Low-cost Apple Vision Pro could drop external display
A cheaper version of the Apple Vision Pro will cut costs with removal of the external display and a downgrade of chip predicted by a new report.
Apple Vision Pro
The Apple Vision Pro is a groundbreaking mixed-reality headset, but also one that is far too expensive for most consumers at $3,500. While it is thought that Apple is coming up with a cheaper variant aimed at the consumer market, Apple is still working on ways to reduce the overall cost to make the device.
Writing in the "Power On" newsletter for Bloomberg, Mark Gurman writes that the more budget-friendly consumer device could cost between $1,500 to $2,500, following internal discussion. To get to that price, Apple has to trim the hardware significantly.
These changes were previously thought to include the use of an iPhone processor instead of a Mac-grade chip, as well as lower-resolution displays for the eyes. Now, Apple may want to get rid of the externally-visible display altogether.
The EyeSight feature displayed a representation of the user's eyes to the outside world, allowing others to see where the user is "looking" and maintaining a level of sociability to the headset's usage. By removing the display, this key feature would be eliminated entirely.
As well as removing the display, the hardware cull could also remove a few of the externally-facing cameras and sensors.
The cheaper headset is not the only item Apple is working on. A second-generation Apple Vision Pro is also in development, but with a few changes, such as making it lighter and smaller for comfort.
Apple may also simplify the design by incorporating prescription lenses directly into it, rather than using lens inserts from Zeiss, like the first generation hardware.
There is no change to Apple's messaging about its release being "early next year." In reality, this means Apple has given itself until April to get the Apple Vision Pro out the door and into consumer hands.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
And no, they won't integrate Rx lenses. Makes them completely unsellable. A hallmark of Apple products is that they retain their resale value for a very long time.
"Early next year" means any time before June 30, 2024; just like "Fall 2024" means any time before ~12/21/24.
The EyeSight feature provides no benefit to the user/wearer of the device. It's nothing but a shiny bell, requiring a custom, curved oled screen and multiple sensors, that is unnecessary for an entry-level device. Removing it would make the headset not only cheaper, but thinner, lighter and less power-hungry. When they showed off EyeSight in the launch video, I literally rolled my eyes at how much more expensive the device would cost for such uselessness, and mused that I'd happily pay for a cheaper version that didn't include it.
Apple's primary goal is profit. You make profits by selling in high volume (to the detriment of your competition) at excellent margins. You can't do that when a product is too expensive because you've baked in bells and whistles that few users would actually care about, thus diminishing demand for the product. Apple is likely discovering through their own consumer research studies that, while EyeSight is a killer feature, it is not enough of a draw for people to justify spending an additional $3K over just buying a Valve or Meta headset.
There are other opportunities for Apple to save here too, by farming out some of the built-in features of Vision Pro Gen1 to other parts of the Apple ecosystem. For example, consider the sensors that are constantly trained on your hands to detect finger taps. You may recall that the latest Apple Watch now detects the same gesture. So they could remove those sensors from an entry level Vision device, and allow the user to instead wear an Apple Watch to enable the feature. At the same time, this would address some of the reliability issues of that feature on Vision Pro when the hands might be obscured from the cameras.
Apple did roll out versions of the Apple Watch on launch day, but different materials (including rose gold at $14k!) and sizes. But the watch itself has no "pro" version 10 years later.
Sure, but there is already a Vision Pro. Whenever Apple has released a "Pro" product, there has always been an accompanying non-Pro version with lower specs - going all the way back to the 2006 MacBooks. Vision Pro will be the first "Pro" branded product Apple will launch seemingly without an entry level alternative. But surely everyone understands that this current branding for Vision is indicative of plans for a less powerful entry level.
And you are correct that there is no "Pro" watch, but they do offer the "Ultra" which serves pretty much the same purpose and is in its second generation already. So, I am not sure of your point.
Yes, Ultra appeared ~10 years after Apple Watch debuted. [Edit: yes, I was unclear on that point]
These speculations by Gurman, I don't think there is any concrete feature set yet, really seem like his imagination. Or perhaps they are some of the many ideas on the table that Apple will eventually just so no to. The success, or failure, of the Vision Pro will determine what features Apple will have with a cheaper Vision product. So, I wouldn't trust any of these "rumors" until next Fall after the Vision Pro has been out for a while.
The article here is relaying reliable rumors that a non-Pro Vision product is planned. Again, that is a no-brainer to anyone paying attention. Because it makes perfect sense that there would be, given that the excessive price point of the Vision Pro is, by a country mile, the biggest hurdle to Apple dominating the Headset market. They must launch a price-conscious model to be successful as a mass market device. I'm sure Apple understands the urgency of this and it will be sooner than "some years down the line." Perhaps 3y at most (for reference, the AirPods - Apple's first in-house foray into bluetooth headphones - introduced the Pro line after about 3 years). In the case of Vision, remember, they are not working on upgrading a regular device to a Pro device with entirely new features and technology. Rather, they are looking at going from a Pro device to an entry-level device by jettisoning non-critical advanced features. Going that direction is far easier to do from an R&D perspective.
So what are we arguing about, exactly?
Apple can use 2K OLED for better image quality than Meta, they can remove the eyesight feature and reduce the number of cameras or quality (2K also). They can hit a sub-$2k price point by doing this. It would still be considered premium in the VR space.
Most people watch movies in 1080p or less so using 2K would be ok for watching movies. Apple wouldn't have the distortion shown on cheap headsets.
If they don't make a more affordable headset, they won't have a large enough platform for developers. Fortunately it will run iPhone/iPad apps and watching movies is a standalone feature but investment in 3D experiences needs a suitable volume of users on the platform. A $3500 price point would give them around 1 million units. At $500, Meta can sell 10-20 million units. At $2k, Apple can sell 3-5 million units.
Every Apple product line has an affordable entry point - Mac starts at $599, iPad starts at $329, iPhone starts at $429, Watch starts at $249. An entry price of $3499 for an entire platform would never gain enough marketshare. Not because it's not worth it, most people just don't have that kind of money for this kind of product.
Remember that Meta is dumping product into the market and buying out the software developers. For every MQ3 they sell for $500, they will lose about $3000. Maybe next year, we will know if they have turned the corner and have driven down their costs, but Meta Reality Labs will lose about 15b to 20b USD in 2023.
So, the cost of the hardware is still very far away from actually making money on <$1500 goggle computers.
This basically calls for a M2 with 16 GB RAM minimum. The current PPD with the microOLED displays is probably at the minimum for text, and the ppd really probably should be increased another 50%. And I think EyeSight is critical feature of the product. It reduces the need to remove the headset and facilitates communication with others. That's hugely important and probably why they decided to do it.
Can't see how they get it under $2000 too. It's basically two Macbook Air laptops with more stuff, or two iPhone Pro Maxes with more stuff. So, they will have to wait for microOLED tech to mature and maybe a pair of them at 2800x2400, 13m total pixels, could be mass produced for a 3rd of the cost. And even with this, some aspects of spatial computing will be lost as text legibility will be reduced.
We won't know until the device is disassembled, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Eyesight hardware is no more than 5% of the BOM. The microOLEDs, the pancake optical lens, the compound front glass and aluminum structure, the cameras and sensors, and the fabrics all sound more expensive to me. Really don't know how they get down to something like $1800 without taking a loss.
Yes. The obvious goal is the AR glasses with refractory lenses from a microLED in the corner etc. What's possible now, is the simulation of what that will look like when we get there, years down the road. This is that step to demonstrating that. Cutting back on the reality aspect of the passthrough video goes in direct offense of that goal, so it's not going to happen. It can't.
Similar, but less critical, is EyeSight which is a defining feature of this product to imply that you will always be aware of the user's gaze etc. You cannot drop that on a lower end product just to sell cheaper models. It's essential by being implemented in the first model.