Apple Vision Pro teardown investigates the EyeSight Display

[Daniel Sims]

In a nutshell: The complexity of Apple's recently released Vision Pro AR headset required iFixit to split its analysis into two parts, with the second installment soon to reveal the overall repairability score. However, this initial examination uncovers some strengths and weaknesses, including the trade-offs involved in Apple's unique EyeSight Display.

The first comprehensive teardown of the Apple Vision Pro reveals that, while some of its components might be easily repairable or replaceable, the intricate device is a mixed bag overall. iFixit's initial impressions are most favorable regarding the external components.

Unsurprisingly, the most easily replaceable element is one that earned Apple some ridicule – the external battery. Despite using a proprietary fat lightning cable, which could restrict compatibility with third-party batteries, swapping out the battery will be much easier than replacing batteries for other headsets or Apple products as they degrade over the next few years.

The teardown reveals that the Vision Pro battery comprises three iPhone batteries, weighing a total of 353 grams. Integrating it into the main unit would have made the headset significantly heavier than the Quest Pro.

Additionally, the head strap and speakers are readily detachable using standard tools. This is fortunate because prior third-party durability tests reveal that the speakers are one of the Vision Pro's most fragile parts. Making the light seals removable and washable was another wise decision, as makeup tends to smear on them. Safely removing the glass cover, another relatively fragile part, is somewhat challenging but feasible.

Digging deeper, the prescription insert lenses pose a potential issue, as each set is uniquely paired with a specific headset. This software lock likely prevents third-party replacements and could negatively affect eye-tracking responsiveness if not correctly calibrated to the user's eyes.

Like other reviewers, iFixit also found the Vision Pro's distinctive EyeSight display baffling. Apple implemented the feature – which renders a 3D feed of the user's eyes onto the front of the headset – to show when users are engaged with their external environment. However, critics say the projection is often difficult to see, and iFixit notes that it adds unnecessary complexity to the device.

The teardown reveals that the front display comprises three layers, including a lenticular lens that produces the 3D effect. Rendering three-dimensional depth is necessary to avoid the uncanny valley effect, but the lenticular lens severely limits the EyeSight display's maximum resolution, diminishing visibility for outside observers and making eye contact challenging.

iFixit is expected to soon provide a follow-up analysis of the Vision Pro's internal chips, offering further insights into the device's intricacies.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/101769-apple-vision-pro-teardown-investigates-eyesight-display.html

 

[p51d007]

Hey, it's YOUR money...but I wouldn't give you $1,000.00 bucks for one of those silly looking things.
I'd rather live in REALITY than VR.

 

[hahahanoobs]

However, critics say the projection is often difficult to see, and iFixit notes that it adds unnecessary complexity to the device.

This dude has an interesting take on the visor and overall look of the headset that makes sense:

 

[emmzo]

Unless VR/AR is miniaturized to an eye lens, I don't see any future for this tech, more than what it already is, a niche for gaming.

 

[WhoCaresAnymore]

Until these "look" like the XREAL AIR (of course no birdbath BS), forget it. These are absolutely the most absurd thing I've ever seen released for AR.

The smart companies are shooting for regular glasses, look at the Everysight Maverick.

 

[Steveb8189]

"The teardown reveals that the front display comprises three layers, including a lenticular lens that produces the 3D effect"

Can someone explain this to me please? Does the fact a different picture is shown to each eye not produce the 3D effect. How can one eye see in 3D?

 

[herpaderp]

"The teardown reveals that the front display comprises three layers, including a lenticular lens that produces the 3D effect"

Can someone explain this to me please? Does the fact a different picture is shown to each eye not produce the 3D effect. How can one eye see in 3D?

You misunderstood what they're talking about here. The display mentioned is the one that's facing away from the user, I.e. the one visible to other people when they look at the headset. The lenticular lens is what shapes the visible image to give the appearance of depth, because otherwise the raw, dim image of the users' eyes would appear much more flat.

-edit-

Look at 2:05 in the teardown video to see what that looks like.

 

[Bobbydpue]

Hey, it's YOUR money...but I wouldn't give you $1,000.00 bucks for one of those silly looking things.
I'd rather live in REALITY than VR.

From a person typing in the forums below an article on the internet.

 

[Bobbydpue]

However, critics say the projection is often difficult to see, and iFixit notes that it adds unnecessary complexity to the device.

This dude has an interesting take on the visor and overall look of the headset that makes sense:

I actually agree, partially, with Dave2D here and it's something I've been saying since I first saw the device. The external display is stupid: the person who bought the device never gets to see it. It adds weight and cost that's passed on to the user. It makes the device worse for the person who bought it. I don't agree with Dave2D in his justification of the device. Apple has created several products they ignored and let die after their enthusiasts spent thousands of dollars on them. The last two intel Mac Pros were modular, but Apple didn't support that modularity for more than one generation. The latest M powered Mac Pro has the same form factor as the last intel Mac Pro, but Apple isn't selling replacement M motherboards so the user can just swap them out. Apple could ignore the Vision Pro after this model. Especially if all the people who bought them stop using them after the initial wow factor has faded. There still isn't an application that makes me want to buy the headset and I don't know if there will ever been an app that makes me want it.

 

[hahahanoobs]

I actually agree, partially, with Dave2D here and it's something I've been saying since I first saw the device. The external display is stupid: the person who bought the device never gets to see it. It adds weight and cost that's passed on to the user. It makes the device worse for the person who bought it. I don't agree with Dave2D in his justification of the device. Apple has created several products they ignored and let die after their enthusiasts spent thousands of dollars on them. The last two intel Mac Pros were modular, but Apple didn't support that modularity for more than one generation. The latest M powered Mac Pro has the same form factor as the last intel Mac Pro, but Apple isn't selling replacement M motherboards so the user can just swap them out. Apple could ignore the Vision Pro after this model. Especially if all the people who bought them stop using them after the initial wow factor has faded. There still isn't an application that makes me want to buy the headset and I don't know if there will ever been an app that makes me want it.

It's less about justification and more about his understanding where the choice came from.
It does make sense for Apple to choose looks over function with the visor and single band head strap.