Aaand, In Other News...

[Wrathbone]

Ehhh, there is an argument to be made for that. The increased space needed between your eyes and the device's lenses to allow glasses to fit does alter the geometry to the point that it makes the device perceptibly larger and lowers the field of view for all users.

That's pretty much what PSVR2 has done as I understand it, and all the talk around it is about how good it looks rather than how the visible area could have been bigger. It's a fair compromise that allows people with glasses to wear it without issue.

Having to buy prescription lenses for a headset is such a daft solution to me, not just for the upfront cost (which as you say, will likely be extortionate), but also because prescriptions can change even within a couple of years. I don't accept that having to potentially buy multiple sets of overpriced lenses for the sake of some extra peripheral vision is better than being able to just wear the damn thing and getting used to the device being slightly visible on the edges.

It's a moot point, though, because there's no way I'm going to be able to afford or justify several thousand pounds on one.

[Alan]

Yeah I’d very much like to have a wee shot.

[Raid]

Having watched the same video earlier, yeah, I'm in agreement. I genuinely like the device itself, but the price instantly means I'd never even consider it. And that's before you get to the fact that really you're going to need other Apple devices to make the most of it, and I *hate* the way Apple locks off its ecosystem - there's zero point considering Facetime features when Apple refuses to let Facetime run on Android devices.

I'd think about it if it cost £500. It's going to be eight times that price. I get that there's a lot of premium components and materials, and you're also paying for the software development, but this is a device for rich people. Even as someone willing to spend premium prices for tech, it's absurdly expensive for what it'll do.

[Achtung Englander]

The news we have all been waiting for

https://news.sky.com/story/male-masturb ... s-12897870

[Achtung Englander]

Having watched the same video earlier, yeah, I'm in agreement. I genuinely like the device itself, but the price instantly means I'd never even consider it. And that's before you get to the fact that really you're going to need other Apple devices to make the most of it, and I *hate* the way Apple locks off its ecosystem - there's zero point considering Facetime features when Apple refuses to let Facetime run on Android devices.

I'd think about it if it cost £500. It's going to be eight times that price. I get that there's a lot of premium components and materials, and you're also paying for the software development, but this is a device for rich people. Even as someone willing to spend premium prices for tech, it's absurdly expensive for what it'll do.

I do not see the need for it, except maybe for 3D home video recording which is cool. You are still using it for computing, something you can do just as well, if not better on a 2D screen. I also do not want to be cut off from the rest of the world when I am watching TV or a movie. I suppose the tech is seriously cool, but from a practical point of view I'll just stick with reality reality.

[Raid]

It's not really about practicality, at least not for me. It's a toy, it's not going to significantly change what I'm doing, it's just a more interesting way of doing it. That's why it's an order of magnitude more expensive than I think it should be.

[Wrathbone]

I also do not want to be cut off from the rest of the world when I am watching TV or a movie.

I'm the opposite in that respect, as I tend to wear noise-cancelling headphones while watching movies these days. But while Apple's VR would be visually more immersive, their weird directional audio solution is not going to be anywhere near as immersive as my headphones, especially when the neighbour's kids are making a racket or heavy traffic is going by.

I'm also not convinced that watching a movie on it will look better than a high quality TV playing a 4K disc, which can be achieved for a fraction of the cost.

The one thing that sounds genuinely impressive and futuristic is the ability to take 3D photos and videos and then play them back like they're in front of you, which is very Minority Report. But how often am I going to take videos of things I want to play back? Practically never.

[Alan]

Will the next, next iphone have 3D cameras? Nobody will film with the headset!

I have watched a couple of movies in VR, once while I was stuck in a bed for a week after minor surgery and being on my back, feeling like I was looking at a massive screen on the ceiling was pretty great. It is fatiguing on the eyes though and I wouldn't want to do it in the summer. Could be neat on aeroplanes if it weren't so "look at me". How about a future where everyone is stuck in a 3' by 3' unlit cubicle with only their headset on, think of the productivity it would give to our machine overlords.

Its also the exact price of Hololens so there is that

[Drarok]

I'm also not convinced that watching a movie on it will look better than a high quality TV playing a 4K disc, which can be achieved for a fraction of the cost.

With over 4K per eye, I wonder if the brain will see that as better than 4K, or just the same. Either way, I can't see it being worse than a physical 4K screen.

Its also the exact price of Hololens so there is that

Yeah, similar to the ridiculous pro monitor which was similarly-priced (or actually miles cheaper) than similar products from other companies. These products aren't for everyday folks (yet? ) but for niche professional use and are priced as such. I did enjoy the video of the audience gasping when the price was revealed though.

[Wrathbone]

I'm also not convinced that watching a movie on it will look better than a high quality TV playing a 4K disc, which can be achieved for a fraction of the cost.

With over 4K per eye, I wonder if the brain will see that as better than 4K, or just the same. Either way, I can't see it being worse than a physical 4K screen.

It’s not the screen that’s the problem, it’s the source. The only streaming service that comes close to disc 4k quality is Disney+, and that’s only for certain films and it’s not comprehensively better. If you’re mainly streaming Netflix films then yeah, it’s not going to look any worse, but when we’re talking about a $3500 device we should be talking about the pinnacle of quality and in that respect it can’t realistically compete with the quality of a high-spec TV playing a 4k disc. My TV’s panel was about the best you could buy for films at the time (and still isn’t far off the best 2 years later) and it cost me £1200. My 4k player cost £180. I could buy the same setup for my bedroom and still have a grand or so to spare compared to Apple’s VR.

And yes, I get that it does a lot more than just films, but to me (considering the above) that feature is largely pointless outside of a few limited scenarios. It’s a very expensive gimmick.

[Raid]

I've watched relatively short YouTube videos in VR, with a browser window that would normally occupy half of my ultra wide stretched so that the video player was the size of a 100 inch TV. The brain does an impressive job of ignoring all of the issues of resolution, and the sound quality from my Reverb G2 is probably better than my PC speakers, but I wouldn't want to watch a full movie like that. It just isn't comfortable because of a combination of eye strain and lack of ventilation in the headset, but then this is a significantly cheaper, gaming focused headset designed to completely shut out your environment so that you can focus on a visual environment. Apple's is probably better designed and suited to the purpose, and I wouldn't accept anything less than perfect comfort on something that costs as much as this.

As for resolution, I can't see how it could possibly be better than a 4k TV given that a sizeable portion of the headset's pixel count would be rendering either a virtual environment or displaying pass through video of your real one. The screen might be good, but it's still going to rely heavily on your brain interpreting what it's showing, which is one of the key parts of VR tech.

[Drarok]

My TV’s panel was about the best you could buy for films at the time (and still isn’t far off the best 2 years later) and it cost me £1200. My 4k player cost £180. I could buy the same setup for my bedroom and still have a grand or so to spare compared to Apple’s VR.

I mean… sure, but that's a massively flawed comparison. This is brand-new, cutting-edge tech. If you bought the first-ever LG 4K TV, you were looking at $20,000. Sony's was $25,000. Blu-Ray players were $1,000 when new.

Fair points about streaming quality, though with modern internet connections I don't think that's insurmountable these days. "4K Ultra HD" Blu-ray discs have a maximum bitrate of 144Mbit/s, which is available to a lot of people these days. Virgin start from 125Mbit, BT offer "gig" (900Mbps) connections…

Given Disney's Bob Iger had a section in the Apple presentation to talk about how Disney+ is a launch-day app for the headset, they could send full-fidelity 4K streams if they wanted.

As for resolution, I can't see how it could possibly be better than a 4k TV given that a sizeable portion of the headset's pixel count would be rendering either a virtual environment or displaying pass through video of your real one.

You can expand the virtual screen to take up the majority of the display so I'd disagree with sizeable… but you're probably right regardless.

[Wrathbone]

Fair points about streaming quality, though with modern internet connections I don't think that's insurmountable these days. "4K Ultra HD" Blu-ray discs have a maximum bitrate of 144Mbit/s, which is available to a lot of people these days. Virgin start from 125Mbit, BT offer "gig" (900Mbps) connections…

Oh, it's possible, certainly, but the overheads for streaming services (most of which are already desperately cost-cutting) mean that only headline films will get that treatment.

Also remember that vast swathes of America have very poor connection speeds, and it's ultimately the US market that will primarily drive what streaming services offer.

[Drarok]

Oh, it's possible, certainly, but the overheads for streaming services (most of which are already desperately cost-cutting) mean that only headline films will get that treatment.

Disney+ announces new $200/month tier for Apple Vision Pro™ users with Tru-Blu™ quality!

[Wrathbone]

HBO tried something along those lines. It... didn't go well.

I think what it boils down to in terms of films in VR is that people who favour convenience aren't going to pay through the nose for the inconvenience of a headset, and people who favour quality already have better and far cheaper options available to them. It's a dead horse.