another 8 bits? Same deal: Good enough. And that data rate is within easy reach these days.

            Apple needs to make the damn thing smaller,

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              Right. So, "at least 8K per eye with a 300 hz refresh rate", as the original poster said, is more than good enough

              No, full stop. Like I said: "so at 60 ppd, most people will be able to perceive the reduction in resolution." Emphasis mine.

              In other words, 8K is absolutely not enough for it not to be obvious that you're looking at a screen for even a person of average visual acuity. You'll need almost half again more than that in the horizontal direction and more than double that resolution (as the original poster noted) in the vertical direction for it to stop being instantly obvious that everything got blurry, and th

  • I remember the first VR boomlet in the 1990s when computers were finally getting to the point where you could do basic 3D rendering. That fizzled after a couple of years when people realized that wearing a headset was annoying and impractical. In the 30 years since, the computing and display tech has improved by leaps and bounds, but the fundamental problem hasn't: wearing a headset is annoying and impractical (even if it doesn't fully block the outside world). Outside specialized use cases like simulators

    • Even if you could get to the point that an AR/VR device could be fully integrated in something like a pair of regular eyeglasses, it's still fundamentally a distraction that few would want to use on a daily basis.

      You had me until this sentence. Imagine a whole bunch of people sitting in a bar, the park, at the movies, on the bus, not interacting with each other but instead using a small handheld device and ignoring those around them. People LOVE being distracted... if... its the right distraction.

  • Vision Pro is the Apple Newton. Newton was a flop, iPhone and iPad were a success. Try Vision Pro again in 10-20 years when the tech catches up.

Slashdot Top Deals

A good supervisor can step on your toes without messing up your shine.

Close