Vision Pro prescription lenses to start at $300, guesses Gurman

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited June 2023
With no apparent supply chain information, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman says that Apple Vision Pro's Zeiss prescription lenses will cost between $300 and $600.




Apple has already revealed that it is in partnership with Zeiss to produce vision-correction lenses for the Vision Pro, specifically for users who wear glasses. Pointing to the very long development of the new device, that partnership was originally reported back in 2017.

However, neither Apple nor Zeiss have yet announced pricing. It's unlikely that a company that sells $400 wheels for the Mac Pro, will make a low-cost Vision Pro accessory.

I would guess that the Zeiss prescription lenses for the Vision Pro will be at least $300-600 a pair, unless Apple is eating part of the cost given the already high price of the headset itself.

-- Mark Gurman (@markgurman)
Seemingly based solely on that reasoning, and perhaps on how Zeiss lenses used to cost up to $200, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman is predicting a price range of at least $300-$600.

Zeiss already produces prescription lenses for use with other VR headsets, and they cost around $70.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,537member
    I wonder if they’ll offer standard non-prescription reading glasses style magnifier lenses? Nothing fancy, just $1.5X - $3.5X magnifiers with high quality lenses. A large number of 40-ish and older folks have presbyopia and later in life,or due to other vision complications, far field corrected  monovision as a result of cataract surgery. Cataract surgery is one of the most, if not the single most, common outpatient surgeries performed in the US. 
    MacProwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 22
    dvdmlndvdmln Posts: 2member
    vroptician.com is not Zeiss, but a German private company that specialized in dispensing lenses for various VR goggles. Every optician with an agreement to sell Zeiss ophthalmic lenses can buy them from Zeiss and cut them into the desired shape, that doesn't make Zeiss "the producer". According to the Vision Pro announcement, this is different here since it's an official, direct and exclusive co-op between Apple and Zeiss.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 22
    fxgpvfxgpv Posts: 8member
    I wear contact lenses. Will they work with Vision or must I purchase prescription lenses?
    Anyone know something about this?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 22
    fxgpv said:
    I wear contact lenses. Will they work with Vision or must I purchase prescription lenses?
    Anyone know something about this?
    Your contact lenses are sufficient.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 22
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,269member
    I wonder if I'll be able to get VSP to pay for part of them? /s
    davwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 22
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,464member
    Pretty sure there will be third parties who can make compatible lens for Apple Vision Pro. I cannot imagine how complicated it would be to create a magnetic len for it. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 22
    XedXed Posts: 2,704member
    It's too bad Apple wasn't able to have you input your prescription or go through a series of beautifully modernized visual tests that effectively cover what an optometrist would test so that Apple Vision could adjust the display output to match your prescription without the need for corrective lenses.
    edited June 2023 MacProwilliamlondonroundaboutnowdarkvaderwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 22
    beowulfschmidtbeowulfschmidt Posts: 2,246member
    Given that there are multiple companies right now making prescription inserts for all major headsets for less than $100 (much less if all you want is the prescription, and none of the other stuff some of them offer), and that there didn't to be anything special about the Apple headset that would preclude a non-Apple product (many of the existing ones already use magnetic couplers), $300-600 seems...excessive.

    So that leads me to one of three major suppositions:
    • Gurnman is an idiot who didn't do any kind of market research before making this claim, and Apple will price them competitively.
    • Apple is too stupid to have already read the market.
    • Apple is doing the "Apple Thing" and supposing that people will pay extra just for the Apple name.
    I'll provisionally go with the first.
    Kierkegaardenwilliamlondondarkvaderwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 22
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,097member
    netrox said:
    Pretty sure there will be third parties who can make compatible lens for Apple Vision Pro. I cannot imagine how complicated it would be to create a magnetic len for it. 
    Unlikely. Almost for sure that is one of those 5000 patents Apple filed.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 22
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,097member
    My rather moderate progressive Rx for spectacle lenses (without new frames) was in this "$300-$600" range IIRC. I rather doubt insurance companies will cover these, and it may not qualify as a HSA/FSA expense either.

    As the article says, Apple is a company that charges $400 for wheels; but they are also known for being sensitive to people with disabilities. 

    I am curious about how people who need corrective lenses will try them in an Apple store. Shirley they have thought about this - Tim wears spectacles on stage.
    edited June 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 22
    XedXed Posts: 2,704member
    eightzero said:
    My rather moderate progressive Rx for spectacle lenses (without new frames) was in this "$300-$600" range IIRC. I rather doubt insurance companies will cover these, and it may not qualify as a HSA/FSA expense either.

    As the article says, Apple is a company that charges $400 for wheels; but they are also known for being sensitive to people with disabilities. 

    I am curious about how people who need corrective lenses will try them in an Apple store. Shirley they have thought about this - Tim wears spectacles on stage.
    I wonder if HSA may be covered right away for the lenses, and perhaps for the whole unit down the road. I imagine someone who has ALS that will be able to experience life a little more fully because of this headset.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 22
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,784member
    Xed said:
    It's too bad Apple wasn't able to have you input your prescription or go through a series of beautifully modernized visual tests that effectively cover what an optometrist would test so that Apple Vision could adjust the display output to match your prescription without the need for corrective lenses.
    Or just enter your prescription information. Now that would be magic.
    edited June 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 22
    XedXed Posts: 2,704member
    MacPro said:
    Xed said:
    It's too bad Apple wasn't able to have you input your prescription or go through a series of beautifully modernized visual tests that effectively cover what an optometrist would test so that Apple Vision could adjust the display output to match your prescription without the need for corrective lenses.
    Or just enter your prescription information. Now that would be magic.
    If they can do it, that would be an option, but remember that your vision does change over time so being able to do a vision calibration test on the device would be a great way to set it up.
    darkvaderwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 22
    zimmiezimmie Posts: 651member
    dewme said:
    I wonder if they’ll offer standard non-prescription reading glasses style magnifier lenses? Nothing fancy, just $1.5X - $3.5X magnifiers with high quality lenses. A large number of 40-ish and older folks have presbyopia and later in life,or due to other vision complications, far field corrected  monovision as a result of cataract surgery. Cataract surgery is one of the most, if not the single most, common outpatient surgeries performed in the US. 
    Magnifiers would make the problem worse. These are among the sharpest head-mounted displays ever announced, but they're still 20/40 sharpness at best.

    Instead of trying to magnify an already-grainy screen, use Dynamic Type to adjust the size of text.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 22
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,097member
    Xed said:
    MacPro said:
    Xed said:
    It's too bad Apple wasn't able to have you input your prescription or go through a series of beautifully modernized visual tests that effectively cover what an optometrist would test so that Apple Vision could adjust the display output to match your prescription without the need for corrective lenses.
    Or just enter your prescription information. Now that would be magic.
    If they can do it, that would be an option, but remember that your vision does change over time so being able to do a vision calibration test on the device would be a great way to set it up.
    I'm not really sure a display can run a optometric exam. I did opine this would be a great use of the device, but (and perhaps a OD can confirm) I think perhaps the physics prohibit this. If the image itself is blurred, I don't think any lens can correct it.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 22
    Given that there are multiple companies right now making prescription inserts for all major headsets for less than $100 (much less if all you want is the prescription, and none of the other stuff some of them offer), and that there didn't to be anything special about the Apple headset that would preclude a non-Apple product (many of the existing ones already use magnetic couplers), $300-600 seems...excessive.

    So that leads me to one of three major suppositions:
    • Gurnman is an idiot who didn't do any kind of market research before making this claim, and Apple will price them competitively.
    • Apple is too stupid to have already read the market.
    • Apple is doing the "Apple Thing" and supposing that people will pay extra just for the Apple name.
    I'll provisionally go with the first.
    First supposition.  A person can pick up a good quality prescription lenses for $300 on the low end, but these are individually cut to a unique frame.  These lenses will all be the same shape, so they should be able to be efficiently produced.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 22
    XedXed Posts: 2,704member
    eightzero said:
    Xed said:
    MacPro said:
    Xed said:
    It's too bad Apple wasn't able to have you input your prescription or go through a series of beautifully modernized visual tests that effectively cover what an optometrist would test so that Apple Vision could adjust the display output to match your prescription without the need for corrective lenses.
    Or just enter your prescription information. Now that would be magic.
    If they can do it, that would be an option, but remember that your vision does change over time so being able to do a vision calibration test on the device would be a great way to set it up.
    I'm not really sure a display can run a optometric exam. I did opine this would be a great use of the device, but (and perhaps a OD can confirm) I think perhaps the physics prohibit this. If the image itself is blurred, I don't think any lens can correct it.
    Couldn't the system just presents Image 1 then Image 2, then Image A and Image B, and so on, asking you to choose which one looks better until you end up with the best looking display for your visual acuity.

    https://www.computerworld.com/article/2490626/vision-correcting-display-nixes-your-need-for-eyeglasses.html
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 22
    Xed said:
    eightzero said:
    Xed said:
    MacPro said:
    Xed said:
    It's too bad Apple wasn't able to have you input your prescription or go through a series of beautifully modernized visual tests that effectively cover what an optometrist would test so that Apple Vision could adjust the display output to match your prescription without the need for corrective lenses.
    Or just enter your prescription information. Now that would be magic.
    If they can do it, that would be an option, but remember that your vision does change over time so being able to do a vision calibration test on the device would be a great way to set it up.
    I'm not really sure a display can run a optometric exam. I did opine this would be a great use of the device, but (and perhaps a OD can confirm) I think perhaps the physics prohibit this. If the image itself is blurred, I don't think any lens can correct it.
    Couldn't the system just presents Image 1 then Image 2, then Image A and Image B, and so on, asking you to choose which one looks better until you end up with the best looking display for your visual acuity.

    https://www.computerworld.com/article/2490626/vision-correcting-display-nixes-your-need-for-eyeglasses.html
    Some form of adaptive optics could be the solution. If they can be variable, using the Digital Crown as the focus adjust knob during set up might be a way to "calibrate" (as well as allow for re-adjustment down the road as vision changes). 
    https://www.deepoptics.com/technology

    darkvaderwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 22
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,537member
    zimmie said:
    dewme said:
    I wonder if they’ll offer standard non-prescription reading glasses style magnifier lenses? Nothing fancy, just $1.5X - $3.5X magnifiers with high quality lenses. A large number of 40-ish and older folks have presbyopia and later in life,or due to other vision complications, far field corrected  monovision as a result of cataract surgery. Cataract surgery is one of the most, if not the single most, common outpatient surgeries performed in the US. 
    Magnifiers would make the problem worse. These are among the sharpest head-mounted displays ever announced, but they're still 20/40 sharpness at best.

    Instead of trying to magnify an already-grainy screen, use Dynamic Type to adjust the size of text.
    Interesting, but I'm still a bit confused.

    I have normal distance vision, but because I've had cataract surgery I have zero near vision accommodation, i.e., no near vision focus at all without corrective eyeglasses. People with presbyopia, which is a large portion of the population of people over age 40, have limited near vision accommodation. This means that reading glasses, bifocals, or multifocal lenses are required to use a computer, read books, or to do detailed, up-close work like soldering. The magnification required is determined by the distance between the eyes and whatever your near vision is trying to focus on. Beyond a certain point however, when far-vision takes over, I don't need any eyeglasses at all. I can watch TV, use my 55" 4K TV as a monitor, drive, engage in sports, pass the legal vision requirements for an unrestricted drivers license, etc., again, without corrective lenses.  

    I guess what I'm asking is: do the images presented by the Apple Vision Pro use near vision where you are essentially looking at the surface of a virtual screen that is at a fixed distance from your eyes? If that's the case simple reading glass lenses would suffice.

    Correction: I don't have monovision. I have single, distance-only vision. The "mono" term always confuses me because monovision is the combination of both near and distance vision by having a near vision lens in one eye and a distance vision lens in the other eye, hoping the brain will sort things out, which it typically does, but often with degradation of depth perception.

    There's been a lot of speculation that the Apple Vision Pro (AVP) may not be for everyone do to price concerns. This is a reasonable and fully understood all of the way up the chain in Apple. But I think there may also be a segment of prospective buyers who really want the device but have subtle or substantial vision and/or sensory anomalies that prohibit them from using the device. I have subtle vision anomalies in both eyes, more so in the one that required retinal surgery. I also get nauseous playing FPS games, even the ancient ones like Castle Wolfenstein. No issues with motion sickness or seasickness. I know that Apple has specifically addressed what they believe to be the root cause of nausea with the AVP, but their interpretation may not apply universally. This means that buying an AVP is going to involve not only individual fitting for head shape but also a period of adjustment to see how individuals personally adapt to a vastly new way of interacting with a computer. 
    edited June 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 22
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,990member
    I, like Dewme and many others, have had cataract surgery (mine being mono vision). Distance was pretty good before surgery and now is near perfect. Can read without glasses but with them is better (especially tiny text close up). As Dewme notes, with AVP you are looking at a screen that is so close to your eye that no one could focus on it. I presume their three-part lens between your eye and the screen allows you to resolve the image—like using a magnifying glass. You’d think with those lenses that some kind of adjustment would be possible to sharpen the image like other optical instruments like binoculars or microscopes. Am hoping that is the case, and that my corrected vision is within the nominal range for use without added lenses. If not, it would seem that the only folks who can use AVP out of the box would be those with 20/20 vision. 
    edited June 2023 dewmewatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.