Apple is considering multiple paths for future Apple Vision Pro hardware

AppleInsider

Facing competition from Meta's improving Quest headset line, Apple is having to think hard about the future of its own Vision hardware.

Apple Vision Pro

The Apple Vision Pro is presented as a premium mixed-reality headset, but one entering an already occupied marketplace. With the prospect of Meta increasing its footing in the market, Apple has to take a long hard look at itself when it comes to head-mounted displays.

Following the introduction of the improved Quest 3S headset at a price one tenth of the Apple Vision Pro, Apple is now rethinking its current course.

In Sunday's newsletter from Bloomberg, the Apple Vision Products Group is now evaluating a few different course of action for the headset.

The first and most obvious route is to maintain course, keeping the Vision Pro as a premium model while introducing a less-expensive edition. Made with cheaper materials, the value-based headset would still let Apple come out with a second-gen Pro model.

This seems like the most likely proposition for Apple. Forecasts for the next model indicate few real changes aside from faster processing with Apple Intelligence, along with a lower-spec consumer-grade mode.

Apple could also move towards making the headset more like a smart display. By removing the computer element and external battery, the headset will be lighter, cheaper to produce, and force the iPhone into handling processing duties.

It could also go down the smart glasses route, developing something close to Meta's collaboration with Ray-Ban.

Apple could go down the route of smart glasses but without the glasses element. With claims of AirPods Pro in development with external cameras and AI, this could offer many typical smart glasses applications for all users.

The last "Holy Grail" option is to create AR glasses with all of the possible features. This would include high-performance lenses, battery, onboard computer, cameras, eye tracking, and other features within a pair of fairly standard glasses frames.

The last option is apparently a dream for CEO Tim Cook. However, Apple previously decided to pause development on something similar simply because it was too hard to create at this time.



Read on AppleInsider

twolf2919

The “Holy Grail” option -  but with the iPhone doing all the heavy lifting - is the only one that would have mass appeal.  I have no idea why Tim Cook et al insist on doing everything in glasses (or even in the current VP headset) when there simply isn’t enough room for batteries to do all that computation onboard.  We all already have smartphones in our pockets - with AR glasses managed wirelessly from those phones, we could increasingly leave them there.  Such a product would not only allow for a gazillions of new use cases, but it would also help Apple sell yet more iPhones.

chasm

twolf2919 said:

We all already have smartphones in our pockets - with AR glasses managed wirelessly from those phones, we could increasingly leave them there.  Such a product would not only allow for a gazillions of new use cases, but it would also help Apple sell yet more iPhones.

Not sure if a wireless connection is secure enough/stable enough to handle the demands of VR/AR wearables, but it might be right path for AR-only glasses.

paisleydisco

chasm said:

twolf2919 said:

We all already have smartphones in our pockets - with AR glasses managed wirelessly from those phones, we could increasingly leave them there.  Such a product would not only allow for a gazillions of new use cases, but it would also help Apple sell yet more iPhones.

Not sure if a wireless connection is secure enough/stable enough to handle the demands of VR/AR wearables, but it might be right path for AR-only glasses.

I would guess Apple experimented with the iPhone route. Wireless would most likely not be feasible. Wired could work if the iPhone could support the processor demands and potential heating issues. And iPhone battery life taking a serious hit. I mean the current AVP battery can only handle 2 hours and it's huge compared to an iPhone battery. Maybe in the future an AVP can be tethered to an iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

I trust Apple did everything possible to try different ideas before settling on the current version. I love my AVP and look forward to future releases. 

currentinterest

I would love to have a pair of AR glasses, but for right now I love my AVP and hope they continue development along this line as well.

chasm

Though I think we'll see a workable pair of AR (only) glasses before the end of this decade, Meta's Orion debacle (it costs $10K, and you'll never be able to buy it!) proves that this stuff is hard, at least with present tech.

I don't think we're going to get there on AR glasses in the near-term without an iPhone-like computer-and-battery in your pocket and a cord to connect it under your shirt. But if anyone can make a set that doesn't look like Meta's ugly-ass ChonkyVision, it's Apple.

charlesn

Wow! I didn't realize Mark Gurman was now writing sponsored content for Mark Zuckerberg! Because there's no other explanation for his hit piece on Vision Pro while he praises Meta throughout the article for its "hit" products. WHAT hit products??!! Meta's Reality Labs has posted $50 BILLION in LOSSES over the last four years alone and it continues to lose an average of $1 billion PER MONTH. The Reality Labs "business model" was and continues to be selling products for a huge loss per unit sold. Hey, I've got an idea! Let's mark Vision Pro down to $499, sell a ton of them, post huge losses, and then Vision Pro will be a hit product, too! The LAST company that any other company should want to emulate in the headset space is Meta because it has never been able to sell anything it makes for a profit. It doesn't have hit products, it only has loss leaders. Of course, Zuck doesn't have to worry about these losses and can keep throwing billions down a rat hole because he makes so much money ignoring your privacy to monetize your data any way he can get away with. 

Here's what especially hilarious about the way the press covers Vision Pro: Meta has been at the headset game since it acquired Oculus TEN YEARS ago and has never made a penny of profit since, posting billions upon billions of dollars in losses without a single truly successful product to show for this massive, decade-long investment. It's just one failed product after another, with failure defined as a product you can only sell for a net loss. The first Vision Pro only delivered 32 WEEKS ago, with reportedly half its annual production capacity selling out in the US alone the first weekend it went on sale and yet the press reports nothing but what a failure it is...HUH? You think Apple expected an immediate hit product that sells in volume with a $3500 headset that runs an entirely new computing platform and an entirely new way of interacting with a computer? And what would the press be saying if this was 10 years after Vision Pro launched and Apple was still losing $1 billion per month on it? Would they be calling it a hit product or is that only reserved for money-losing products from Meta? 

StrangeDays

twolf2919 said:

The “Holy Grail” option -  but with the iPhone doing all the heavy lifting - is the only one that would have mass appeal.  I have no idea why Tim Cook et al insist on doing everything in glasses (or even in the current VP headset) when there simply isn’t enough room for batteries to do all that computation onboard.  We all already have smartphones in our pockets - with AR glasses managed wirelessly from those phones, we could increasingly leave them there.  Such a product would not only allow for a gazillions of new use cases, but it would also help Apple sell yet more iPhones.

Everything is easy when you don’t know anything about the details. 

avon b7

charlesn said:

Wow! I didn't realize Mark Gurman was now writing sponsored content for Mark Zuckerberg! Because there's no other explanation for his hit piece on Vision Pro while he praises Meta throughout the article for its "hit" products. WHAT hit products??!! Meta's Reality Labs has posted $50 BILLION in LOSSES over the last four years alone and it continues to lose an average of $1 billion PER MONTH. The Reality Labs "business model" was and continues to be selling products for a huge loss per unit sold. Hey, I've got an idea! Let's mark Vision Pro down to $499, sell a ton of them, post huge losses, and then Vision Pro will be a hit product, too! The LAST company that any other company should want to emulate in the headset space is Meta because it has never been able to sell anything it makes for a profit. It doesn't have hit products, it only has loss leaders. Of course, Zuck doesn't have to worry about these losses and can keep throwing billions down a rat hole because he makes so much money ignoring your privacy to monetize your data any way he can get away with. 

Here's what especially hilarious about the way the press covers Vision Pro: Meta has been at the headset game since it acquired Oculus TEN YEARS ago and has never made a penny of profit since, posting billions upon billions of dollars in losses without a single truly successful product to show for this massive, decade-long investment. It's just one failed product after another, with failure defined as a product you can only sell for a net loss. The first Vision Pro only delivered 32 WEEKS ago, with reportedly half its annual production capacity selling out in the US alone the first weekend it went on sale and yet the press reports nothing but what a failure it is...HUH? You think Apple expected an immediate hit product that sells in volume with a $3500 headset that runs an entirely new computing platform and an entirely new way of interacting with a computer? And what would the press be saying if this was 10 years after Vision Pro launched and Apple was still losing $1 billion per month on it? Would they be calling it a hit product or is that only reserved for money-losing products from Meta? 

To be fair, Reality Labs is supposedly in this for the long game and hoping to become profitable sometime in the 2030s.

There are over 20 million Oculus devices out there and the glasses line is very popular.

Each generation of device nudges the project along based on the experience of those that went before. We know that 'first mover' status can be key in industries that are vying for the mainstream. 

There is no substitute for real world use and that's why any device that reaches the consumer is a valid technological proposal and helps to lay the groundwork for better future products. 

The Quest devices made tradeoffs in order to reach more consumers. That is a great idea. The AVP made far fewer tradeoffs and is targeting a niche market with a higher end product that never had aspirations of becoming mainstream any time soon. 

Both devices are still waiting for future tech advances which will enable them to provide a better experience and reach more people. That not only includes miniaturisation, compute power and optics but also advances in wireless technologies. 

Advances in wireless are already here just not widespread. China has already begun to roll out 5.5G with 10 gigabit downlink speeds and microsecond latencies. 

Then there needs to be content standards based interoperability for that content. 

Both Apple and Meta are running at a loss for XR and both are hoping to see it become a healthy revenue stream at some point.