Quest 3 AVP Halo

[roland.g]

I would not be in the market for the AVP. I just can't justify the expense for a gen 1 product, no matter how cool.

Now, at home we have a Quest 2 that I got for my son Xmas 2022. I've never really used it much but after demoing the AVP, I put it on a few times in the past week to check it out more.

The Q2 is certainly inferior, however, the interesting thing is that the AVP got me wanting to try VR and admittedly the Q2 just doesn't do it all that well, so I am now considering, even as a full Apple ecosystem user, the prospect of picking up a Q3. Call it the halo effect for Meta from the AVP. I can try VR for $500-700 or so. It's not Apple, but as MB states in his review, the AVP doesn't even tie to your iPhone, give you call notifications, allow you to answer calls, etc., to which I think that is one obvious area in which the ecosystem is just not complete enough when it certainly could and should be.

 

[Eugr]

Quest 3 is much better value for the price IMHO. And in some ways it is even superior to AVP.

For me, AVP is the first VR/MR headset I can actually use every day. I’m not a gamer, and while Q3 is a great device, it’s not quite there for working with text, or really any productivity. But it’s like 70% there hardware wise. The OS needs more work though.

 

[Piggie]

I have to agree with Mark Zuckerberg (and from all recent media is seems almost every non biased person does at this moment in time) in the statement:

"Right now, at this moment in time, The Quest 3 is the better product for MOST people"

It's hard to argue against that without sounding stupid.
If that's true in 6 months, 2 years, 10 years from now, we shall have to see.

But it would be frankly impossible to argue the opposite and say that right now the Vision Pro is the better product for MOST people, unless you are seriously deluded.

The fact is, right now it's down to Apple and the Devs to change this.
To bring the software out to make the Vision Pro a device that offers more people what they need/want
And for Apple to Improve/Change the software/hardware to again, improve the product.

 

[Jensend]

There really isn't much of an overlap in use cases, so I don't really think either one can be much of a substitute for the other. It's like comparing a Nintendo Switch to an iPhone.

 

[Piggie]

There really isn't much of an overlap in use cases, so I don't really think either one can be much of a substitute for the other. It's like comparing a Nintendo Switch to an iPhone.

Can't really agree with this as they are exactly the same product. Despite what apple would like us to think.
One just has more expensive individual components and it running slightly different software.
Fundamentally they are the same thing in the same way a reasonable priced car and a high end car is.
They both are the same thing

 

[sdynak]

I think you have to understand first what you plan to use it for. I have a Q3 and purchased after debating on the AVP. I just could not justify it. I have a Q2 and just can't use it. The resolution on the Q2 makes it not worth it to me. I got it used for $100 so can't complain.

The AVP is more of an iPad. If that is your use case then it makes sense. If you are more of a gamer than the Q3 makes sense. I am not a gamer and the Q3 while is less $ than the AVP.. probably is not the right product for me. But I can use Virtual Desktop and connect to my MBP or my Windows Surface Studio. I do not like Meta eliminated phone notifications. That was almost a deal breaker but so is $4K for the AVP.

If the AVP was Mac OS, I would have been able to justify it. I ended up with a new MBP instead and will wait to see if they improve on the AVP over time.

Plus.. if I spent the $ on a AVP, I would feel compelled to use it more and then my concern is isolating from my significant other. I'm just not ready for a divorce.

All comes down to the individual.. not the hardware. Your decision.

 

[Piggie]

Indeed, if I wish to drive to work which is 4 miles away and to the local shops 1 mile away, then for me needs a small car is perfect.
Buying a 4 litre BMW would be pointless.
They are both cars if course.

Both Meta and Apples VR headsets are the same devices.

Both have onboard compute
Both have screens you look at to simulate the real world with exterior cameras or to generate virtual imagery.
Both have hand tracking.
Meta also has controllers and controller tracking
Both have build in speakers.
Meta has a built in battery, Apple has a battery on a wire and both last about the same length of time.
Meta currently has vastly more software, and ver Hope Apple's headset will in time.
And of course we have the 7 times price difference.
Will be interested to see what another few years does to both products.

 

[Jensend]

Can't really agree with this as they are exactly the same product. Despite what apple would like us to think.
One just has more expensive individual components and it running slightly different software.
Fundamentally they are the same thing in the same way a reasonable priced car and a high end car is.
They both are the same thing

Yes, most of the hardware is fundamentally the same, except the controllers and eye tracking.

Meta currently has vastly more software, and ver Hope Apple's headset will in time.

Apparently, even the very few full immersion games on the Vision Pro just aren't very good, due to laggy hand tracking. There is enough difference in quality and functionality between Apple's hand tracking and Meta's controller tracking that the Quest will always be better overall for gaming, or anything where you are directly manipulating 3D objects, really, like 3D painting and sculpting apps. Also, a Quest can be connected to a Windows PC to run fully immersive apps. There are ways to connect the Vision Pro as well, but that will require additional hardware.

And Vision Pro's significantly higher resolution, eye tracking, and better OS will make it much better for the multiple floating windows use case. Quest can view movies like the Vision Pro, except there's no legal way to acquire 3D movies for the Quest, besides renting a handful that are available on the Bigscreen app.

 

[roland.g]

Quest 3 is much better value for the price IMHO. And in some ways it is even superior to AVP.

For me, AVP is the first VR/MR headset I can actually use every day. I’m not a gamer, and while Q3 is a great device, it’s not quite there for working with text, or really any productivity. But it’s like 70% there hardware wise. The OS needs more work though.

Curious your take on Text in the MQ3. One of the things I do think about is using a headset for browsing the web, reading articles, etc. I like that I could sit on the couch and view pages, go to ESPN, bring up sports highlights, etc., without going to my desktop and in an immersive enviro. I also like the possibility but doubt I would use the MQ3 as an external display for my Mac Studio or my Lenovo Yoga (work machine).

How is the MQ3 for text on webpages? Can it be scaled for easier reading. Or use a reader view?

I think you have to understand first what you plan to use it for. I have a Q3 and purchased after debating on the AVP. I just could not justify it. I have a Q2 and just can't use it. The resolution on the Q2 makes it not worth it to me. I got it used for $100 so can't complain.

The AVP is more of an iPad. If that is your use case then it makes sense. If you are more of a gamer than the Q3 makes sense. I am not a gamer and the Q3 while is less $ than the AVP.. probably is not the right product for me. But I can use Virtual Desktop and connect to my MBP or my Windows Surface Studio. I do not like Meta eliminated phone notifications. That was almost a deal breaker but so is $4K for the AVP.

If the AVP was Mac OS, I would have been able to justify it. I ended up with a new MBP instead and will wait to see if they improve on the AVP over time.

Plus.. if I spent the $ on a AVP, I would feel compelled to use it more and then my concern is isolating from my significant other. I'm just not ready for a divorce.

All comes down to the individual.. not the hardware. Your decision.

Really good take! I'm not a gamer though I could see myself playing a few games, but mostly using it for the web and watching content. Assuming Disney+, Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, (HBO)Max are all on MQ3. Can you watch ATV+ content via an app or other means?

 

[Eugr]

Curious your take on Text in the MQ3. One of the things I do think about is using a headset for browsing the web, reading articles, etc. I like that I could sit on the couch and view pages, go to ESPN, bring up sports highlights, etc., without going to my desktop and in an immersive enviro. I also like the possibility but doubt I would use the MQ3 as an external display for my Mac Studio or my Lenovo Yoga (work machine).

How is the MQ3 for text on webpages? Can it be scaled for easier reading. Or use a reader view?

Webpages are fine. Before I got my AVP, I browsed Reddit occasionally and it was OK. There is a pronounced screen door effect though. Same for mirroring the screens. It’s usable, but reminds me of CRT displays.

 

[Eugr]

Used my Quest 3 a little yesterday - besides lower resolution and the screen door effect, it's actually much crisper and clearer than AVP! AVP does a lot of antialiasing to make everything look smoother, but it makes text a bit fuzzy. It's also just amazing how good Quest 3 is for much lower cost! The lens edge-to-edge clarity and color uniformity is fantastic, compared to AVP. I wish AVP optics were like this...

 

[sdynak]

Really good take! I'm not a gamer though I could see myself playing a few games, but mostly using it for the web and watching content. Assuming Disney+, Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, (HBO)Max are all on MQ3. Can you watch ATV+ content via an app or other means?

I honestly don't use it to watch shows or movies so unsure of the native apps without checking myself.

I mainly use it for the web browser (which is pretty good) and Virtual Desktop. My spouse is using Pianovision recently. I do have a few games but they are just there for like when guests want to play. I don't subscribe to anything or really make many purchases.

It's hard to find time for me. I can't work in them and when work is over for the day, I prefer to spend time in shared space. Guess it's why I have a hard time for the AVP at the price point. The Q3 my work covered so it made it a easy decision.

 

[redninjarider]

Curious your take on Text in the MQ3. One of the things I do think about is using a headset for browsing the web, reading articles, etc. I like that I could sit on the couch and view pages, go to ESPN, bring up sports highlights, etc., without going to my desktop and in an immersive enviro. I also like the possibility but doubt I would use the MQ3 as an external display for my Mac Studio or my Lenovo Yoga (work machine).

How is the MQ3 for text on webpages? Can it be scaled for easier reading. Or use a reader view?



Really good take! I'm not a gamer though I could see myself playing a few games, but mostly using it for the web and watching content. Assuming Disney+, Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, (HBO)Max are all on MQ3. Can you watch ATV+ content via an app or other means?

You'll probably be able to watch some of your iTunes purchases on the Amazon Prime app if they are Movies Anywhere compatible. The Amazon app is acceptable but seems to be 720P max. There's no HBO app but Disney+ is available from the Bigscreen app (no 3D movies unfortunately). A Netflix app exists but it's 480P so it looks like garbage. Youtube app is actually decent. The best option is often using the Meta browser (it's not Chrome so it won't sync bookmarks, passwords etc.) or for better quality connecting to your desktop PC with Virtual Desktop and watching content that way.

 

[Macalicious2011]

An exciting rumour. LG OLEDs have G-Sync and Free-Sync support. It would we awesome if the Quest Pro could be plugged into a TV or Xbox. Quest 3 is $500 and Vision Pro $3,500 so there’s plenty of room in the middle for a Pro headset by Meta. I would happily buy a $1000 quest pro with 4k screens and HDMI support.

Another rumor suggests that Meta and LG are partnering for a Vision Pro competitor.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is South Korea-bound this week to discuss shipping a headset that incorporates webOS in 2025, Korean Economic Daily is reporting.

It’s not the first rumor that the companies might tag team the Vision Pro, and last month, LG confirmed that it was working on a new headset

The Verge

 

[Catasstrophy]

i bought two Quest 3s after trying out Vision Pro and I'm returning them both today. The dpi is too low, the screen door affect was too much for me, the environments are very fake looking, and passthrough is so bad (it's grainy and also does a horrible job at stitching the video together between the cameras for objects that are up close, so much that it was nauseating for my cat to walk across my lap or seeing my arms move). I'm sure it's fine for games and video but definitely not for the "spatial computing" aspect.

 

[Carac]

i bought two Quest 3s after trying out Vision Pro and I'm returning them both today. The dpi is too low, the screen door affect was too much for me, the environments are very fake looking, and passthrough is so bad (it's grainy and also does a horrible job at stitching the video together between the cameras for objects that are up close, so much that it was nauseating for my cat to walk across my lap or seeing my arms move). I'm sure it's fine for games and video but definitely not for the "spatial computing" aspect.

Spatial computer is a made up thing to try and sell a VR headset as something else. The only reason to use spatial computing is to justify spending $4k+ on something sold on the premise. Until the Vision Pro or whatever comes next is just a pair of <100gram glasses it will remain a marketing fantasy of Apple's to find a niche in their search for a new segment of consumer device that isn't saturated. It's a solution search of a problem, a problem its success depends on Apple convincing you exists. No one was going "you know, I'm pretty productive sitting at a desk with a keyboard and screen...but what if I had a pound and a half of metal and glass on my face with a wire running down by back that was always either giving me a headache or preparing to, that only lasts 2ish hours unless I'm also tethered to a wall AND requires a laptop I could just use on its own to have full functionality and costs more than the laptop and a EXCELLENT monitor...combined." A Meta Quest is a game console and that's all its good at because, after a decade of trying, that's the only use case for consumers to wear an HMD that has stuck.

The iPhone was a solution to a very real problem. Internet on phones sucked. It was awful. Anyone that tried to use a text based internet on a Star-tac knows. Desktop internet was possible on desktops because of the mouse but there was no good alternative to the mouse until capacitive touch came along. There is no comparable problem the AVP is trying to solve. If they had just focused on media consumption at half the price and weight they couldn't make them fast enough.

 

[Night Spring]

Spatial computer is a made up thing to try and sell a VR headset as something else. The only reason to use spatial computing is to justify spending $4k+ on something sold on the premise. Until the Vision Pro or whatever comes next is just a pair of <100gram glasses it will remain a marketing fantasy of Apple's to find a niche in their search for a new segment of consumer device that isn't saturated. It's a solution search of a problem, a problem its success depends on Apple convincing you exists. No one was going "you know, I'm pretty productive sitting at a desk with a keyboard and screen...but what if I had a pound and a half of metal and glass on my face with a wire running down by back that was always either giving me a headache or preparing to, that only lasts 2ish hours unless I'm also tethered to a wall AND requires a laptop I could just use on its own to have full functionality and costs more than the laptop and a EXCELLENT monitor...combined." A Meta Quest is a game console and that's all its good at because, after a decade of trying, that's the only use case for consumers to wear an HMD that has stuck.

The iPhone was a solution to a very real problem. Internet on phones sucked. It was awful. Anyone that tried to use a text based internet on a Star-tac knows. There is no comparable problem the AVP is trying to solve. If they had just focused on media consumption at half the price and weight they couldn't make them fast enough.

I agree with you that the VP is an imperfect solution to a problem, but for me at least, the problem it is trying to solve does exist. Namely, I want more display space. I don't have space for multiple monitors on my desk, and even if I did, I can't bring those monitors with me from one room to another. Also, what if I wanted a third or fourth monitor? There's a limit to the number of physical displays you can put on a desk.

If you never wish you could have more monitors than you currently have, or you never wish you could instantly transport those monitors somewhere else, then sure, VP is trying to solve a problem you don't have. That's okay, not every device is for everyone. For instance, I'm not interested in a device that's focused on media consumption only. You may be right that such a device has a bigger market than VP. Or maybe Apple is right and there are enough people willing to pay the price, both in dollars and in physical inconvenience of wearing a tethered headset, in order to have multiple monitors anywhere they go. We'll have to wait and see how it goes.

 

[Catasstrophy]

Spatial computer is a made up thing to try and sell a VR headset as something else. The only reason to use spatial computing is to justify spending $4k+ on something sold on the premise. Until the Vision Pro or whatever comes next is just a pair of <100gram glasses it will remain a marketing fantasy of Apple's to find a niche in their search for a new segment of consumer device that isn't saturated. It's a solution search of a problem, a problem its success depends on Apple convincing you exists. No one was going "you know, I'm pretty productive sitting at a desk with a keyboard and screen...but what if I had a pound and a half of metal and glass on my face with a wire running down by back that was always either giving me a headache or preparing to, that only lasts 2ish hours unless I'm also tethered to a wall AND requires a laptop I could just use on its own to have full functionality and costs more than the laptop and a EXCELLENT monitor...combined." A Meta Quest is a game console and that's all its good at because, after a decade of trying, that's the only use case for consumers to wear an HMD that has stuck.

The iPhone was a solution to a very real problem. Internet on phones sucked. It was awful. Anyone that tried to use a text based internet on a Star-tac knows. Desktop internet was possible on desktops because of the mouse but there was no good alternative to the mouse until capacitive touch came along. There is no comparable problem the AVP is trying to solve. If they had just focused on media consumption at half the price and weight they couldn't make them fast enough.

I don't agree with you, but you've definitely already made up your mind and that's fine. I actually do want a device that does exactly what Vision Pro does, including being able to have my Mac on a giant high res display (which looks like absolute garbage on Quest 3), and also be immersed in beautiful simulated environments to escape the hellscape of my daily life while I do so. For anyone else who hasn't tried it, Meta Quest 3 is a low resolution, low contrast "good enough" product that might be good for teenagers or college kids but if you've ever tried Vision Pro, prepare to be sorely disappointed and probably nauseated.

 

[surferfb]

I don't agree with you, but you've definitely already made up your mind and that's fine. I actually do want a device that does exactly what Vision Pro does, including being able to have my Mac on a giant high res display (which looks like absolute garbage on Quest 3), and also be immersed in beautiful simulated environments to escape the hellscape of my daily life while I do so. For anyone else who hasn't tried it, Meta Quest 3 is a low resolution, low contrast "good enough" product that might be good for teenagers or college kids but if you've ever tried Vision Pro, prepare to be sorely disappointed and probably nauseated.

This is off topic, but I am finding the environments very, very helpful when I need to focus on a specific task. Something about my brain just works better when I am “isolated” in the task at hand, and removing distractions has made me much more productive and has cut down on procrastination. I even hooked up a capture card to my Mac so I can pull in my clients’ Windows laptop and use it in the AVP. Just knocked out a 17 page report over a few hours this morning - would have taken me a couple of days in the past as I’d get sidetracked by Discord, iMessage, and Safari.

This is totally a me issue to be clear, but it was not a use case I was expecting.

 

[LinkRS]

i bought two Quest 3s after trying out Vision Pro and I'm returning them both today. The dpi is too low, the screen door affect was too much for me, the environments are very fake looking, and passthrough is so bad (it's grainy and also does a horrible job at stitching the video together between the cameras for objects that are up close, so much that it was nauseating for my cat to walk across my lap or seeing my arms move). I'm sure it's fine for games and video but definitely not for the "spatial computing" aspect.

Howdy, did you have any experience with a VR headset, prior to your use of AVP and Quest 3? I am not sure that it is correct/fair to say the Quest 3 has the screen door effect? I agree with (particularly if you are coming from the AVP) your description of the grainy passthrough and the stitching (warbling) issues from the external cameras. Compared to the AVP, well there is no comparison for passthrough. Now if you compare the Quest 3 passthrough with the Meta Quest Pro and the Quest 2, it is much improved and a game changing experience. The screen door effect is a function of seeing the spaces between the pixels, which for most folks is not an issue for the Quest 3, as it has sufficient pixel density to overcome this issue. What I suspect you are seeing, is the actual pixels, not the space between the pixels, meaning a lower-overall perceived resolution, which can happen when you get too close to a display, and what retina displays for other Apple devices solved. Technically this is not the screen-door effect. Screen door effect is a problem caused by the low pixel density of older displays, and when you put the magnifying lens in front of it, all the spaces are blown up, and this can be extremely noticeable. Some folks never noticed this, unfortunately I was one who immediately noticed it :-(.

I have used multiple headsets, starting with the original Oculus Rift (PC tethered) up to the current Quest 3, and witnessed the improvements first-hand. Currently when I step down to the Quest 2 or older, I see all the flaws that were solved by the Quest 3s new optical stack, and do not enjoy the older models. I imagine I would feel the same way going from the AVP down to the Quest 3, but I just wanted to post this to help prevent others from potentially missing out on the Quest 3 mainly to misunderstood terms . If you are going from no-VR to Quest 3, you will be very happy with it, assuming your expectations are in-check. I don't imagine anyone will be happy stepping down to the Quest 3 form the AVP, it would be very difficult.

 

[jigzaw]

i bought two Quest 3s after trying out Vision Pro and I'm returning them both today. The dpi is too low, the screen door affect was too much for me, the environments are very fake looking, and passthrough is so bad (it's grainy and also does a horrible job at stitching the video together between the cameras for objects that are up close, so much that it was nauseating for my cat to walk across my lap or seeing my arms move). I'm sure it's fine for games and video but definitely not for the "spatial computing" aspect.

I bought a Quest 3 after returning the Vision Pro and while I agree with your take on its quality compared to the VP, I'm willing to live with it at that price point. So far, lol. I still have time to return it if I decide I just don't need a device like this. I found the glare and limited fov on the Vision Pro to just be too galling for the price.

I found that my desire to use a device like this is pretty limited to just fooling around and the novelty. I didn't find the VP nearly comfortable and seamless enough to try to do actual work on it for more than maybe an hour so it was being relegated to a little entertainment here and there during my two weeks with it. For that kind of usage the Quest's price is acceptable for me but not the AVP's price. I do think I may jump back in on Gen 2 if there are significant physical improvements and the library of immersive content has filled out and makes it worth it for me then.

Just curious... why'd you buy two?

 

[Catasstrophy]

Howdy, did you have any experience with a VR headset, prior to your use of AVP and Quest 3? I am not sure that it is correct/fair to say the Quest 3 has the screen door effect? I agree with (particularly if you are coming from the AVP) your description of the grainy passthrough and the stitching (warbling) issues from the external cameras. Compared to the AVP, well there is no comparison for passthrough. Now if you compare the Quest 3 passthrough with the Meta Quest Pro and the Quest 2, it is much improved and a game changing experience. The screen door effect is a function of seeing the spaces between the pixels, which for most folks is not an issue for the Quest 3, as it has sufficient pixel density to overcome this issue. What I suspect you are seeing, is the actual pixels, not the space between the pixels, meaning a lower-overall perceived resolution, which can happen when you get too close to a display, and what retina displays for other Apple devices solved. Technically this is not the screen-door effect. Screen door effect is a problem caused by the low pixel density of older displays, and when you put the magnifying lens in front of it, all the spaces are blown up, and this can be extremely noticeable. Some folks never noticed this, unfortunately I was one who immediately noticed it :-(.

I have used multiple headsets, starting with the original Oculus Rift (PC tethered) up to the current Quest 3, and witnessed the improvements first-hand. Currently when I step down to the Quest 2 or older, I see all the flaws that were solved by the Quest 3s new optical stack, and do not enjoy the older models. I imagine I would feel the same way going from the AVP down to the Quest 3, but I just wanted to post this to help prevent others from potentially missing out on the Quest 3 mainly to misunderstood terms . If you are going from no-VR to Quest 3, you will be very happy with it, assuming your expectations are in-check. I don't imagine anyone will be happy stepping down to the Quest 3 form the AVP, it would be very difficult.

I think you're spot on and fair with your observation of my experience. I had not used any modern VR prior to my experience with AVP, and I believe what I was seeing is just the low pixel density in comparison and probably just assumed that WAS the screen door affect. It was perfectly fine when there was motion involved but definitely not for any long term text reading in my experience. I saw so many reviews talking about how incredibly good the Quest 3 passthrough is and i can only imagine they must be comparing it to something, because it is NOT good by any stretch, for someone who has never seen worse passthrough of predecessor devices 🙃

I bought a Quest 3 after returning the Vision Pro and while I agree with your take on its quality compared to the VP, I'm willing to live with it at that price point. So far, lol. I still have time to return it if I decide I just don't need a device like this. I found the glare and limited fov on the Vision Pro to just be too galling for the price.

I found that my desire to use a device like this is pretty limited to just fooling around and the novelty. I didn't find the VP nearly comfortable and seamless enough to try to do actual work on it for more than maybe an hour so it was being relegated to a little entertainment here and there during my two weeks with it. For that kind of usage the Quest's price is acceptable for me but not the AVP's price. I do think I may jump back in on Gen 2 if there are significant physical improvements and the library of immersive content has filled out and makes it worth it for me then.

Just curious... why'd you buy two?

So, I bought two because I initially thought my displays were so bad they must be defective, and wanted to confirm against another one, so I bought one for my partner so we could compare them and keep them if we decided to. The displays were both pretty much the same and I just decided I probably won't use this enough to justify owning it, even for the price, even though I think it would be a great product to watch 3D movies on. I just know I probably won't really do that more than a few times a year, and for that money it would be cheaper to go see a few IMAX 3D releases at the cinema. Browsing the web and messaging wasn't better than just using my phone, and watching 2D video was not better than just using my 55" Sony Bravia OLED TV, so ultimately it made sense to just return the Quest 3.

The FOV was so much better than AVP though, I found the glare to be a little worse on Quest 3 but mostly because the contrast was also really bad. Darks look gray, and then the glare just stands out so much. All that to say, I think Quest 3 is appropriately priced, and AVP is priced about $1000 too high for what it offers.

 

[jigzaw]

I think Quest 3 is appropriately priced, and AVP is priced about $1000 too high for what it offers.

Agreed. If it had cost $1000 or $1500 less I would've been much more likely to keep it.

 

[Catasstrophy]

Agreed. If it had cost $1000 or $1500 less I would've been much more likely to keep it.

I'm definitely looking forward to what Apple and Meta come out with for the next Quest Pro and AVP. I really liked that I could sideload Android apps on the Quest 3.

 

[Night Spring]

Agreed. If it had cost $1000 or $1500 less I would've been much more likely to keep it.

Unfortunately it sounds like the current price for the VP is what it costs to provide a device with that function and quality and sell it at a profit.

Here's How Much It Costs Apple to Make a Vision Pro Headset

Starting at $3,500, Apple's Vision Pro price puts it at the top-end of the AR/VR headset market, but a significant portion of the cost is...

www.macrumors.com