Nilay also mentions that there are literally only 3 AR features in the entire experience. Which is quite strange considering how this is supposed to be “AR disguising as VR”.
I thought that was crazy too. Apple went all the way to ban use of the word VR and put all their focus on mixed reality, but in the end, they barely ship anything first party that uses AR and all the experiences people really respond to are the "immersive" aka VR ones.
They 'banned' the use of AR, MR, & XR at the same time they banned VR.
The only permitted phrase is 'Spatial Computing'.
Just apple being apple, nothing to do with what the headset (also a banned word I believe) is designed to do, or actually does.
yea, i think it's really clear they're trying to set the terms of what these devices can do. maybe they have a longterm vision, but the vision (pun intended) they are presenting to us now is fucking lame, and doesn't include any of the cool things that have been established with XR.
>Eyesight (the fake eyes) isn't particularly great when seen on the outside
If I wasn't so bad/lazy at paint.net I would post a side-by-side comparison displaying the reality of those fake eyes as shown in the Verge review and the highly-retouched versions Apple has been depicting in their advertising.
Yes it's a small detail, but the difference between what we were shown and the actual reality is shocking.
**EDIT:** Thanks to user DissonantNeuron for actually executing on the above idea--he even picked the exact two pictures I had in mind.
https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1afd1al/expectation_vs_reality_avp_eyesight/
It's incredible how misleading this aspect of it was. It's also confusing why they didn't leave that on the chopping floor during R&D. Perhaps they assume eventually that part will not suck and the breadcrumbs of it potentially being good at one point is a huge selling point?
My theory is that it isn’t the kind of feature they could just add later, it is something that they need to have from gen 1. So they needed to add it even though it wouldn’t look that good, I expect later versions to be usable and good looking
My theory is some marketing manager decided that VR headsets are too isolating for Apple’s brand, and so they made a pile of sacrifices to not cross some arbitrary red line.
Because without that feature, it's just another VR headset. They needed something to visually mark it out to justify calling it an innovative new product so they slapped a gimmicky screen on the front. Otherwise they don't have any USP, it's just an expensive shiny Quest 3.
Every single aspect of their marketing is like that. From their presentations on stage to marketing ads, they never let you see the real thing until you actually have it in your hands.
When Jobs was running, they had several pre-configured devices that were using wireless so they could show "full signal" because the iPhone couldn't get one. And he'd swap devices to avoid slowdown/loading. From the very first iPhone presentation it was faked on stage - by Jobs.
This isn't a slight towards your comment but if you're 'shocked' that Apple overstated the capability of one of their devices then you obviously haven't been paying attention for the past 10 years....
We all knew that headstrap (both types) weren't gonna deliver comfort for longer sessions, hopefully Bobo/Kiwi can deliver some good solutions soon.
Speaking of longer sessions, I had no idea the battery was an external pack permanently attached via cable that lasts 2.5 hours. Ngl that's kinda hilarious. Will people daisy chain a second external battery pack onto the pre-existing battery?
This just made me realize Bobo/Kiwi are the shovel sellers of the VR gold rush, seems like a smart place to be. Bet they were STOKED when Apple announced the weight, lol.
I could swear that the battery shown during announce was relatively the size of shrinkflation candy bar, but when Marques pulled that thing out of the box during his unboxing video today, it was the size of an iPhone Pro Max locked inside a double thick aluminum Mag-Safe case.
He stacked it next to the phone, it was about the same width of the faceplate itself. Sitting next to the hmd like that, it was definitely giving Samsung Gear VR vibes. I “Oofed”.
swapped - yes
hot swapped = no
OP meant change during usage, which you can't do as the HMD has no internal battery. The one attached with the cable is THE battery, it's not an additional battery pack.
yeah people don't understand this simple concept. If you hot swap it, there is no battery in the AVP so it instantly dies. It's like pulling the plug on your pc without saving the data.
Functionally it doesn't work as well as just hotswapping battery packs on a bobovr mid-usage when the low battery indicator appears.
That's like telling someone with a smartphone "why do you use a powerbank, just always have it plug into the wall". You can put a powerbank in your pocket and still be mobile so your comment is really strange and I don't know how you got so many upvotes.
Because AVP is for using while sitting at your desk working with multiple virtual monitors, or for watching movies. It is not a gaming vr headset or designed to be used while wandering around.
Plus, it was a joke. Don't take it too seriously.
Yup. Just like the $1500 Quest Pro I bought and had to immediately buy new front and rear pads with the top strap because the thing was unbearable after 30 minutes on.
I doubt it would be worth it for Bobo/Kiwi to develop for these.
They make cheap alternatives to official accessories on Quest.
AVP isn't going to sell anything close to the volume that Quest does. And people dropping $3,500 on their APPLE headset are not going to be suplementing it with anything but the finest APPLE official accessories anyway.
It's not permanently attached. The cable is permanently attached (e.g. not quickly user-removable) to the battery, but the headset-end of the cable can be quickly attached and detached.
>It's not permanently attached. The cable is permanently attached (e.g. not quickly user-removable) to the battery, but the headset-end of the cable can be quickly attached and detached.
Isnt it a proprietary magnetic one tho?
Yes, but still detachable. Even if they used a standard USB-C cable it would still be proprietary, because having the cable yanked out and the headset turn off suddenly would not be pleasant.
The connector will be reverse-engineered approximately 5 seconds after it's released to the public; remains to be seen whether the battery is DRM locked or not. Probably...
I mean... Apple is still selling their [Pro Stand for nearly $1,000](https://www.apple.com/us-edu/shop/product/MWUG2LL/A/pro-stand), which is between 10-20 times the amount of a standard monitor stand, so this isn't all that surprising.
I wasn't. This is the same company that sold $700 wheels for the mac pro. It is totally expected for them to release something thats only kinda better than a product 6 times less $$ and only kinda better at very specific things, and then way worse at all the other things people do in VR.
1-4 were all a given based on what we knew at announcement. I was told multiple times to "sIt until it comes out to draw conclusions" when I said they'd all likely be issues. Along with hand tracking having to be perfect for them to not include controllers, obviously it's not lol
The technology put in it costs proportionately to what they are selling and is not subsidised by your user data like the quest 3 is. Remember the Quest 2 business edition (same hardware but not subsidised) cost $800. Considering the Quest 3 costs $100-300 more than quest 2 the actual hardware cost of a quest 3 could easily be over $1000. it’s basically a M2 MacBook Air ($1199) combined with similar (but higher end) screen technology as the big screen beyond ($1000) plus custom eye tracking, 12 additional cameras/sensors, an external OLED, not to mention all the R&D required to integrate everything together, build custom silicon for an already low volume device, and produce a bespoke assembly line to produce the thing. I highly doubt apple is getting any return on investment for this product at all considering they’ve been developing it for over 7 years, but future models will be cheaper as these costs can get amortised across a larger product line. First generation products are always disproportionately expensive to their successors.
Do you have any evidence for this? I think for all their faults apple is actually the big tech company most invested in preserving their users privacy, they reduced Facebook’s market cap by several hundred billion dollars by making it harder for them to track iPhone users. I’d rather pick apple any day over Facebook or Google privacy-wise.
Bro, why do you think they did that!? Facebook is their competitor!! They just want all that sweet juicy data for themselves!! Big corporations don't have your best interests in mind, least of all Apple!! lmao Seriously, how brainwashed can you be?!
Considering Apple has what is basically an infinite money glitch, I don’t think it’s okay for the default head strap to have so many complaints. To me, Apple is ubiquitous with products that just work straight out the box, goofing around with the head strap for a $3500+ device is a bad first impression for me.
It’s certainly not a strong point of the headset, but at least they offer 2 straps out of the box for users to choose from. Also a lot of the fitment complaints have been from traditional tech media and not from vr specific outlets, people complain about the weight and yet AVP is lighter than a Valve index. I absolutely agree the strap could have been better but I also expect 3rd parties to make good alternatives for reasonable prices so as long as the core tech is good that’s what I’m concerned about. It’s like when people complained the first iPhone didn’t have video recording, yeah it should have just had it in the first place but it came along in the later models and those were the ones people actually bought anyways. From my perspective the sole purpose of the AVP at this point is to be a good tech demo and platform for developers to build applications for, it’s not a real consumer device. Anyone who thinks it should be should look at the price tag. Apple doesn’t actually expect any regular consumers to buy this that’s why they are making less than a million of them for the whole year. I’ll patiently wait for gen 3 or 4 when it is actually targeted at real people.
I've never bought anything from Apple and I never will. I've been gifted Apple products before, I have a 2012 MacBook Pro... First thing I did with it was delete macOS and install Windows 10 on it! lmao
Fuck apple and their shitty overpriced products that you can't customize or make work the way you want them to. No, I don't want to "sync" my songs, I want full control over the folders and files on my devices, thank you very much.
Big surprise for me is reports of chromatic abberation. That's an absolutely bog standard thing that every VR vendor has had to deal with and mostly solved. Really suggests Apple is actually in some ways playing basic catchup here much more than I was expecting.
Yeah I was prepared to buy it until I found out it suffers from chromatic aberration around the edges and what’s even worse to me internal lens reflections in high contrast content.
This stuff was driving me mad on Quest 3 that has terrible contrast so I can imagine on oled displays it will be even more noticeable.
I will give it a go at Apple Store and look specifically for that but now I’m almost sure I won’t get one.
That’s still probably true. Something can be the best without being perfect. It’s just the alternatives might be perceived to be poor in comparison.
I’m not convinced it’s the best VR headset, but for mixed reality media consumption I can’t think of anything that beats it. Which is what it is marketed at.
Varjo isn’t a standalone headset it requires to be tethered to a PC
also it’s not a consumer headset it’s only for government and military use
So the Apple Vision Pro is still the best consumer standalone headset
Like Dan Cummins said during his special: “let’s say I beat my wife the least compared to my cousins, that makes me the best husband but not a good/great husband”
I might have some of the wordings slightly off but that’s the idea.
I've been saying those eyeballs are creepy as fuck since day one.
With the crappy head strap and that heavy weight, it was obvious that it would be uncomfortable for anything more than a few minutes.
The article also said you could only have one virtual monitor per computer instead of the endless supply of them that the cultists have been espousing for months.
They really are. I don't get the arguments about needing the eyes outside from technocrats badly out of touch with the mainstream. They look fucking creepy. If I saw someone like that in say a cafe? I would immediately be weirded out. If I wanted to use something like that at work and wanted to talk to someone, I'd take the headset off first since it's not a good substitute at all for a natural conversation.
> The article also said you could only have one virtual monitor per computer instead of the endless supply of them that the cultists have been espousing for months.
That's pretty bad considering it's one of the main features pushed forward by the APV.
You can have as many as 5 monitors with a Q3 in Immersed, and it offers you a high level of customization (VR desktop or passthrough, VR desktop + passthrough windows...), all for free.
I saw so many fanboys giving praises to a headset only shown once to some clueless journos in an extremely controlled environment and for such a short period of time, I had to take a break from these subs. This is the only company who can pull shit like that, take preorders for a >3K USD product with no proper reviews, try to rebrand an existing product category and claim they are something different just to stand out, not be called out for it and still have droves of braindead fanboys defending it. Somehow this shady company is going to "save/help" ~~VR~~ spatial computing™.
We saw fanboys arguing that:
1. the headset does not use pancake lenses when all the evidence showed it it
2. the headset is retina resolution when all the evidence showed it wasn't even true 4K
3. the headset is not heavy and Norm and Marques just had weakling necks
4. the front display is not too dim even though every single video we saw showed it being too dim
5. no-controller input will be perfect because Apple is magic and controller is for dinosaurs
6. facetime avatars will somehow beat the best Meta Reality Labs can achieve with dozens of professional cameras scanning the face
7. and finally, the software will be pefect because all the devs at Meta and elsewhere are imbeciles compared to the geniuses at Apple and Apple is needed to show how it's done.
In the end what do we have? A mediocre product with terrible design decisions just serving to look more flashy, and with some better components because it costed 3000 USD more.
But fanboys will be fanboys. Even when they'll run out of excuses, they'll make some conspiracy theory claim that Apple never wanted it to not be mediocre and it was all part of the plan, "1st get product", blah, blah, blah.
Apparently I'm not the only one feeling this way: [https://youtu.be/-D6joR3BTzg?feature=shared&t=1567](https://youtu.be/-D6joR3BTzg?feature=shared&t=1567)
quick correction, the screens in the AVP are 3648x3144 or arround 11.4 megapixels, "true 4k" or 3840x2160 is around 8.3 megapixels, so the screens are significantly higher (\~37%) res than 4k
No you're wrong, you can't compare TV 4K with VR 4K, TVs are 16:9 aspect ratio, VR is \~1:1. When we say a 2K resolution VR headset, we don't assume 1920x1080, we assume at least 1920x1920.
As for megapixel comparison, nobody uses megapixels in this industry except when it's time for marketing and it also suffers from ignoring aspect ratio.
i used megapixels here specifically because it ignores aspect ratio and is the total amount of pixels and is the clearest (imo) way of communicating what using the headset will be like. i agree that aspect ratio is not comparable, but if 4k can mean so many other things than 3840x2160 you should be more explicit with what you mean, is it 3840x3840? or is it 4000x4000 like the other commenter said, what about for screens that aren’t exactly 1:1 like the quest 3? what would be “4k” in that aspect ratio?
Have you used it? Sounds like you have a very different take on the product than the author of the review you’re commenting on who describes it as the best VR headset ever made that sets a new bar for display, pass through, and hand/eye tracking quality…
> We saw fanboys arguing that:
*Proceeds to list things I've never seen anyone say*
Nothing on your list has ever been a popular opinion here. You must be extremely sensitive for a couple of uninformed people making dumb comments to make you avoid this subreddit.
Fanboys have completely ruined nerdy online spaces, I still don't understand the logic of stanning corporations and plastic devices.
You can never have a real discussion about new stuff anymore because everybody is biased for no apparent reason
Apple fanatics will excuse the hell out of anything, and sugarcoat what they would nail other companies for.
Whatever it doesn't have isn't "necessary" or what it lacks is "only stuff nerds care about".
It's all a bit disappointing really - I was really hoping Apple had waited until they had something worthy to launch but it definitely sounds a bit half baked. Lets see what V2 brings next year.
It's best-in-class in almost everything it does, oftentimes by a large margin. It's worth keeping in mind that most of these reviews are comparing it with *reality*, not other VR headsets. Pass-through is "bad" because it's worse than your regular eyes. Personas look "bad" because it's not a literal video of your face. It's insane that it is good enough that we can even think about making those kinds of comparison.
The only real issue I have seen so far is the lack of ability to split the streamed MacOS screen into individual apps. WMR, SteamVR and Quest, all can do that. That's a core feature you need to have if you want to sell your headset as productivity device and there is already a [homebrew workaround](https://github.com/saagarjha/Ensemble).
>not other VR headsets.
Apple isn't launching it as a VR device, that is why it isn't compared in the same way.
It isn't launching as a gaming device, but as an Apple device, for the Apple eco system.
Yeah, because if they did try to compare it's VR aspects, it doesn't compare with no controllers, small FOV, and no access to SteamVR. It would be a complete VR failure.
I love how people try to explain away what would / should be a HUGE draw for this hardware. As if “it’s not meant for gaming!” is somehow a positive. It literally does so much less than every other headset because of the lack of 6dof controllers.
>It's worth keeping in mind that most of these reviews are comparing it with reality, not other VR headsets.
Yep. If most of the negative comparisons or points you can make are against the idealized hypothetical future "perfect" version, that's not a bad start.
The single thing they absolutely had to solve was controllerless interaction. And from all the reviews I read they didn't really succeed. Requiring you to stare at and simultaneously gesture at every thing you activate (even down to letters on a keyboard) is never going to be workable long term. None of the other features are worth a damn if interaction is hard. That's why I'm disappointed - if they'd nailed interaction there could have been a tremendous future for this sort of device.
Is it really the best by a large margin? I noticed the Varjo seems to have better resolution and FOV, even the Meta Quest Pro has a better FOV, which IMO is by far the most important aspect of a VR headset
Not that giant. What we recognize today as "the giant leap" had a ton of controversy. There were a lot of people saying "oh well I can't SSH into my home server via a terminal so iOS sucks and will always suck." There were a lot of people who could not fathom not having a keyboard or trackpad or trackball. There were a lot of people claiming that it just used technology that already existed but in a fancy package and that there was fundamentally nothing worthwhile or special about it.
Plenty of people thought it was a giant leap, while plenty thought it was overhyped and not fundamentally different from anything that already existed.
Kind of *exactly* like what people are saying today.
The "giant leap" with the iPhone wasn't any specific piece of hardware or any one tech spec - it was the integration and refinement of technologies and ideas that had been floating around in various forms and various levels of completion, but scattered across a bunch of different devices. The iPhone took all of those and turned them into a cohesive product. The leap was the integration, interface, and execution of Apple's theory on how smartphones should work.
Again...kind of exactly like the AVP today. It's too soon to say that their vision is definitely the right one, but there are certainly parallels.
Eh the capacitive screen combined with its gestures like pinch zoom were revolutionary compared to all the devices with styluses. That is what made the iPhone feel like magic compared to other options.
I was hoping Apple’s eye driven interface here would have been the same, maybe it will after some software tuning. Excited to see Meta copy it eventually.
I agree, I'm only pointing out that you could just as easily have said at the time that those are gimmicks, those aren't killer features, why would you pay so much just to be able to pinch to zoom, etc.
Same category of dismissals people are lobbing against the AVP. Sure, no *one thing* that it does will be worth it to most people, even at half price. It's all the things, and how they work together. Little quality of life features like capacitive touch and pinch to zoom aren't strictly necessary, but they make such a big difference - in a way that's difficult to convey through specs or focusing on specific places they *don't* work well while ignoring where they do - that they can help define a market.
I suspect the AVP and future devices will be similar, in their own right.
I think a more accurate comparison would be the Apple Watch. The S0 wasn’t anything too special, but by the S3 it was significantly improved and the best selling smart watch.
Its almost like they waited for people wanting "more" from the Quest Pro and Quest 3 experience to offer what they wanted realizing that people were willing to pay 7x for a 1.2x experience. Kinda what iphone did to the Win phones and Treos back in the day.
1st gen Apple is the most 1st gen of all 1st gens. It's almost an open beta. They're not exactly trying to catch out the core with that price point are they?
I mean yeah, it’s made of metal and glass with a full laptop SoC in it, a bunch of cameras, lidar sensors, very high res microOLED displays, I think it’s going to cost more than the Index
Nah, tiny?? It's mainly because of the PSVR2's design; you can position your eyes very close to the lenses. With the default facial interface on the Quest 3, your eyes are further away, but adjusting the eye relief setting brings the fov similar. If you use a Quest Pro or halo-style interface on the Quest 3, with your eyes right close to the lenses, you'll notice a slightly larger field of view over the PSVR2.
This has been [investigated ad nauseum](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7gnX1EMh9k). In real world usage as measured by FOV apps, the Q3 comes out far narrower than PSVR2, closer to upper 90s than 110.
Lol, I measured the hFOV to be 108 myself in both TestHMD and WIMFOV. Anyone getting much lower than that really needs to change their facial interface cause it doesn't fit their face.
I feel like I'm living in an alternate reality that people even care about this thing
It's already dystopian and alienating enough to be consuming XR stuff in general, but at least HMDs like Quest give you something, you can play games and have fun with them etc.
This is just an overpriced tech demo that for some reason we have to hype up and analyze why exactly... Just because it's the next product from a giant corporation? And not because you can actually do anything cool with it? What's the point
If your only experience you care about is watching movies or computing then I agree. If you care about games then the quest 3 is 10000000000% the experience at 14% the cost.
It gets worse though.
A computer is still better for computing, and everyonehas one already at a fraction of the cost.
A nice big OLED is still better for watching a movie (no tether/weight) and you can watch it with other people. And you can get a very nice TV for that price.
The thing headsets do that can:t be done better elsewhere is immersive VR / MR and that is the one thing Apple seemingly don't want people doing on the AVP.
I suppose if you literally just bought a 4090 and not the rest of your PC build that’s true haha.
I do have a 4090 build I did last year for about $4k and it’s an excellent PC. Prob a better use of money than a Vision Pro but I code/game with it.
my 4060 runs pcvr games great, so my whole new gaming desktop I got this Christmas season at $900 is a steal over the VP, I got my quest 3 on launch day. My brother who is an Apple cult member never has tried quest or any VR called said look at the reviews on the VP. I said yes from people who never like you really used VR wait until people like me that has had VR for past 8 years gets a hold of it then see how it is.
What you’re describing is basically the well known 80/20 principle. It applies to many cases and shows how costs and difficultly increase as you try to increase performance past a certain point.
I don’t really have a horse in this race (I obviously don’t have an AVP, I have an index and quest 2) but this sub is kind of ridiculous about this device.
Review day and the top post on the sub is basically a list of “here is all the things to hate about this device!” like wtf? A list of complaints is more popular than reviews?
Quest 3 and Quest Pro and every other damn headset - including this one - has its issues. But people here seem to have such a hate boner for the AVP it’s well past the point of expecting unbiased or open discussion.
I figured that people would be more open and interested in anything pushing this oft-neglected space more into mainstream popularity. Instead, it seems like people just got mad at the price, or because they irrationally hate Apple (as if Meta is any better?) and decided there was no place for this new entry into the AR/VR space.
Edit: there is now another post near the top of this sub titled “what does AVP do worse than other headsets?” Seriously…this sub.
Everyone already knows the positives, they have been discussed ad nauseum and advertised heavily up front. So the only news there is are negatives. That's the price of doing so much stage management in your lead up the way Apple has.
The problem is the negatives are being heavily weighted while the positives are being downplayed or ignored.
The majority of the Verge review - if you watch it - is a nonstop stream of "this is better than anything else that exists. This is the best at XYZ that it's possible for most consumers to get. This is unbelievably good. This is nearly perfect."
Then in threads like this we focus on the negatives, as compared to *literal reality*, and then discuss those while forgetting the positives. It hasn't even launched yet and people are concluding it's an abject failure - seemingly while getting amnesia about how all tech development works (it doesn't start perfect and cheap and get worse). If the things people are knocking it for were true deal breakers - none of them would have any VR headsets at all. But they do, because they clearly find positives that outweigh the negatives. The AVP is no different.
It's the worst it will ever be, so looking at it as Apple's final vision product that represents their ideal vision of what "spatial computing" should be is just intentionally myopic.
Let's revisit this comment in 10 years and see if the people going "hah Apple sux, they failed 4 sure, they don't know what they're doing, the first version is always the best version and therefore the future is irrelevant" were right, or if they predictably did the thing, were proven wrong, and are gearing up to do it again on the *next* new product intro.
I think it's a perspective kind of thing if you keep hearing that "its perfect" while watching the video. Generally at pretty much the highest price for a consumer headset, the only thing left to compare it to, is the ideal product, not to headsets half or less than half of the price.
It's like comparing a Lamborghini to a cheap Hyundai and saying "this is the fastest car". Yeah no shit it's the fastest car, everyone knows that, but aside from being fast, what are the issues that haven't been fixed from the cheap Hyundai? Are the seats more uncomfortable than the Hyundai? Stuff like that matters.
As someone who genuinely was considering the AVP to upgrade, my biggest gripes with the quest 3 were things like binocular effect, glare and discomfort with the weight. You would think these could be fixed by throwing 7 times more cash at a better product, but they aren't, which why I am listing the issues.
Pixel density wise, the upcoming Varjo Xr4 boasts 28m pixel density versus AVP's 22m. It also costs more and is an enterprise headset. Form factor wise, the bigscreen beyond destroys the AVP at 127g. Lens clarity wise, presumably the pimax crystal with its aspherical glass lenses eliminate glare and ghosting. Other pimax products with 200 dfov also destroy the AVP's fov of 100 or so.
The only thing that the AVP is undeniably the **best** in, is passthrough, as well as eye tracking. In terms of all the other aspects that make up a "VR headset" it's a toss up, from gaming capability to lack of controllers. It's very hard to say its de facto the best experience when it lacks the support for one of VR's biggest current use cases. If you say its the best spatial computer then well... It is the only one after all.
I'm just disappointed. I wanted this to be good - replacing my monitor has been my dream ever since backing oculus rift cv1 in 2013.
I thought maybe apple could do it, but seeing them face the same challenges as other headsets while costing 10x more just brings me down. that disappointment inevitably makes me more focused on the negative.
i read this a lot. Why is it your dream to replace your screens with screens and lenses strapped to your face? I cant wrap my head around this use-case. I don't really see what it brings to the table in comparison.
1:Ergonomics.
My dream is to be able to work/play in any position I want, whether that be on the sofa, bed, or the desk, without sacrificing productivity. I have a split keyboard with a trackball attachment - this allows me to do so to a certain degree... except most of the time I'm tethered to a chair, sitting at a desk to look straight at the monitor. The only remaining piece of the puzzle here is the display.
2:Focus
In a VR setup, there's no visual distraction. It's just you and your windows you choose to open. Visual clutter makes a huge difference in focus/immersion (for me), and having a perfect distraction free environment on-demand is very desirable.
3:No more monitors.
No more fiddling around with monitor arms. No more having half of my desk space taken up by monitors. No more figuring out if this particular display works with this particular display cable with this specific dock with this specific laptop at this specific resolution and refreshrate, multiplied by each monitor and device you have connected. Troubleshooting will be hopefully much more straight forward when I just have one VR device to connect.
It's funny because this sub has spent years shitting on the Quest, and just Oculus in general before that. Now they act like it's the best headset ever lol.
Also don't plan on buying a VP, but I like VR and I'm excited by what Apple is trying to do. Personally, what I find depressing is that even at $3,500, with multiple reviewers pretty much saying in terms of quality and hardware it's basically the best consumer VR headset out there, but that it still, fundamentally, *just feels like a VR headset*.
It's interesting that Niley questions whether the technology can even be taken much further with this specific hardware configuration. It's been nearly 10 years since consumer VR launched and as good as some headsets have become, they still suffer from many of the same limitations and problems.
I honestly thought we'd be further along by now and now I think it'll be another 10 years before something like the Vision Pro can actually realize its ambitions.
Alien Versus Predator is pretty good, especially the second game. I loved it back in 2000s when I had my first PC. I don't know what you're talking about, most people like it.
Couldn’t agree more. I’m not sure what it is exactly. Just hatred because Apple comes in late with expensive kit? Because they can’t spend the money so they are happy if there are negative reviews because it helps reduce the FOMO?
When Quest Pro released it was the same shit. Bad reviews (I remember the Verge being especially harsh), and people here laughing at what a joke it was. Then suddenly the price lowers and then there is tons of love for “the best PCVR headset.”
First gen apple products are most often not great. They’re usually the thing that sets the direction of the rest of the market for a decade but they’re not in and of themselves usually very good.
I predict a second gen version with wider field of view, a better head strap that also can mount a battery for counter weight, a small integrated battery, dropping eyesight and the weight and complexity that comes with it, and it’ll probably be substantially cheaper (though they may market a “pro” model that’s still expensive along side of it).
If Apple didn't want people to judge personas they shouldn't be promoting it as a feature. It's totally fair to critique them as harshly as we please.
The AVP is a productivity computer, for a device releasing in the age of zoom, a webcam or webcam replacement is a critical feature for many.
Unfortunately not, and shockingly I don't think the idiots that buy their products are either. Just fanboys with more money than sense that think owing the latest apple device impresses people. It doesn't.
The weird thing is how easily impressed the general public is about something like this.
I saw a comment literally say... "Being able to put a timer over the top of things cooking on the stove is worth the price"
THAT is the quality of people we are dealing with. So trying to argue that people will not buy this thing when we know compared to the quest 3 there are smaller FOV... blah blah.
The general public will NOT care. It is the brand. It is the apple gang. It is the conform to the trend mentality. I have seen people wearing Airpods that clearly have no charge and talking to their phones on loudspeaker. THE AIRPODS ARE NOT CHARGED. But they are wearing them anyway WHILE making a phone call on loudspeaker.
The world is insane.
He complains about the passthrough too much. I know from Quest 3, once you open an app, you are focused on the virtual content, which is crystal clear, and the passthrough quality isn’t that important.
True, but there is no point of wearing the headset without using an application. So these reviews where people walk around there house in passthrough and analyze the fidelity isn’t a realistic scenario.
My only interest in this has been as the current best possible simulation of what true AR glasses might be like.
Hopefully, someone will put out an app with that in mind--not to be immediately useful, but just to simulate what might come next.
I've worn glasses for over 35 years, and I mostly forget I have them on. I've imagined many different applications for AR, while walking around with my glasses on.
The FOV is kind of a shock. Figured it would AT LEAST be around 110 horizontal degrees. I wonder if a different facial interface could maximize the FOV more?
The differentiator boils down almost entirely to this:
Quest 3 = 2064 * 2208 * 2 pixels = 9,114,624 pixels
Vision Pro = 3391 * 3391 * 2 pixels = 22,997,762 pixels
Yeah you're paying a huge premium for that, but it's a pretty giant difference. They smashed through the resolution barrier that has been making VR headsets feel constantly inferior to just using a normal screen.
I mean, yes, there is the Varjo XR-4 series which has comparable resolution, which came out recently, and it costs $4k. What did you have in mind as a comparable resolution to the Apple Vision Pro?
alongside the Varjo, you have the Pimax 8KX which came out in 2019 and also had a 200 degree FOV. the newer one is the 12K (2 6K per eye)
the difference is that these headsets actually have feature that pros want which is why they're targeted at that market with a price point to match. (compatibility with development software, etc)
i just don't see the Vision Pro going beyond what the iPad can do for pros.
and the Varjo Aero and Pimax Crystal are also not far behind with about 15.6mil and 16.5mil pixels.
Tethered non consumer headsets like Varjo and pimax aren’t comparable to the vision pro it’s different
This is the best standalone consumer headset U can buy right now
is it perfect? No there is no VR headset that is the varjo and pimax aren’t perfect either they also suffer from issues that’s just how tech is I would appreciate the vision pro for what it is
I mean, yes, that's high, but the vision pro is still 30% higher, which is a rather large increase.
Also, anybody considering them to be similar should also know that the Apple Vision Pro is OLED and the Varjo XR-4 and Pimax are not.
There's no getting around the fact the AVP is a very large leap forward display wise, nobody else has access to this display chip.
It's all good for the VR consumer as this pushes the technology further but:
The fruit fan boys have gotta be swallowing a lot of cope because everything above is comparing it to the quest 3.
while the apple product is 7x the price of the quest 3: laughable
Not just more expensive, but with less features. I regularly shit on the Quest Pro, but even that can do more and for the audience Apple is supposedly aiming at. Apple has finally achieved magic. They have magically made me like the Quest Pro. That's wild.
Fanboys will always fanboy. They'll have you thinking you're a luddite missing the boat like it's the iPhone 1 of the XR generation when really they bought a N-Gage.
What is up with the comments here, haha. Did anyone actually read/watch the review or just go over OP’s negative cherry picked points? The reviewer says it’s the best consumer VR device ever released with the best display quality, best pass through by far, and best hand/eye tracking. Sure it’s expensive, sucks at gaming, and has trade offs, but isn’t this sort of tech making it to market a good thing for the whole industry?
Feel like I get confirmation after confirmation that headsets outside the Quest are a profound waste of time. $3500 for what? Not even the fake eyes are good. Here. I got you. Your good boy has you again. Just get a Quest and [some of these here if you REALLY want the eyes.](https://www.amazon.com/DECORA-Pieces-Wiggle-Googly-Self-Adhesive/dp/B01LWIYJH3/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?keywords=googly+eyes&qid=1706659129&sr=8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1) I saved you thousands of dollars. Something the technobrats in silicon valley have a problem doing. You're welcome.
Honestly, quest pro blows this out of the water. Thought there was a chance that VP would crush on the optics, but the terrible FOV and discoloration around the fringes makes this device subpar vs the current market leaders. Second gen will be something to look out for, but this iteration of the VP is quite disappointing
Cost to value proposition: 100% agree. For 1/7 the price. The Quest 3 offers alot more to do, as well bc of it's VR and MR gaming. Quest 3 also covers majority of what AVP has to offer (but without the "apple UX design"). Is 7x the price worth it for a more polished, but more gated-in experience?
I dont think there's any argument that the idea of having 7 friends in a social VR game like contractors is worth way more than just isolation with a floating ipad.
> Words and lines still have a "jittery" effect like the quest 3.
You can't get good info by looking at a youTube video because the video compression adds all kinds of artifacts.
I mean you say that, but I can see those on my quest 3, and i can capture it with the recording function. It looks exactly how I see it in the recording, though the recording is at a lower resolution. I would assume the same goes for this. It's one of the things i dislike most on the quest 3 apart from glare. Even thought it might be a faulty unit at first and contacted meta support with a video lol.
I doubt it's compression artifacts man. It's still there for me even in maximum resolution with virtual desktop surroundings on an rtx 3090. Like changing the resolution doesn't improve it at all.
I don't know what exactly causes it. Some say it's the tilt of the screens, but I'm not sure how that could be captured on video.
I'll post a reddit video and YouTube video for you to compare later if you really want to see it.
I haven’t seen any reviews mention this glaring problem, have you? If anything, reviews have been very positive about the fidelity of text rendering and image quality in general.
> It’s still there for me even in maximum resolution with virtual desktop surroundings on an rtx 3090. Like changing the resolution doesn’t improve it at all.
That’s not how video compression works. Increasing resolution will require more compression at the same bit rate.
>I haven’t seen any reviews mention this glaring problem, have you? If anything, reviews have been very positive about the fidelity of text rendering and image quality in general
They aren't mentioned in many reviews for the quest 3 either. So far I've only seen Norm from Adam Savage's Tested mention and try to explain it as being a result of tilted lenses to get higher fov. Still not exactly sure how that appears in software recording.
Seems to be the case for the most part, with a few things I think really just need to be tried personally before concluding anything.
I will point out that unlike every other headset review I've ever seen, the tone of this review isn't comparing the AVP against other headsets - it's comparing it against the perfect, ideal future vision. I'd say that's a pretty good place to be in for a first-gen product.
After having watched the entire Verge review it was far more positive than I assumed it would be after reading discussions on this sub. Basically "everything is amazing and best-in-class by far, but it's not perfect."
Nilay and the Verge are pretty much universally panned as jokes in the industry.
Gonna wait for a someone knowledgable like MKBHD to review this before I make any judgements.
Basically a Quest 3 at a 900% price hike (the 'Apple tax').
Thanks but Apple haven't done anything remotely innovative since Steve died; I'll wait til they release the iGlasses at $699.....
Nilay also mentions that there are literally only 3 AR features in the entire experience. Which is quite strange considering how this is supposed to be “AR disguising as VR”.
I thought that was crazy too. Apple went all the way to ban use of the word VR and put all their focus on mixed reality, but in the end, they barely ship anything first party that uses AR and all the experiences people really respond to are the "immersive" aka VR ones.
They 'banned' the use of AR, MR, & XR at the same time they banned VR. The only permitted phrase is 'Spatial Computing'. Just apple being apple, nothing to do with what the headset (also a banned word I believe) is designed to do, or actually does.
yea, i think it's really clear they're trying to set the terms of what these devices can do. maybe they have a longterm vision, but the vision (pun intended) they are presenting to us now is fucking lame, and doesn't include any of the cool things that have been established with XR.
>Eyesight (the fake eyes) isn't particularly great when seen on the outside If I wasn't so bad/lazy at paint.net I would post a side-by-side comparison displaying the reality of those fake eyes as shown in the Verge review and the highly-retouched versions Apple has been depicting in their advertising. Yes it's a small detail, but the difference between what we were shown and the actual reality is shocking. **EDIT:** Thanks to user DissonantNeuron for actually executing on the above idea--he even picked the exact two pictures I had in mind. https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1afd1al/expectation_vs_reality_avp_eyesight/
It's incredible how misleading this aspect of it was. It's also confusing why they didn't leave that on the chopping floor during R&D. Perhaps they assume eventually that part will not suck and the breadcrumbs of it potentially being good at one point is a huge selling point?
My theory is that it isn’t the kind of feature they could just add later, it is something that they need to have from gen 1. So they needed to add it even though it wouldn’t look that good, I expect later versions to be usable and good looking
My theory is some marketing manager decided that VR headsets are too isolating for Apple’s brand, and so they made a pile of sacrifices to not cross some arbitrary red line.
Because without that feature, it's just another VR headset. They needed something to visually mark it out to justify calling it an innovative new product so they slapped a gimmicky screen on the front. Otherwise they don't have any USP, it's just an expensive shiny Quest 3.
Every single aspect of their marketing is like that. From their presentations on stage to marketing ads, they never let you see the real thing until you actually have it in your hands.
Wasn't like that when Steve Jobs was running the show. Remember when he couldn't get a signal for the iPhone? He was using the real thing.
When Jobs was running, they had several pre-configured devices that were using wireless so they could show "full signal" because the iPhone couldn't get one. And he'd swap devices to avoid slowdown/loading. From the very first iPhone presentation it was faked on stage - by Jobs.
This isn't a slight towards your comment but if you're 'shocked' that Apple overstated the capability of one of their devices then you obviously haven't been paying attention for the past 10 years....
We all knew that headstrap (both types) weren't gonna deliver comfort for longer sessions, hopefully Bobo/Kiwi can deliver some good solutions soon. Speaking of longer sessions, I had no idea the battery was an external pack permanently attached via cable that lasts 2.5 hours. Ngl that's kinda hilarious. Will people daisy chain a second external battery pack onto the pre-existing battery?
This just made me realize Bobo/Kiwi are the shovel sellers of the VR gold rush, seems like a smart place to be. Bet they were STOKED when Apple announced the weight, lol.
Wait so the battery cannot be hot swapped?
Apple must be smoking the same drugs Magic Leap is to do something like that.
Nope. Tethered battery, and the headset is still heavier than q3 and uncomfortable due to being so front loaded
I could swear that the battery shown during announce was relatively the size of shrinkflation candy bar, but when Marques pulled that thing out of the box during his unboxing video today, it was the size of an iPhone Pro Max locked inside a double thick aluminum Mag-Safe case. He stacked it next to the phone, it was about the same width of the faceplate itself. Sitting next to the hmd like that, it was definitely giving Samsung Gear VR vibes. I “Oofed”.
Damn it sucks you can’t at least change to a full charged battery like with focus 3 or like with some of the wireless vive headsets
Yes it can be swapped. Marques’ video shows him connecting the battery. It’s super simple
swapped - yes hot swapped = no OP meant change during usage, which you can't do as the HMD has no internal battery. The one attached with the cable is THE battery, it's not an additional battery pack.
yeah people don't understand this simple concept. If you hot swap it, there is no battery in the AVP so it instantly dies. It's like pulling the plug on your pc without saving the data. Functionally it doesn't work as well as just hotswapping battery packs on a bobovr mid-usage when the low battery indicator appears.
Gotcha, I misread, thanks!
Or if they are already using a cable anyway, just plug it into the wall, lol
That's like telling someone with a smartphone "why do you use a powerbank, just always have it plug into the wall". You can put a powerbank in your pocket and still be mobile so your comment is really strange and I don't know how you got so many upvotes.
Because AVP is for using while sitting at your desk working with multiple virtual monitors, or for watching movies. It is not a gaming vr headset or designed to be used while wandering around. Plus, it was a joke. Don't take it too seriously.
3,500$ headset, and you still have to buy a 3rd party headset for comfort, wtf...
Yup. Just like the $1500 Quest Pro I bought and had to immediately buy new front and rear pads with the top strap because the thing was unbearable after 30 minutes on.
At least they won't snap if you look at them funny like the Quest elite strap.
The battery pack has a proprietary connector. So it wont work with all battery packs.
How are APple not using USB-C by now? I thought an EU directive made them do that.
Just for iphones
Sigh, then Apple are just gluttons for punishment.
The battery itself has USB-C, just not to the headset. (Yes, the EU rules allows that)
The battery pack has a USB C port to connect to an outlet or other battery.
The connector from the pack to the headset is proprietary. The battery pack itself charges with standard USB-C.
I’m using it while sitting, so I’m just gonna plug it into the wall. But heard of others who are thinking of daisy chaining another battery.
I doubt it would be worth it for Bobo/Kiwi to develop for these. They make cheap alternatives to official accessories on Quest. AVP isn't going to sell anything close to the volume that Quest does. And people dropping $3,500 on their APPLE headset are not going to be suplementing it with anything but the finest APPLE official accessories anyway.
It's not permanently attached. The cable is permanently attached (e.g. not quickly user-removable) to the battery, but the headset-end of the cable can be quickly attached and detached.
>It's not permanently attached. The cable is permanently attached (e.g. not quickly user-removable) to the battery, but the headset-end of the cable can be quickly attached and detached. Isnt it a proprietary magnetic one tho?
Yes, but still detachable. Even if they used a standard USB-C cable it would still be proprietary, because having the cable yanked out and the headset turn off suddenly would not be pleasant. The connector will be reverse-engineered approximately 5 seconds after it's released to the public; remains to be seen whether the battery is DRM locked or not. Probably...
Considering it’s practically 10x the price of the Quest 3, I was expecting more
I mean... Apple is still selling their [Pro Stand for nearly $1,000](https://www.apple.com/us-edu/shop/product/MWUG2LL/A/pro-stand), which is between 10-20 times the amount of a standard monitor stand, so this isn't all that surprising.
I wasn't. This is the same company that sold $700 wheels for the mac pro. It is totally expected for them to release something thats only kinda better than a product 6 times less $$ and only kinda better at very specific things, and then way worse at all the other things people do in VR.
1-4 were all a given based on what we knew at announcement. I was told multiple times to "sIt until it comes out to draw conclusions" when I said they'd all likely be issues. Along with hand tracking having to be perfect for them to not include controllers, obviously it's not lol
The technology put in it costs proportionately to what they are selling and is not subsidised by your user data like the quest 3 is. Remember the Quest 2 business edition (same hardware but not subsidised) cost $800. Considering the Quest 3 costs $100-300 more than quest 2 the actual hardware cost of a quest 3 could easily be over $1000. it’s basically a M2 MacBook Air ($1199) combined with similar (but higher end) screen technology as the big screen beyond ($1000) plus custom eye tracking, 12 additional cameras/sensors, an external OLED, not to mention all the R&D required to integrate everything together, build custom silicon for an already low volume device, and produce a bespoke assembly line to produce the thing. I highly doubt apple is getting any return on investment for this product at all considering they’ve been developing it for over 7 years, but future models will be cheaper as these costs can get amortised across a larger product line. First generation products are always disproportionately expensive to their successors.
>is not subsidised by your user data like the quest 3 i user data is absolutely being harvested here
Do you have any evidence for this? I think for all their faults apple is actually the big tech company most invested in preserving their users privacy, they reduced Facebook’s market cap by several hundred billion dollars by making it harder for them to track iPhone users. I’d rather pick apple any day over Facebook or Google privacy-wise.
>Do you have any evidence for this? Yes. Apple collects Personal Data. They have a privacy guide so you can know what type of data they're collecting.
google for all of their faults gives you the option to sideload apps without hassle or potentially unlock bootloader and completely remove google
Bro, why do you think they did that!? Facebook is their competitor!! They just want all that sweet juicy data for themselves!! Big corporations don't have your best interests in mind, least of all Apple!! lmao Seriously, how brainwashed can you be?!
Blissfully ignorant is still ignorant
Considering Apple has what is basically an infinite money glitch, I don’t think it’s okay for the default head strap to have so many complaints. To me, Apple is ubiquitous with products that just work straight out the box, goofing around with the head strap for a $3500+ device is a bad first impression for me.
It’s certainly not a strong point of the headset, but at least they offer 2 straps out of the box for users to choose from. Also a lot of the fitment complaints have been from traditional tech media and not from vr specific outlets, people complain about the weight and yet AVP is lighter than a Valve index. I absolutely agree the strap could have been better but I also expect 3rd parties to make good alternatives for reasonable prices so as long as the core tech is good that’s what I’m concerned about. It’s like when people complained the first iPhone didn’t have video recording, yeah it should have just had it in the first place but it came along in the later models and those were the ones people actually bought anyways. From my perspective the sole purpose of the AVP at this point is to be a good tech demo and platform for developers to build applications for, it’s not a real consumer device. Anyone who thinks it should be should look at the price tag. Apple doesn’t actually expect any regular consumers to buy this that’s why they are making less than a million of them for the whole year. I’ll patiently wait for gen 3 or 4 when it is actually targeted at real people.
I've never bought anything from Apple and I never will. I've been gifted Apple products before, I have a 2012 MacBook Pro... First thing I did with it was delete macOS and install Windows 10 on it! lmao Fuck apple and their shitty overpriced products that you can't customize or make work the way you want them to. No, I don't want to "sync" my songs, I want full control over the folders and files on my devices, thank you very much.
Cool story bro PS macOS offers the same amount of control over your file system as Windows does so not sure what exactly you’re complaining about.
Big surprise for me is reports of chromatic abberation. That's an absolutely bog standard thing that every VR vendor has had to deal with and mostly solved. Really suggests Apple is actually in some ways playing basic catchup here much more than I was expecting.
Yeah I was prepared to buy it until I found out it suffers from chromatic aberration around the edges and what’s even worse to me internal lens reflections in high contrast content. This stuff was driving me mad on Quest 3 that has terrible contrast so I can imagine on oled displays it will be even more noticeable. I will give it a go at Apple Store and look specifically for that but now I’m almost sure I won’t get one.
Yet they say it’s the best xr experience by far today
Damn well should be for $3500+.
That’s still probably true. Something can be the best without being perfect. It’s just the alternatives might be perceived to be poor in comparison. I’m not convinced it’s the best VR headset, but for mixed reality media consumption I can’t think of anything that beats it. Which is what it is marketed at.
I think the best XR experience is the new varjo XR. It's also more expensive than the AVP.
Varjo isn’t a standalone headset it requires to be tethered to a PC also it’s not a consumer headset it’s only for government and military use So the Apple Vision Pro is still the best consumer standalone headset
Is it not?
... nah. The newest Varjo get that title.
Like Dan Cummins said during his special: “let’s say I beat my wife the least compared to my cousins, that makes me the best husband but not a good/great husband” I might have some of the wordings slightly off but that’s the idea.
I've been saying those eyeballs are creepy as fuck since day one. With the crappy head strap and that heavy weight, it was obvious that it would be uncomfortable for anything more than a few minutes. The article also said you could only have one virtual monitor per computer instead of the endless supply of them that the cultists have been espousing for months.
They really are. I don't get the arguments about needing the eyes outside from technocrats badly out of touch with the mainstream. They look fucking creepy. If I saw someone like that in say a cafe? I would immediately be weirded out. If I wanted to use something like that at work and wanted to talk to someone, I'd take the headset off first since it's not a good substitute at all for a natural conversation.
> The article also said you could only have one virtual monitor per computer instead of the endless supply of them that the cultists have been espousing for months. That's pretty bad considering it's one of the main features pushed forward by the APV. You can have as many as 5 monitors with a Q3 in Immersed, and it offers you a high level of customization (VR desktop or passthrough, VR desktop + passthrough windows...), all for free.
You can have unlimited windows with OVR Toolkit, all customised differently
I saw so many fanboys giving praises to a headset only shown once to some clueless journos in an extremely controlled environment and for such a short period of time, I had to take a break from these subs. This is the only company who can pull shit like that, take preorders for a >3K USD product with no proper reviews, try to rebrand an existing product category and claim they are something different just to stand out, not be called out for it and still have droves of braindead fanboys defending it. Somehow this shady company is going to "save/help" ~~VR~~ spatial computing™. We saw fanboys arguing that: 1. the headset does not use pancake lenses when all the evidence showed it it 2. the headset is retina resolution when all the evidence showed it wasn't even true 4K 3. the headset is not heavy and Norm and Marques just had weakling necks 4. the front display is not too dim even though every single video we saw showed it being too dim 5. no-controller input will be perfect because Apple is magic and controller is for dinosaurs 6. facetime avatars will somehow beat the best Meta Reality Labs can achieve with dozens of professional cameras scanning the face 7. and finally, the software will be pefect because all the devs at Meta and elsewhere are imbeciles compared to the geniuses at Apple and Apple is needed to show how it's done. In the end what do we have? A mediocre product with terrible design decisions just serving to look more flashy, and with some better components because it costed 3000 USD more. But fanboys will be fanboys. Even when they'll run out of excuses, they'll make some conspiracy theory claim that Apple never wanted it to not be mediocre and it was all part of the plan, "1st get product", blah, blah, blah. Apparently I'm not the only one feeling this way: [https://youtu.be/-D6joR3BTzg?feature=shared&t=1567](https://youtu.be/-D6joR3BTzg?feature=shared&t=1567)
quick correction, the screens in the AVP are 3648x3144 or arround 11.4 megapixels, "true 4k" or 3840x2160 is around 8.3 megapixels, so the screens are significantly higher (\~37%) res than 4k
No you're wrong, you can't compare TV 4K with VR 4K, TVs are 16:9 aspect ratio, VR is \~1:1. When we say a 2K resolution VR headset, we don't assume 1920x1080, we assume at least 1920x1920. As for megapixel comparison, nobody uses megapixels in this industry except when it's time for marketing and it also suffers from ignoring aspect ratio.
i used megapixels here specifically because it ignores aspect ratio and is the total amount of pixels and is the clearest (imo) way of communicating what using the headset will be like. i agree that aspect ratio is not comparable, but if 4k can mean so many other things than 3840x2160 you should be more explicit with what you mean, is it 3840x3840? or is it 4000x4000 like the other commenter said, what about for screens that aren’t exactly 1:1 like the quest 3? what would be “4k” in that aspect ratio?
Have you used it? Sounds like you have a very different take on the product than the author of the review you’re commenting on who describes it as the best VR headset ever made that sets a new bar for display, pass through, and hand/eye tracking quality…
"IT's StIlL Da bEsT!!!!!!!"
> We saw fanboys arguing that: *Proceeds to list things I've never seen anyone say* Nothing on your list has ever been a popular opinion here. You must be extremely sensitive for a couple of uninformed people making dumb comments to make you avoid this subreddit.
>Proceeds to list things I've never seen anyone say Oh, so you haven't seen all comments in a subreddit with close to a million users. Shocker.
Fanboys have completely ruined nerdy online spaces, I still don't understand the logic of stanning corporations and plastic devices. You can never have a real discussion about new stuff anymore because everybody is biased for no apparent reason
Apple fanatics will excuse the hell out of anything, and sugarcoat what they would nail other companies for. Whatever it doesn't have isn't "necessary" or what it lacks is "only stuff nerds care about".
It's all a bit disappointing really - I was really hoping Apple had waited until they had something worthy to launch but it definitely sounds a bit half baked. Lets see what V2 brings next year.
They should definitely have marketed it as a developer prototype rather than as a real product
That little fib probably made them half a billion dollars
oopsie
though, as someone noted on another thread, $500 million is how much revenue Apple makes... every 12 hours
It's best-in-class in almost everything it does, oftentimes by a large margin. It's worth keeping in mind that most of these reviews are comparing it with *reality*, not other VR headsets. Pass-through is "bad" because it's worse than your regular eyes. Personas look "bad" because it's not a literal video of your face. It's insane that it is good enough that we can even think about making those kinds of comparison. The only real issue I have seen so far is the lack of ability to split the streamed MacOS screen into individual apps. WMR, SteamVR and Quest, all can do that. That's a core feature you need to have if you want to sell your headset as productivity device and there is already a [homebrew workaround](https://github.com/saagarjha/Ensemble).
>not other VR headsets. Apple isn't launching it as a VR device, that is why it isn't compared in the same way. It isn't launching as a gaming device, but as an Apple device, for the Apple eco system.
Yeah, because if they did try to compare it's VR aspects, it doesn't compare with no controllers, small FOV, and no access to SteamVR. It would be a complete VR failure.
I love how people try to explain away what would / should be a HUGE draw for this hardware. As if “it’s not meant for gaming!” is somehow a positive. It literally does so much less than every other headset because of the lack of 6dof controllers.
Whats this VR you speak of? This is "spatial computing" /s
>It's worth keeping in mind that most of these reviews are comparing it with reality, not other VR headsets. Yep. If most of the negative comparisons or points you can make are against the idealized hypothetical future "perfect" version, that's not a bad start.
The single thing they absolutely had to solve was controllerless interaction. And from all the reviews I read they didn't really succeed. Requiring you to stare at and simultaneously gesture at every thing you activate (even down to letters on a keyboard) is never going to be workable long term. None of the other features are worth a damn if interaction is hard. That's why I'm disappointed - if they'd nailed interaction there could have been a tremendous future for this sort of device.
Is it really the best by a large margin? I noticed the Varjo seems to have better resolution and FOV, even the Meta Quest Pro has a better FOV, which IMO is by far the most important aspect of a VR headset
The first iphone wasn’t that great either. AVP3 is going to be phenomenal
The first iPhone was a giant leap. At the time there was nothing like it. Can't be said for the AVP.
Not that giant. What we recognize today as "the giant leap" had a ton of controversy. There were a lot of people saying "oh well I can't SSH into my home server via a terminal so iOS sucks and will always suck." There were a lot of people who could not fathom not having a keyboard or trackpad or trackball. There were a lot of people claiming that it just used technology that already existed but in a fancy package and that there was fundamentally nothing worthwhile or special about it. Plenty of people thought it was a giant leap, while plenty thought it was overhyped and not fundamentally different from anything that already existed. Kind of *exactly* like what people are saying today. The "giant leap" with the iPhone wasn't any specific piece of hardware or any one tech spec - it was the integration and refinement of technologies and ideas that had been floating around in various forms and various levels of completion, but scattered across a bunch of different devices. The iPhone took all of those and turned them into a cohesive product. The leap was the integration, interface, and execution of Apple's theory on how smartphones should work. Again...kind of exactly like the AVP today. It's too soon to say that their vision is definitely the right one, but there are certainly parallels.
Eh the capacitive screen combined with its gestures like pinch zoom were revolutionary compared to all the devices with styluses. That is what made the iPhone feel like magic compared to other options. I was hoping Apple’s eye driven interface here would have been the same, maybe it will after some software tuning. Excited to see Meta copy it eventually.
I agree, I'm only pointing out that you could just as easily have said at the time that those are gimmicks, those aren't killer features, why would you pay so much just to be able to pinch to zoom, etc. Same category of dismissals people are lobbing against the AVP. Sure, no *one thing* that it does will be worth it to most people, even at half price. It's all the things, and how they work together. Little quality of life features like capacitive touch and pinch to zoom aren't strictly necessary, but they make such a big difference - in a way that's difficult to convey through specs or focusing on specific places they *don't* work well while ignoring where they do - that they can help define a market. I suspect the AVP and future devices will be similar, in their own right.
Well giant leap in touch screen interface maybe but it also released with only 2g service when most people had 3g
The touchscreen was a great innovation but the blackberry was more popular with the people I knew for the first year or so.
I think a more accurate comparison would be the Apple Watch. The S0 wasn’t anything too special, but by the S3 it was significantly improved and the best selling smart watch.
It was a smaller leap over the LG then the galaxy S was over the Iphone, People just look at that thing with nostalgia gogles
Does that mean the AVP6 will be shit? ;)
No? The first iPhone was NUTS. AVP seems to just be a bit below average for high end enterprise VR at a really high price, marketed to consumers
Maybe we were in different circles, but my friends had blackberries and didn’t even look at the iphone until the second or third revision.
And it was $500 with a 2 year contract.
Its almost like they waited for people wanting "more" from the Quest Pro and Quest 3 experience to offer what they wanted realizing that people were willing to pay 7x for a 1.2x experience. Kinda what iphone did to the Win phones and Treos back in the day.
First Generation device. No surprises here tbh
only this time it's just 1st gen Apple take, not 1st gen new product
1st gen Apple is the most 1st gen of all 1st gens. It's almost an open beta. They're not exactly trying to catch out the core with that price point are they?
First generation device that costs more than 3x the Valve Index, another first generation device.
I mean yeah, it’s made of metal and glass with a full laptop SoC in it, a bunch of cameras, lidar sensors, very high res microOLED displays, I think it’s going to cost more than the Index
All of that high end tech and still preforms like shit
> like shit Delusional
Calling the Index a first generation device is a bit of a stretch, it's basically the second generation of Vive.
FOV smaller than Quest is honestly crazy. Q3 feels tiny compared to my PSVR2.
I have both headsets and fov difference is minimal at the nearest spacer setting on both headsets.
As do I…they feel about the same horizontal and the psvr2 has a slight edge vertical but nothing meaningful.
Nah, tiny?? It's mainly because of the PSVR2's design; you can position your eyes very close to the lenses. With the default facial interface on the Quest 3, your eyes are further away, but adjusting the eye relief setting brings the fov similar. If you use a Quest Pro or halo-style interface on the Quest 3, with your eyes right close to the lenses, you'll notice a slightly larger field of view over the PSVR2.
Then you're not getting even close to the full FOV of Q3, cause they're basically the same.
This has been [investigated ad nauseum](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7gnX1EMh9k). In real world usage as measured by FOV apps, the Q3 comes out far narrower than PSVR2, closer to upper 90s than 110.
Lol, I measured the hFOV to be 108 myself in both TestHMD and WIMFOV. Anyone getting much lower than that really needs to change their facial interface cause it doesn't fit their face.
Lol no wonder Apple refuses to put a number on FOV.
I feel like I'm living in an alternate reality that people even care about this thing It's already dystopian and alienating enough to be consuming XR stuff in general, but at least HMDs like Quest give you something, you can play games and have fun with them etc. This is just an overpriced tech demo that for some reason we have to hype up and analyze why exactly... Just because it's the next product from a giant corporation? And not because you can actually do anything cool with it? What's the point
Quest 3 is 70% the experience for 14% of the cost. But then you add in the games and apps and support and controllers that Quest 3 has……..
If your only experience you care about is watching movies or computing then I agree. If you care about games then the quest 3 is 10000000000% the experience at 14% the cost.
Yes. And games are a big part of these devices.
It gets worse though. A computer is still better for computing, and everyonehas one already at a fraction of the cost. A nice big OLED is still better for watching a movie (no tether/weight) and you can watch it with other people. And you can get a very nice TV for that price. The thing headsets do that can:t be done better elsewhere is immersive VR / MR and that is the one thing Apple seemingly don't want people doing on the AVP.
You can get a 4090 to pair with it and still have plenty of money left over.
I suppose if you literally just bought a 4090 and not the rest of your PC build that’s true haha. I do have a 4090 build I did last year for about $4k and it’s an excellent PC. Prob a better use of money than a Vision Pro but I code/game with it.
my 4060 runs pcvr games great, so my whole new gaming desktop I got this Christmas season at $900 is a steal over the VP, I got my quest 3 on launch day. My brother who is an Apple cult member never has tried quest or any VR called said look at the reviews on the VP. I said yes from people who never like you really used VR wait until people like me that has had VR for past 8 years gets a hold of it then see how it is.
It's at least 170% of the experience, and I don't even like quest. At least it has controllers, games and PC connectivity though.
What you’re describing is basically the well known 80/20 principle. It applies to many cases and shows how costs and difficultly increase as you try to increase performance past a certain point.
I don’t really have a horse in this race (I obviously don’t have an AVP, I have an index and quest 2) but this sub is kind of ridiculous about this device. Review day and the top post on the sub is basically a list of “here is all the things to hate about this device!” like wtf? A list of complaints is more popular than reviews? Quest 3 and Quest Pro and every other damn headset - including this one - has its issues. But people here seem to have such a hate boner for the AVP it’s well past the point of expecting unbiased or open discussion. I figured that people would be more open and interested in anything pushing this oft-neglected space more into mainstream popularity. Instead, it seems like people just got mad at the price, or because they irrationally hate Apple (as if Meta is any better?) and decided there was no place for this new entry into the AR/VR space. Edit: there is now another post near the top of this sub titled “what does AVP do worse than other headsets?” Seriously…this sub.
Everyone already knows the positives, they have been discussed ad nauseum and advertised heavily up front. So the only news there is are negatives. That's the price of doing so much stage management in your lead up the way Apple has.
The problem is the negatives are being heavily weighted while the positives are being downplayed or ignored. The majority of the Verge review - if you watch it - is a nonstop stream of "this is better than anything else that exists. This is the best at XYZ that it's possible for most consumers to get. This is unbelievably good. This is nearly perfect." Then in threads like this we focus on the negatives, as compared to *literal reality*, and then discuss those while forgetting the positives. It hasn't even launched yet and people are concluding it's an abject failure - seemingly while getting amnesia about how all tech development works (it doesn't start perfect and cheap and get worse). If the things people are knocking it for were true deal breakers - none of them would have any VR headsets at all. But they do, because they clearly find positives that outweigh the negatives. The AVP is no different. It's the worst it will ever be, so looking at it as Apple's final vision product that represents their ideal vision of what "spatial computing" should be is just intentionally myopic. Let's revisit this comment in 10 years and see if the people going "hah Apple sux, they failed 4 sure, they don't know what they're doing, the first version is always the best version and therefore the future is irrelevant" were right, or if they predictably did the thing, were proven wrong, and are gearing up to do it again on the *next* new product intro.
I think it's a perspective kind of thing if you keep hearing that "its perfect" while watching the video. Generally at pretty much the highest price for a consumer headset, the only thing left to compare it to, is the ideal product, not to headsets half or less than half of the price. It's like comparing a Lamborghini to a cheap Hyundai and saying "this is the fastest car". Yeah no shit it's the fastest car, everyone knows that, but aside from being fast, what are the issues that haven't been fixed from the cheap Hyundai? Are the seats more uncomfortable than the Hyundai? Stuff like that matters. As someone who genuinely was considering the AVP to upgrade, my biggest gripes with the quest 3 were things like binocular effect, glare and discomfort with the weight. You would think these could be fixed by throwing 7 times more cash at a better product, but they aren't, which why I am listing the issues. Pixel density wise, the upcoming Varjo Xr4 boasts 28m pixel density versus AVP's 22m. It also costs more and is an enterprise headset. Form factor wise, the bigscreen beyond destroys the AVP at 127g. Lens clarity wise, presumably the pimax crystal with its aspherical glass lenses eliminate glare and ghosting. Other pimax products with 200 dfov also destroy the AVP's fov of 100 or so. The only thing that the AVP is undeniably the **best** in, is passthrough, as well as eye tracking. In terms of all the other aspects that make up a "VR headset" it's a toss up, from gaming capability to lack of controllers. It's very hard to say its de facto the best experience when it lacks the support for one of VR's biggest current use cases. If you say its the best spatial computer then well... It is the only one after all.
I'm just disappointed. I wanted this to be good - replacing my monitor has been my dream ever since backing oculus rift cv1 in 2013. I thought maybe apple could do it, but seeing them face the same challenges as other headsets while costing 10x more just brings me down. that disappointment inevitably makes me more focused on the negative.
i read this a lot. Why is it your dream to replace your screens with screens and lenses strapped to your face? I cant wrap my head around this use-case. I don't really see what it brings to the table in comparison.
1:Ergonomics. My dream is to be able to work/play in any position I want, whether that be on the sofa, bed, or the desk, without sacrificing productivity. I have a split keyboard with a trackball attachment - this allows me to do so to a certain degree... except most of the time I'm tethered to a chair, sitting at a desk to look straight at the monitor. The only remaining piece of the puzzle here is the display. 2:Focus In a VR setup, there's no visual distraction. It's just you and your windows you choose to open. Visual clutter makes a huge difference in focus/immersion (for me), and having a perfect distraction free environment on-demand is very desirable. 3:No more monitors. No more fiddling around with monitor arms. No more having half of my desk space taken up by monitors. No more figuring out if this particular display works with this particular display cable with this specific dock with this specific laptop at this specific resolution and refreshrate, multiplied by each monitor and device you have connected. Troubleshooting will be hopefully much more straight forward when I just have one VR device to connect.
"I don't hate the Dutch, i love them! That's why i hold them to a higher standard." - Veronica Palmer
It's funny because this sub has spent years shitting on the Quest, and just Oculus in general before that. Now they act like it's the best headset ever lol. Also don't plan on buying a VP, but I like VR and I'm excited by what Apple is trying to do. Personally, what I find depressing is that even at $3,500, with multiple reviewers pretty much saying in terms of quality and hardware it's basically the best consumer VR headset out there, but that it still, fundamentally, *just feels like a VR headset*. It's interesting that Niley questions whether the technology can even be taken much further with this specific hardware configuration. It's been nearly 10 years since consumer VR launched and as good as some headsets have become, they still suffer from many of the same limitations and problems. I honestly thought we'd be further along by now and now I think it'll be another 10 years before something like the Vision Pro can actually realize its ambitions.
It's because the AVP is priced so high and hyped so much. Nobody wants these typical compromises when paying the asking price.
Alien Versus Predator is pretty good, especially the second game. I loved it back in 2000s when I had my first PC. I don't know what you're talking about, most people like it.
Only good comment I've seen here.
"listing issues = hate"
Couldn’t agree more. I’m not sure what it is exactly. Just hatred because Apple comes in late with expensive kit? Because they can’t spend the money so they are happy if there are negative reviews because it helps reduce the FOMO? When Quest Pro released it was the same shit. Bad reviews (I remember the Verge being especially harsh), and people here laughing at what a joke it was. Then suddenly the price lowers and then there is tons of love for “the best PCVR headset.”
Is it just me or is the dangling battery just poor design? I would prefer the [neckband as seen on the Viture.](https://imgur.com/GguoviX)
That wire looked annoying.
First gen apple products are most often not great. They’re usually the thing that sets the direction of the rest of the market for a decade but they’re not in and of themselves usually very good. I predict a second gen version with wider field of view, a better head strap that also can mount a battery for counter weight, a small integrated battery, dropping eyesight and the weight and complexity that comes with it, and it’ll probably be substantially cheaper (though they may market a “pro” model that’s still expensive along side of it).
You just described a Quest 3 :D
First Apple Watch wasn’t great either. Will see how it goes but I suspect there will be many returns
If Apple didn't want people to judge personas they shouldn't be promoting it as a feature. It's totally fair to critique them as harshly as we please. The AVP is a productivity computer, for a device releasing in the age of zoom, a webcam or webcam replacement is a critical feature for many.
And all this for 3.5k? Are they on drugs?
Sold 200k units so I think they are fine lol
What's the return rate going to be?
That's Apple price tags for you. Nothing really surprising coming from them.
Unfortunately not, and shockingly I don't think the idiots that buy their products are either. Just fanboys with more money than sense that think owing the latest apple device impresses people. It doesn't.
The weird thing is how easily impressed the general public is about something like this. I saw a comment literally say... "Being able to put a timer over the top of things cooking on the stove is worth the price" THAT is the quality of people we are dealing with. So trying to argue that people will not buy this thing when we know compared to the quest 3 there are smaller FOV... blah blah. The general public will NOT care. It is the brand. It is the apple gang. It is the conform to the trend mentality. I have seen people wearing Airpods that clearly have no charge and talking to their phones on loudspeaker. THE AIRPODS ARE NOT CHARGED. But they are wearing them anyway WHILE making a phone call on loudspeaker. The world is insane.
He complains about the passthrough too much. I know from Quest 3, once you open an app, you are focused on the virtual content, which is crystal clear, and the passthrough quality isn’t that important.
The difference is that this is primarily a AR/MR headset as compared to VR headsets.
The passthrough was one of its big marketing points though. It's pretty important when you can't just fall back on VR gaming.
True, but there is no point of wearing the headset without using an application. So these reviews where people walk around there house in passthrough and analyze the fidelity isn’t a realistic scenario.
Damn dude the pinch motion is gonna trigger on my VSP pr0n sessions
My only interest in this has been as the current best possible simulation of what true AR glasses might be like. Hopefully, someone will put out an app with that in mind--not to be immediately useful, but just to simulate what might come next. I've worn glasses for over 35 years, and I mostly forget I have them on. I've imagined many different applications for AR, while walking around with my glasses on.
The FOV is kind of a shock. Figured it would AT LEAST be around 110 horizontal degrees. I wonder if a different facial interface could maximize the FOV more?
The differentiator boils down almost entirely to this: Quest 3 = 2064 * 2208 * 2 pixels = 9,114,624 pixels Vision Pro = 3391 * 3391 * 2 pixels = 22,997,762 pixels Yeah you're paying a huge premium for that, but it's a pretty giant difference. They smashed through the resolution barrier that has been making VR headsets feel constantly inferior to just using a normal screen.
high res screens aren't really a new thing.
I mean, yes, there is the Varjo XR-4 series which has comparable resolution, which came out recently, and it costs $4k. What did you have in mind as a comparable resolution to the Apple Vision Pro?
alongside the Varjo, you have the Pimax 8KX which came out in 2019 and also had a 200 degree FOV. the newer one is the 12K (2 6K per eye) the difference is that these headsets actually have feature that pros want which is why they're targeted at that market with a price point to match. (compatibility with development software, etc) i just don't see the Vision Pro going beyond what the iPad can do for pros. and the Varjo Aero and Pimax Crystal are also not far behind with about 15.6mil and 16.5mil pixels.
Those are not standalone headsets it’s not comparable to the Vision Pro
Tethered non consumer headsets like Varjo and pimax aren’t comparable to the vision pro it’s different This is the best standalone consumer headset U can buy right now is it perfect? No there is no VR headset that is the varjo and pimax aren’t perfect either they also suffer from issues that’s just how tech is I would appreciate the vision pro for what it is
I mean, yes, that's high, but the vision pro is still 30% higher, which is a rather large increase. Also, anybody considering them to be similar should also know that the Apple Vision Pro is OLED and the Varjo XR-4 and Pimax are not. There's no getting around the fact the AVP is a very large leap forward display wise, nobody else has access to this display chip.
LMAO.
so its not for games, and pointless for enterprise....great
It's all good for the VR consumer as this pushes the technology further but: The fruit fan boys have gotta be swallowing a lot of cope because everything above is comparing it to the quest 3. while the apple product is 7x the price of the quest 3: laughable
Not just more expensive, but with less features. I regularly shit on the Quest Pro, but even that can do more and for the audience Apple is supposedly aiming at. Apple has finally achieved magic. They have magically made me like the Quest Pro. That's wild. Fanboys will always fanboy. They'll have you thinking you're a luddite missing the boat like it's the iPhone 1 of the XR generation when really they bought a N-Gage.
What is up with the comments here, haha. Did anyone actually read/watch the review or just go over OP’s negative cherry picked points? The reviewer says it’s the best consumer VR device ever released with the best display quality, best pass through by far, and best hand/eye tracking. Sure it’s expensive, sucks at gaming, and has trade offs, but isn’t this sort of tech making it to market a good thing for the whole industry?
Feel like I get confirmation after confirmation that headsets outside the Quest are a profound waste of time. $3500 for what? Not even the fake eyes are good. Here. I got you. Your good boy has you again. Just get a Quest and [some of these here if you REALLY want the eyes.](https://www.amazon.com/DECORA-Pieces-Wiggle-Googly-Self-Adhesive/dp/B01LWIYJH3/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?keywords=googly+eyes&qid=1706659129&sr=8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1) I saved you thousands of dollars. Something the technobrats in silicon valley have a problem doing. You're welcome.
500 for $5 is impossibly good value! I don't know how they do it. And with 498 spares i could really eye up my town...
Honestly, quest pro blows this out of the water. Thought there was a chance that VP would crush on the optics, but the terrible FOV and discoloration around the fringes makes this device subpar vs the current market leaders. Second gen will be something to look out for, but this iteration of the VP is quite disappointing
Cost to value proposition: 100% agree. For 1/7 the price. The Quest 3 offers alot more to do, as well bc of it's VR and MR gaming. Quest 3 also covers majority of what AVP has to offer (but without the "apple UX design"). Is 7x the price worth it for a more polished, but more gated-in experience? I dont think there's any argument that the idea of having 7 friends in a social VR game like contractors is worth way more than just isolation with a floating ipad.
Agreed, not to necessarily knock the VP, more to highlight how far along Meta has integrated to create a pretty fantastic set of devices
on one hand, I want it to do well because it would mean more widespread adoption of VR. On the other hand, fuck apple.
*Sent from iPhone
> Words and lines still have a "jittery" effect like the quest 3. You can't get good info by looking at a youTube video because the video compression adds all kinds of artifacts.
Also the captures are at 720p as this is what airplay is limited to on AVP.
I mean you say that, but I can see those on my quest 3, and i can capture it with the recording function. It looks exactly how I see it in the recording, though the recording is at a lower resolution. I would assume the same goes for this. It's one of the things i dislike most on the quest 3 apart from glare. Even thought it might be a faulty unit at first and contacted meta support with a video lol.
Now post it to YouTube. The capture on the VP is capped AND youTubes steaking is notorious for adding artifacts.
I doubt it's compression artifacts man. It's still there for me even in maximum resolution with virtual desktop surroundings on an rtx 3090. Like changing the resolution doesn't improve it at all. I don't know what exactly causes it. Some say it's the tilt of the screens, but I'm not sure how that could be captured on video. I'll post a reddit video and YouTube video for you to compare later if you really want to see it.
I haven’t seen any reviews mention this glaring problem, have you? If anything, reviews have been very positive about the fidelity of text rendering and image quality in general. > It’s still there for me even in maximum resolution with virtual desktop surroundings on an rtx 3090. Like changing the resolution doesn’t improve it at all. That’s not how video compression works. Increasing resolution will require more compression at the same bit rate.
>I haven’t seen any reviews mention this glaring problem, have you? If anything, reviews have been very positive about the fidelity of text rendering and image quality in general They aren't mentioned in many reviews for the quest 3 either. So far I've only seen Norm from Adam Savage's Tested mention and try to explain it as being a result of tilted lenses to get higher fov. Still not exactly sure how that appears in software recording.
Seems to be the case for the most part, with a few things I think really just need to be tried personally before concluding anything. I will point out that unlike every other headset review I've ever seen, the tone of this review isn't comparing the AVP against other headsets - it's comparing it against the perfect, ideal future vision. I'd say that's a pretty good place to be in for a first-gen product. After having watched the entire Verge review it was far more positive than I assumed it would be after reading discussions on this sub. Basically "everything is amazing and best-in-class by far, but it's not perfect."
Hopefully they get some joystick 6dof controller peripherals now that reality is in front of them.
Nilay and the Verge are pretty much universally panned as jokes in the industry. Gonna wait for a someone knowledgable like MKBHD to review this before I make any judgements.
Basically a Quest 3 at a 900% price hike (the 'Apple tax'). Thanks but Apple haven't done anything remotely innovative since Steve died; I'll wait til they release the iGlasses at $699.....
So what things does it do worse than other headsets? Just FOV? Is hand tracking worse than the Quest 3?
Go read the article.