There is no comparable tech.
You can't get just a headset with comparable resolution, without the high quality low latency passthrough or the computer), for meaningfully less.
Comment on YouTube and Spotify Won’t Launch Apple Vision Pro Apps, Joining Netflix
ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 8 months agoI’m just genuinely confused by the value proposition. $3500 seems to be about a 1000% Apple Tax over comparable tech. I’m sure the interface will be slightly nicer, but the Venn diagram of those who need the unique benefits of Apple’s product overlapping those who have this much money to spend has to be very small. For business or personal use.
conciselyverbose@kbin.social 8 months ago
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Do you have an example of comparable tech?
ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 8 months ago
To be clear, my value question and note about the Venn diagram is that there may be a specific configuration of features only on the Vision Pro, but “comparable tech” includes to me all of the standard VR/AR products out there that as I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong) can do 95% of what Vision Pro can do. So, the Quest line, the Vive line. Even the ultra high-end products I think are only $1500, aren’t they?
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I’ve got a Vive, it’s nice but I wouldn’t say it’s comparable to the Apple headset. It’s VR only, like Meta’s but Apple are trying to do both AR and VR. The biggest difference though is in the displays. The Vive is great for gaming but that’s about it. Movies don’t look to great and working with text is a horrible experience due to the low resolution and the screen door effect.
Apple’s is probably the first “affordable” headset that can be used as a replacement for a monitor.