Apple reportedly ’accelerating’ entry-level Vision Pro — and it could cost $2,000 less

[u/bsoci]

https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/vr-ar/apple-reportedly-accelerating-entry-level-vision-pro-and-it-could-cost-dollar2000-less

[u/Ianthin1]

$1500 still puts it out of reach for a huge number of people. Wonder what features get cut?

[u/cmsj → u/Ianthin1]

My guess would be: the weird external screen, unify the R chip into an M chip variant, speakers (ie AirPods required), the fancy headband.

[u/Floppernutter → u/cmsj]

They just stick some googly eyes on the front instead

[u/Ianthin1 → u/[deleted]]

I would.

[u/SgtBaxter → u/[deleted]]

I’ve done that to every oculus device I own anyway

[u/housecore1037 → u/cmsj]

I’m not sure they’d remove the outer screen. The whole ethos with the Vision Pro is about trying to maintain connection to the world, and I don’t see that changing with the rest of the Vision line. It is low hanging fruit though to cut costs.

[u/pinkocatgirl → u/[deleted]]

It seems to me like the balance could be fixed if they just put the battery pack in the back of the head strap

[u/Joshawott27 → u/pinkocatgirl]

I haven’t seen a Vision Pro in person yet, because I’m a Brit and it hasn’t launched here, but do we know if the battery pack generates notable heat?

[u/Kwpolska → u/housecore1037]

The outer screen is underwhelming and useless according to reviewers.

[u/fivetoedslothbear → u/cmsj]

I think the silicon is the least likely cut. Apple doesn't owe any third party profits or royalties on the silicon; they can really control the costs there.

I have a Vision Pro, and I can say that it's probably running on the edge of its capability with the M2/R1 combo. It's doing a lot of processing, and if an app goes crazy on CPU time, the display stutters. The R1 is absolutely necessary for keeping latency down.

If they cheap out on the processors, then it's just another crappy VR headset with nausea-inducing lag, and not worth the price.

I think the most likely price reduction will come from the displays. They're bleeding-edge technology at bleeding edge prices. Tech prices have a curve like a hockey stick, as performance goes up, the price increases gradually until it hits a "knee" and then it skyrockets. The displays are in the "skyrocket" price of the curve.

[u/cmsj → u/fivetoedslothbear]

I deliberately excluded the displays because my guess is that Apple wants them to get cheaper and the only way that will happen is if Sony makes more of them. Switching to cheaper displays means the AVP screens stay painfully expensive. I take your point though, that would be an easy place to save a bunch of cost.

FWIW it’s absolutely possible to merge the R and M chips and still have dedicated hardware in there for the pass through and sensor fusion, in a way that doesn’t get interrupted by the main CPU cores. The only reason to not do it is if the combined chip ends up needing more silicon area overall, because area is thing that drives chip cost. If they can combine them and share things like power delivery, making the combined are smaller, and only pay one chip packaging cost per headset then it’s likely worth doing.

[u/[deleted] → u/cmsj]

they definitely wouldn’t unify the R chip. the biggest advantage that that system has over the quest products is the quest products, when the CPU gets pinned, lose frames making the user incredibly nauseous (ask me how i know)

[u/cmsj → u/[deleted]]

They wouldn’t have to give up the independence of motion tracking from the main OS, it would really just be about reducing the overheads of interconnecting the two chips, and possibly sharing some components between the two.

[u/[deleted] → u/cmsj]

yeah, there’s still issues with having those chips combined into a single piece of silicon. that’s how the quest 3s does it, and the performance is suboptimal in some cases. wouldn’t pay more than i did for the quest 3 for that experience.

[u/cmsj → u/[deleted]]

Meta’s design choices are not an indictment on the general concept of sharing silicon between multiple discrete components.

[u/heepofsheep → u/Ianthin1]

Apart from the external screen… I’m not sure what they could cut to bring the price point down without significantly degrading functionality.

[u/no_regerts_bob → u/heepofsheep]

They don't have to necessarily cut anything. They may be able to lower the cost of the components dramatically by committing to purchase massive quantities. Maybe the process to produce the components can be improved by the manufacturers, or the assembly process can be optimized, etc

[u/cmdrNacho → u/Ianthin1]

remove all the metal and glass, replace with plastic. this is beneficial for weight as well.

[u/sp3kter → u/Ianthin1]

I bet they do something like iup with it

[u/PrettyGazelle → u/Ianthin1]

Nothing significant. They'll just release a new Vision Pro and sell the current one as the non-Pro with some minor tweaks like not including the Solo Loop band.

The linked article doesn't say they are trying to do-away with anything, just lower the cost of production by looking for other suppliers.

[u/JustinGitelmanMusic → u/Ianthin1]

Macs have been regularly in the $1500 range for a while now? The only reason that would be out of reach is if it has no value to someone and they are purely buying it for the geeky thrill. At which point, $100 might be out of reach for excess spending beyond needs for many people.

[u/Brap_Zanigan → u/JustinGitelmanMusic]

I got a free Daydream from Google with the purchase of my pixel 1 I think and while it was fun I wouldn't spend 100$ on it at the time. Did all the fun stuff and could watch Netflix on a big screen.