Apple Vision Pro is heavy and inconvenient to use. It has glare and poor FoV. It gets hot and has a short battery life. There are plenty of reasons why you might not want to use it, even if it is actually pretty nice for watching movies.
>It has glare and poor FoV. It gets hot and has a short battery life.
FOV is the most unforgivable. I can't for the life of me imagine who is deciding that 110 is sufficient. I would give up just about every single other specification in a headset for 180°+, and I have owned just about every consumer headset released since DK2.
> I would give up just about every single other specification in a headset for 180+.
I'm having a very difficult time imagining how that would be physically possible.
I'm actually curious what the highest theoretically possible FOV is for a conveniently sized device strapped to your face, and how close we are to it already.
Valve Index is 130°, which is right at the line of becoming acceptable and achieving presence. I seriously can't believe Apple released this thing with functionally no difference to the $500 Quest 3 beyond higher screen quality.
And it's only 103° FOV vertically. (For comparison, the Quest 2 is 93° vertical.)
But I'm very happy to know 159° horizontal is possible. From more research online, it seems that the wider the FOV, the more distortion you get, so there's a tradeoff?
Also it seems very clear that Apple prioritized resolution (sharpness) over FOV. For a given display panel, the more you spread it out, the blurrier it gets.
Just for the sci-fi fun of it, I'm trying to imagine the mechanism of the laser projector featured in Snowcrash.
How about a microscopic lenticular array in a close-fitting shell over each eye (kind of like swim goggles) or even in a special contact lens. The goal is to have appropriate lenses in front of the pupil. This lens array can then be targeted by extremely precise laser projectors, exploiting the lenses to illuminate parts of the retina that would not otherwise be visible from the same projector location through a naked eye.
Generally speaking I don't think a product this expensive can iterate quickly, because even if you want to spend $3500 once, that doesn't mean anyone wants to pay the upgrade costs and face the depreciation on selling the old one.
