Apple Vision Pro will be available beginning Friday, February 2, at all U.S. Apple Store locations and the U.S. Apple Store online.

I honestly doubt this will take off, but it’ll be interesting as a tech demo for what AR/VR can be at the highest end.

  • garretble@lemmy.worldEnglish
    352·
    1 year ago

    Apple Vision Pro will be available starting at $3,499 (U.S.) with 256GB of storage. Pre-orders for Apple Vision Pro will begin on Friday, January 19, at 5 a.m. PST, with availability beginning Friday, February 2.

    So 256GB for all those movies and games you’ll want to play on that long plane ride they keep showing as a way you’ll definitely use these.

    I’m in the Apple ecosystem pretty hard, but we’ll really just have to see what rich folks do with this thing.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.worldEnglish
      195·
      1 year ago

      How many movies do you actually need to store on the device itself? Apple has been all in on streaming stuff so you’d only ever need to actually download stuff when you’re planning on going offline.

      That said for it’s price that’s hilariously small storage, but simultaneously peak Apple.

        • jdf038@mander.xyzEnglish
          136·
          1 year ago

          Does it matter? Download a few movies for an 8 hour flight. Not a big deal on any device.

          Also I still think this product is horrendously overpriced but it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.

          • Telodzrum@lemmy.worldEnglish
            144·
            1 year ago

            A full-Bitrate HDR 4k feature film is more than 50GB. These use up space real fast.

            • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.worldEnglish
              73·
              1 year ago

              And, you’ll want it full quality if you are gonna be watching in 3D. Since compression messes with the depth in 3D movies by not compressing the left eye and right eye view both the same as they should be to look right. It doesn’t know or take into account what the other eye is currently supposed to see. It treats both sides as individual flat pictures, and only makes sure they make sense with the frame before and after.

              Until someone makes a whole new compression algorithm with 3D in mind, it’ll dramatically lower the quality of the depth compared to how much it lowers the quality of the video.

              • Klear@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                Also 4k is not nearly good enough for VR. You need a lot more clarity. I know it because… reasons.

                • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  4k is low for 360 or 180 degree content. But it’s still fine for virtual flat content.

                  The current generation of headsets are the first ones where 4k content is just as legible on a virtual screen as it is in real life. There are less physical pixels, but with the “temporal antialiasing” that comes from the subtle movements of your head frame to frame, a 4k screen looks just as clear in VR as it does in real life on a Quest 3 or equivalent.

                  But yes, for stuff that takes up your whole field of view, especially on a poorly optimized viewing program not specifically using the proper software layers system specifically tailored to each headset for the best clarity. 8k still isn’t “enough”, but it’s the best that can be easily done so far for longer or streaming video.

                  Either the program for viewing those videos needs to be properly optimized, or we just have to put up with drawbacks for now. Even properly optimized video players for VR have other drawbacks. Like they can only play files you have on hand, not streaming. But the videoplayer built into Virtual Desktop can at least give an example of how much nicer those other video players could look if they put in the effort.

    • thehatfox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      103·
      1 year ago

      This is going to be an interesting launch. There’s been rumours about low production volumes so availability may get pushed back much further than February. Which will make judging the initial impressions harder when there are so few devices in peoples hands (or on heads).

      I’m also a bit surprised by the lack of build up from Apple. There’s been no push on whatever third party apps are going to be ready for this. The Apple Watch had two dedicated events in the lead up to launch. Even the press release seems a bit basic, most of the imagery seems to be reused from the first events press materials.

      This is the biggest product introduction since the iPhone but it’s being handled rather quietly.

      • garretble@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        1 year ago

        I feel like this is the version they’ll put in the goodie bags for celebs at the Oscars to let them create a bunch of buzz. And then next year there will be a version that only costs $2000 or something - still expensive but less out of reach for mortal humans.