Apple focusing on lower resolution screens to make a more affordable Apple Vision Pro

Posted:
in Apple Vision Pro

A new report says that Apple's plans for a budget Apple Vision Pro are now expected to see it using lower-resolution displays than it previously planned.

Close-up view of virtual reality headset lenses, with reflections of a room and red objects visible on the lens surfaces.
Inside the Apple Vision Pro



The new report follows a previous one claiming that Japan Display Inc (JDI) had delivered a test sample of a lower-resolution display to Apple. Now Digitimes says that it's believed Apple is sampling displays at even lower resolution than that.

Specifically, Apple had requested bids for displays of 1,700ppi, and for those screens to be OLED-on-Silicon (OLEDoS) ones, which are brighter than the white OLED plus color filters in the current headset. Apple had previously been reported to be considering OLEDoS screens for a second-generation Apple Vision Pro in 2027.

As well as producing a sample with the lower 1,500ppi, JDI used glass core substrate (GCS) OLED technology instead of OLEDoS. GCS OLED is typically better suited for screens used from a regular distance, rather than for displays meant to be placed near the eye.

Apple appears to have accepted the JDI sample, although its approximately 1,500ppi is significantly lower resolution than the current Apple Vision Pro. The original headset offers around 3,380ppi, which Apple generously describes as being equivalent to a 4K TV per eye.

Digitext says that speculation is that Samsung Display (SDC) is likely to produce GCS OLED screens of around 1,500ppi resolution, too.

Note that Digitimes has a strong track record for its supply chain sources, but a significantly poorer one for the speculative conclusions it draws about Apple's plans.

Separately, it was reported in June 2024 that Apple had halted work on an updated Apple Vision Pro 2. Instead, it was focusing its efforts on a more consumer-priced version, which backs up the new report of lower-price displays.

Rumor Score: Possible

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,822member
    Or... Apple finds a way to make the same quality at a lower cost.  
    williamlondonpulseimagesmac_dog
  • Reply 2 of 15
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,418member
    MacPro said:
    Or... Apple finds a way to make the same quality at a lower cost.  
    This would be the best case, obviously. But Apple will probably offer a lower resolution alternative eventually unless they don't mind limiting it to be an ultra niche product. I think they do. 

    Even offering a version of with the same resolution and fewer features seems unlikely. I'd like to see v1 cheaper of course. The second single biggest improvement in would be a battery back that detaches from the cord. This would be much more convenient than having to deal with say two or three corded spares. Or maybe a much lighter weight headset but I don't think that's a reality. 

    Can third-party IEC earbuds be used? I don't know how good the factory audio is or that I'd want to bother anybody if I used this in a public setting.


    byronl
  • Reply 3 of 15
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,409member
    Why wouldn't one expect Apple to request bids and samples for multiple prototypes during development? This alone does not indicate where they are heading for a final product.

    The development team will try many iterations and eventually land on what they feel is the best combination of performance, cost and marketability. Maybe those 1,500 ppi displays will be dismissed upon trials. Or maybe there is no perceivable difference between 1,500 and 1,700 so the less expensive option is selected. Maybe neither work well and are both eliminated from consideration.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    List me as skeptical.
    williamlondonAlex_V
  • Reply 5 of 15
    I’d have thought that an Apple type solution would be a headset with displays of the same quality that can provide an amazing video quality experience, along with 3D photos on a huge virtual display and superb sound but without visionOS and a lot of what goes with it. That way it can still offer a premium (3D) video quality experience equivalent to the current vision Pro but simply loses functionality.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    a lower resolution would be a significant turn off! I definitely would not buy it as it would significantly hamper any real work on the device and would turn it into a TV replacement but nothing else. I pray that this doesn't happen!
    williamlondon
  • Reply 7 of 15
    Apple’s screens are already lower res than the Quest 3 (but have better darker blacks).

    The reason why Apple’s screens look higher res is that their OS tech uses better ways to render the elements on screen, more like vectors instead of bitmaps. This requires more memory and compute, which the M2 can handle just fine. 

    I do feel Apple should have stayed away from spatial hardware. They don’t have the right approach I believe and it’ll remain a niche product. Meta’s pricing point and existing ecosystem (many great games!) is an important differentiator. 
    Actual ‘computing’ is and will be better off done using a laptop, phone or tablet.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 8 of 15
    I wonder if the path to cheaper is smarter not harder.
    use the users own brains natural systems to build out more of scene with less pixels. 

    Make the screens have a smaller dense area of colour surrounded by a larger area for white pixels. This is how vision works most of the colour you see is based on what your brain remembers it being actively moving your head and eyes to fill in gaps as it heads to.
  • Reply 9 of 15
    PemaPema Posts: 116member
    Sideline this product altogether. Create a division dedicated to high-end medical, technical, corporate devices, call it 'What rich folks can afford and need'. Instead focus on a better keyboard for the iPhone. Increased security. The most featured item on the iPhone is camera, camera, camera, camera, camera. Like we are some Ansel Adams. The majority of us take inane pictures that we bore our friends and relatives to death with: 'here look this is me and my main squeeze in a zoo in Alhambra', look here is a video of us climbing Mt KopaBoopa, here are the two of us in a ZommpaBoompa Concert. By this time your friends and relos are sound asleep or have excused themselves to go home. 

    The main issue that I have with the camera is when you try to take a pic of some thing reflective and your silly self shows up reflected in the picture. How, bloody, annoying. Fix that. And the bloody keyboard so when type a message in a hurry, like 'I just picked up a bag of groceries and some grog', comes out as 'reeked gross and crock'. 

    Thank you Apple. 


    dewme
  • Reply 10 of 15
    Enough screens in our lives already, but a viable budget version of AVP would surely be a no brainer and massive money spinner if Apple had a greater investment in the gaming community. Never understood why Apple appear happy to sit back and watch Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and PC vendors rake it in. Gaming console upgrade cycles are enviably long too which must be appealing…
  • Reply 11 of 15
    Meta’s Orion made Vision Pro obsolete 
  • Reply 12 of 15
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,448member
    blitz1 said:
    Meta’s Orion made Vision Pro obsolete 
    Only a shippable product can compete with a shipping product. 
    Orion is beyond vapourware it metaware 
  • Reply 13 of 15
    blitz1 said:
    Meta’s Orion made Vision Pro obsolete 
    bahahahahaha
  • Reply 14 of 15
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,443moderator
    Apple’s screens are already lower res than the Quest 3 (but have better darker blacks).
    Quest 3 is ~2K, Vision Pro is nearer 4K:

    https://vr-compare.com/compare?h1=0q3goALzg&h2=8aL1JxO3T

    Apple used the best that was available but it comes with higher manufacturing cost and lower production capacity.

    I expect that whatever they put into production will offer good enough quality and it would be nice if they made similar compromises in other areas. A 27-32" 4K laminated glossy OLED display would be good enough for a lot of people, even if it wasn't strictly retina quality. It would still be better quality than what everyone else is offering.
  • Reply 15 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,598member
    Marvin said: A 27-32" 4K laminated glossy OLED display would be good enough for a lot of people, even if it wasn't strictly retina quality. It would still be better quality than what everyone else is offering.
    Apple needs a version of the 4K Innocn 32Q1U J-OLED, a crisper, cleaner, sharper version of OLED for precision tasks. I've used it for a few months now for photo-processing, and it's near perfect for it, which makes it pretty great for everything else too.  If Apple is willing to have a similar spec'd display built, and keep it under $2000 (the Innocn is $800 but could use more QC), they'll sell a ton of 'em. 

    Apple might even find that the rights to the tech is available ;)
    edited September 27
Sign In or Register to comment.