[cramjabsyn]

The quest 3 does essentially the same at roughly 10x lower price. I say that because I think the price tag makes AVP a non starter for vast majority of families with kids. I think its out of reach price-wise even for a lot of professionals without kids tbh.

But also this is the first version. The original iPhone didn't have copy/paste or the ability to shoot video.

The software will continue to get refined and the hardware will get smaller. It'll eventually fit into roughly standard sized glasses and I think that's going to change everything

[mrcwinn]

I own a Quest 3 and on day three of AVP. I can assure you, the difference in quality - and therefore movie-watching experience - is night and day between these devices. Watching a movie in AVP is outstanding. This device doesn't shine in all cases, but it shines there.

It's like saying, "Sure, Ferarris are cool, but my VW can also drive to the track." (No shade thrown to VWs. Love the boxy, 90s-era Jetta.)

Usual disclaimers: Is it for everyone? Probably not. Is it expensive? Very. Is it perfect? No. "Essentially the same?" Not at all.

[cramjabsyn]

Yeah the VW/Ferrari analogy is good, because as two cars they do essentially the same thing.

Also I think the group of people who are shelling out $4k for the AVR are going to be heavily biased to justify the expense. I don't think there's a $3000 difference between the two devices. Maybe $500.

[bnolsen]

You can buy a LOT of TV for what you paid for the AVP, and other people can watch with you!

[crazygringo]

There's no difference in detail for 1080p content.

There absolutely is for 4K content though.

If you're happy with 1080p the Quest is perfectly fine. Not for the AR experience of a screen in your living room, but for a VR experience watching a floating screen in space.

[GeekyBear]

> The quest 3 does essentially the same at roughly 10x lower price.

Only if you claim that having "a screen" is the only metric that counts.

> Apple is very proud of the displays inside the Vision Pro, and for good reason — they represent a huge leap forward in display technology...

They also look generally incredible — sharp enough to read text on without even thinking about it...

The displays are the main reason the Vision Pro is so expensive — they’re at the heart of the Vision Pro experience and what makes the whole thing work. You are always looking at them, after all.

https://www.theverge.com/24054862/apple-vision-pro-review-vr...

[bemusedthrow75]

> The original iPhone didn't have copy/paste

I eventually did get iPhones, but vividly remember being laughed at -- as a Mac user -- for choosing the little white HTC Magic with a trackball because I prioritised the idea of actually being able to edit text (which we now do on iPhones with a force-touch gesture not much more elegant than that trackball and lacking some of its nuance.)

[kshacker]

There have to be limits to miniaturization. I have seen the industry evolve from 8088 chips to now; and what we have now was likely unimaginable then; but aren't we going to run into limits eventually?

When I look at my Apple Watch, even that feels too big (thick) to me, so thinning AVP is quite far off IMO.

On the other hand, all the research to make things thin will finally pay off when it happens. If Vision Pro can go half its weight and double the battery (even if detached like now), that will probably be the point when it becomes a serious platform.

[deepGem]

There is a counter argument to this - the iPhone shape did not change, the shape evolved. Apple is never known to change shapes or geometry, they evolve from the same geometric construct.

The AVP fitting into standard sized glasses like swim goggles is a possibility but it'll be more like Cyclops visors. I am not sure if it will ever achieve a Rayban form factor.

[m3kw9]

A card board home also can be argued to do essentially what house does. Please do not write such arguments

[jsbisviewtiful]

> I think the price tag makes AVP a non starter for vast majority of families with kids.

I don't have kids and the price is still outlandish for my household of well-earners. I would never pay more than $2k for this.

[bemusedthrow75]

I think it’s that and also more than that.

For example I would like, and could reasonably afford, a decent technical camera rig and a 45mp+ digital mirrorless camera to go on the back of it. I know how to use it properly to get value from it.

The outlay for this is more than the Vision Pro by a small margin.

But there are many things I probably should spend that money on before that.

The Vision Pro, as amusing as it surely is, is way, way down the road beyond even that purchase.

Having the money to spend on something — whether a personal or business expense - means engaging with the opportunity cost of spending the money.

And even if you comfortably have the money, you still question the value.

What is going on right now is a lot of people have a Vision Pro on fifteen day approval and they are all feverishly writing blog posts and tweets to explore every possible way that they could get other people to validate their impulse purchase. Because that’s what it is. Unless you’re going to build an app for it —- go all-in on that ecosystem —- it’s a weird thing to prioritise spending $3500 on.