"Meta’s optics and contrast may indeed actually be better, but this is almost certainly not a definitive comparison — too many variables around casting compression and window buffer resolution. Does Immersed use the supersampled layer option with a window above the display resolution? (with an sRGB texture for gamma correct filtering, of course)"
> I see different processing and artifacts happening when natively rendering on the AVP (such as when running Excel), displaying a saved bitmap from a file on the AVP, displaying a bitmap image on a web page, and mirroring the content of a MacBook. With each test image, seeing how it will display differently with each display mode is an adventure.
https://kguttag.com/2024/02/16/apple-vision-pros-avp-image-q...
I'm all for objective analysis, but what if the slight blurriness helps with the immersion? And what's the problem with the displays not being as precise as 1080p monitors if the immersion is good and people are satisfied with the image?
I decided against buying the Vision Pro but for other reasons, mainly the OS being a fork of iPadOS instead of MacOS, the impossibility to use it as a monitor like the XReal and many others, and the weight.
The core problem is that taking a photo with a camera isn't a valid comparison to the optics of the human eye.
Unlike digital cameras which are designed to bring colour into focus on a single plane (the sensor), the natural human eye produces a mixture of focal points dependent on wavelength of light, falling before and after the macula. The display+lens proximity to the cornea and natural crystalline lens needs to be accounted for; it's not going to be perfectly planar to the eye, and that is going to cause blurring which will change dependent on how the digital camera rig is arranged as well as lens selection.
Analysis based on photos taken through the viewport is an insufficient approach to draw conclusions as they don't account for phenomena present in the human eye. A secondary factor is that certain types of blurring may be intentional to offset the development of myopia. (It could even be to help prevent the appearance of aliasing.)
One can take "thousands" of photos of VR goggles, it doesn't make them an ophthalmologist. It makes them good at taking photos of VR goggles.
I can see 5 lines, not some amorphous blob.
We know that a 5K MacBook Pro feed is being aggressively downsampled to 4K.
Why wouldn't you just open browsers on both devices with a test image.
Only Apple can get people to pay 3.5K to be beta testers of a devkit/prototype.
> The AVP image is much worse than a cheap monitor displaying high-resolution, high-contrast content. Effectively, what the AVP supports is multiple low angular resolution monitors.
Waiting for the early adopters and apologists to say again how the AVP is so magic and revolutionary it's gonna replace their 5k monitors for daily work. Maybe that "daily work" they were talking about is reading emails for 15 minutes/day and watching a 30 minute episode on Netflix on the couch after wich the headset gathers dust.
Meanwhile they also get that halo effect where they establish it as a premium product. If they later drop the price or let inflation slowly reduce the difference, that effect will remain.
I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state.
Same how Appel hasn't yet released a folding phone even though Android OEMs have been doing it for 5 years already. The tech is just not yet mature for a flawless implementation that Apple is know to deliver even if it arrives later to the market than the competition.
That said, if I had to buy a headset today, I'd go with the Vision Pro. All the technical stuff aside... I simply don't trust Meta enough to buy a piece of hardware from them. I will pay 7x to buy from a company where I'm less worried about their intentions.
But then at what kind of tasks is the AVP better at in order to justify its existence/purchase?
Given the current state of the software - both visionOS itself and available apps - it’s simply not a mass-market device. I believe it will be in 1-2 iterations, but we’re not there yet.
For what it’s worth, I say that as someone who loves their AVP and owns several other headsets including the Quest 3 an Pimax Crystal. I’ve had my AVP for jsut over two weeks and would comfortably estimate that I’ve spent over 100 hours with it on.
Might as well call them iSores.
That's not a task you can use it for. It's just a feature.
>it’s simply not a mass-market device. I believe it will be in 1-2 iterations, but we’re not there yet.
My point exaxtly. I was only talking about the present device and what it doe. Not what it can do in the future iterations.
The iPod wasn’t as good on paper as the Rio or Rune. Cost a LOT more too.
The original iPhone wasn’t great, but it was good enough to capture the imagination. It certainly wasn’t cheap.
The Series 0 Watch was also pretty ordinary, especially when compared to other smart watches. Expensive too.
Same with Siri, the HomePod and Apple TV, but these haven’t quite hit the mark. Probably not failures (except maybe Siri), but not in the best of Apple category.
All of these early products were for the bleeding edge. They provide the feedback and insight into how the product is going to be used.
Apple’s special ability is to find the essence of what a good product needs to have, quickly. Sometimes they don’t nail it first time, but they excel at finding out and then iterating until it does.
Even assuming that, what does it matter? He’s not around and times change.
Because they can also change for the worst. This product is less Apple iPad and more Apple Newton. Both were great innovative technical achievements of tablet computers in their eras, but only one was a smash hit with the mainstream public.
- Apple III (1981)
- Lisa (1983)
- Puck Mouse (1998)
- The Cube (2000)
- iTunes phone (2005)
- Apple TV (2007)
The Vision Pro is on par with the level of quality as the original iPhone or Apple Watch. And has sold better than both.
The original Apple TV, like the iPod hifi, always felt like a hobby project that really needed some decent investment. I think they couldn’t really figure out what they needed it to be, but someone important wanted to have an Apple something in their home.