also I think it's pretty crummy to throw in a proprietary battery plug when there isn't some power profile requirement to do so; it's just strictly anti-consumer.
I'm not one to defend Apple, but what else would they use? USB? Folks would just use whatever cord they have lying around, and it probably wouldn't work. USB, for how incredibly amazing it is, has so many incompatible cables that aren't labeled in any way that it's almost a certainty that folks would get it wrong. And with the number of noncompliant cables and chargers out there, you'd already be reading about people frying their brand new Vision Pro devices by plugging them into the wrong thing.
At the very least, if you use a knock off Vision Pro battery cable and it fries your device, it's because the cable is manufactured in a grossly negligent way and not because the wrong combination of items were innocently chosen.
I feel the intersection of the set of people buying really expensive apple stuff, those who get really cheap USB-C cables, and also not being aware of the issue, is somewhat small.
Perhaps USB-C was too easy to knock out of the socket. Perhaps they had special power delivery requirements. The headset has no internal battery, whereas other apple devices do have internal batteries which means they can still work if the power is inconsistent or low.
In general, it seems that the lack of a built-in energy storage (even if short-term, for 2-3 minutes) is an issue; for instance, it makes hot swapping of batteries very hard.
This is where AR will really shine, if/when we ever see true AR with similar image quality. Then if it turns off, it comes glasses and not a blindfold.
None of the other cutting edge tech is worthy of your appreciation?
Yes it has the computer in the face part but it still has an umbilical so practically speaking it's no different than a normal headset and a laptop.
You can point to pretty much every part of the Vision Pro and see something taken to the next level compared to existing headsets.
Yeah the fov and the weight leave something to be desired so my comment isn't 100% accurate, sue me.
But you're purposefully ignoring the boatload of other things that ARE better.
The parts that are better end up not mattering. Why do I care if the resolution is better if what I want to do with it is play PCVR? Why do I care if it's great for watching movies if I'm not a loner who lives by myself? Why would I ever want to be represented by some nightmarish Persona thing?
Again, there are just way more compromises here than is justifiable for something that's literally 7x (at minimum!) the price of the competition. I want the iPod of VR/AR, this ain't it.
Yet if you made that argument people would look at you funny, and rightly so because when you're comparing Lamborghini's to other cars you usually talk about things like car performance, air drag, etc.
Likewise, on a technical level the Vision Pro is superior in pretty much every way except the FOV is slightly smaller and it has an external battery pack. The last of which is debatable because being external makes it swappable and upgradeable.
Otherwise, the vision pro is an incredible piece of tech. Better lens technology, better eye tracking and foveated rendering, better passthrough, superior display quality, far higher pixel density, superior hand tracking, real-time environment mapping with LIDAR, higher quality build materials, etc.
All of those things add up and push the boundaries of AR/VR tech. Is it pricy? Obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised if the build cost is significantly higher.